THE DELIBERATE DECEPTION


the motivations behind unwarranted credulity and fraudulent behaviour





A Study in Thought

sa095



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

What will it be like, when we have deliberately and collectively decided not to deceive each other, anymore?
The lure of a carefully balanced discussion.
Now, we have to demonstrate and yell in order to get our views across.
We are inundated by inuendos, sub-liminal stimuli and half-truths.
The channels of communication are invariably dominated by the ruling segments in society.
When dissent is branded as a scandalous and subversive activity.
The ruling elite in the "free world" is represented by the economic might of the enterprising classes.
Making the people into obedient consumers.
We have to control the many opportunities for manipulation and deception.
A vulnerable attitude of hope and prayer.
Quackery; the unscrupulous exploitation of hopeful expectations.
The factor of psychological dependence.
The willingness, and need, to believe and trust.
What we are going discuss.
We all are inclined to be a little bit deceptive, at times.
Politeness; putting-up an effable and acceptable "front".
The short-comings of dogmatic attitudes and practices.
Understanding the mechanisms of quackery and credulity is helpful to find the most appropriate behavioural response in a sea of conflicting sense-impressions.
It is remarkable, how willingly man reaches for the tools of warfare.
What I write about.
My "credo".

Sometimes, I dream a bit. I am not supposed to, because I consider myself to be a rational thinker, and, I believe, that I am able to evaluate realistically the trends of human behaviour, as well as the imperfections of the world around us. However, sometimes, I wonder, what it would be like to live in a world, where the practice of deliberately deceiving someone else, has been successfully banned and eradicated from our behaviour.

What would it be like, if we can trust each other to communicate as honestly as possible. Then, any mis-information would be a deplorable accident, and not a clever design to manipulate someone's reality perceptions for one sort of egocentric reason or another. What would it be like to live in a world, where people have regained, not only, the ability to communicate honestly and avoid a deliberate bias, but, where people are willing, and capable, of discussing a topic in detail, and are able to enumerate, clearly, the advantages and disadvantages of any plan, proposition or interpretation?

At the present time, we live in a world, where we have to shout to be heard, and, the only chance we have to get our view across, is to hammer one point constantly; without any ifs and buts; without any qualifications, and, certainly, without any sort of discussion that puts a particular view or opinion into a broader context.

We shout our slogans and simplified opinions, we demonstrate and yell, and, we can only get attention, if many of us are yelling at the same time. Even, if it is for such an universally advantageous goal as nuclear disarmament, we still have to yell in great numbers, because, otherwise, we will not be taken seriously; otherwise, we will continue to be inundated by the half-truths of the established political leaders and their military establishments, who keep telling us, that they do not want war anymore than we do, and yet, they think, that the best deterrent to a nuclear war, is to keep piling-up the war-heads in an ever enlarging arsenal of doomsday weapons.

Are we deliberately being deceived by our leaders? Probably not, because the established segments of each and every society always reach for the weapons of military might to defend their privileged positions against envy and attack, or, to enhance and fortify their positions of advantage and power, whenever an opportunity presents itself.

The channels of communication are, invariably, dominated by the ruling segments of society. In centrally governed societies, the mass-media are obviously under the control of the leadership, and, since the goals and objectives of centrally organised leadership are always considered to be in the best interests of the nation as a whole, any dissenting voice will be branded as a scandalous and subversive activity that is totally alien to the principles upon which the State has been founded. But, even, those societies, which pride themselves that they have a truly free press, as well as complete freedom of speech, forget, or, they try to ignore the fact, that the ruling elite in the "free world" is represented by the economic might of the enterprising classes, and, that the public media serve, almost without exception, the commercial interests of those, who own and sponsor the mass-media.

Since it is in the interest of a big business, as well as a small business, to get people to buy and consume, we see a constant consumerist propaganda, serving, not only, this gigantic conglomerate of business activities, which we call "the economy", but, also, the governments, the leaderships, as well as the military-industrial complex, because they all feed upon this economic machinery. Therefore, it is not in the interest of economic, political and military or industrial leaders to use the media to educate people to become reflective, thoughtful and frugal citizens. No, it is in the direct interest of the established classes of those societies, which are still governed by the might of money, to make the people obedient consumers of all their products, including the wisdoms, opinions and political sentiments upon which the survival of the free-enterprise system depends.

Is this all a deliberate and shameful deception, or, are the ruling classes captive to their own philosophies and economic momentum? The situation is complex and the answer is, perhaps, irrelevant. As we learn to see, more clearly, the harm that is being done by trying to influence people's opinions, habits and life-style to suit certain political, economic and military objectives, we will also learn to see, much more clearly, that we have to control the many possibilities of deception and manipulation.

I choose as my title, the idea, that deception, or quackery, depends, not only, on the possibility to deceive and defraud people, but, also, upon the fact, that, often, people become extremely vulnerable to an exploitation of the need to believe what they want to hear, especially, when a crisis-situation leaves people confused, unable to think clearly and determine precisely, what can be done and what can not be done. Then, in a state of anxiety and panic, clear thinking is replaced by an irrepressible but vulnerable attitude of hope and prayer. As long as hope and prayer strengthen resolve and make people more determined to see themselves through a crisis-situation, the attitudes of hope and prayer will strengthen a personality. However, if hope, means, a persistent demand to fulfill unreasonable expectations, one invites the "services" of the clever entrepreneur, who will exploit these hopes and expectations for his own ends.

I realise, that the term "quackery" refers, specifically, to the practice of providing un-sound medical attention in response to such an attitude of chronic anxiety and hopeful expectations, which feeds upon any promise of success. However, I would like to broaden the definition of quackery to the exploitation of any attitude of anxious hopefulness, where high expectations, together with an inability, or unwillingness, to scrutinise a promise carefully, will lead, inevitably, to a harmful and shameless exploitation of unwarranted credulity. We have to ask ourselves, why some people let themselves be exploited, so easily, by their inability or unwillingness to be skeptical, and, before we can provide a few reasonable answers, we have to trace, briefly, the make-up of the human personality. We have to review the role of credulity in communications, as well as the varying levels of psychological dependence we all are subjected to, because we could not function without trusting, at least, some sources of information.

We have often discussed, how important trust is for our attempts to make society open and just, but, we will have to guard, carefully, against the exploitation of this trust. Most people learn to cope with a flexible attitude of trustfulness, giving their trust, only, after they have convinced themselves that their trust is not likely to be abused, but, in order to explain the phenomenon of quackery, we will also discuss, why some people are unduly trustful, even, if they have been burnt before by their credulity and willingness to trust unscrupulous people.

After we have traced the features of the human personality which are involved in the mechanisms of credulity and trust, as well as in the mechanisms of manipulation and exploitation, we will discuss a few examples, where credulity and trust can be abused. These range from incidences of true quackery, when ill people keep looking for a cure or help where none exists. These people keep believing in a particular approach to a medical problem, which does not stand-up under intense scrutiny and criticism.

Then, we will widen the scope of our discussion and review a number of practices and attitudes, which are taken more or less for granted in our affluent societies, in spite of the fact, that our need to trust is shamelessly abused. We are thinking, here, about the enormous influence of a commercial bias due to the constant barrage of advertising propaganda, as well as a bias in the reporting of news; the bias in opinion and attitude of the established political leaderships and their partners in the military-industrial complex.

Finally, let us look at the many instances, where we are inclined to use a little bit of deception. We all like to present ourselves to the world a little better, a little more educated and polished in our manners, as well as a little more controled and virtuous in our behaviour, than we really are. To what extent do we need the deceptions of politeness, manners and ritual exchanges of conversation in order to smooth relationships? To what extent would life be difficult, or, even, impossible, if we would present ourselves "in the raw"; as un-couth and unpolished as we sometimes are in the privacy of our home? To what extent do we need to practice complete honesty, and, how virtuous would this be? To what extent do we need to excercise our intellect and our critical faculties, so that we can discuss a complex topic in a beautifully balanced manner? Even, if we agree, that we can not all master the art of discussion to perfection, most of us could, probably, learn enough skills of verbal expression to appreciate, at least, the value of a balanced opinion and a thoughtful judgement.

Just as the world of instinctive and highly emotional behaviour is not refined enough to let us make appropriate decisions and behavioural responses, so is the one-sided opinion, the technique of dogmatic sloganneering; the spouting of simplified half-truths, and, even worse, the deliberate indoctrination of ordinary citizens in half-truths and slogans by a manipulative leadership, a crime against our intelligence, and, in the final analysis, it constitutes a draw-back for the ability to find an appropriate behavioural response.

Simplified half-truths, slogans and battle-cries are out-moded and dangerous techniques to galvanise and polarise opinions, and, they only aggravate tensions and destroy the potential for creating an atmosphere of mutual understanding and appreciation. To understand the mechanisms of quackery and credulity is, therefore, quite helpful, as we struggle to find the most appropriate collective behavioural responses in order to avoid tearing each other to pieces in acts of violent warfare, or, through the festering sores of mutual hatred.

Let us consider, therefore, these philosophical and psychological discussions not as an esoteric luxury, only directed to those, who have the inclination, and the time, to follow complex arguments, and, who like to dabble in psychological insights. Let us consider these essays as an urgent appeal to us all; to find solutions to our problems and our feelings of anxiety and hostility; by knowing ourselves and knowing those, whom we fear or hate.

If we do not understand each other, we will, eventually, have to face each other on the battle-fields, poised to kill each other, and, as we know, now, so well, no city, no region on earth can be sure, that it will escape a serious conflagration, if, and when, the tensions are resolved, once again, in this most primitive of all solutions; violent conflict. It is remarkable, how willingly man reaches, again and again, for the tools of warfare, regardless of the suffering and destruction previous generations have experienced as a result of giving-in to these same primitive drives and motivations.

I never write with the purpose to create difficult or esoteric essays. Perhaps, my writing is complex, and my sentences are, sometimes, long-winded. My syntax may reveal a Germanic background, and the quickly varying topics of consideration reveal a mind that has become used, after many years of practice, to roam freely across the entire spectrum of life and knowledge. I never write about small details, because I know, very well, that this is the task of the scientist, but, many scientific fragments and view-points, as well as personal views and ideas, are put-together into a kaleidoscopic discussion. I hope, of course, that, at some time in the future, these discussions will be of some use to other people. I believe, that the fragments of knowledge, as well as the insights and ideas I have acquired, and, which have often been formed on a somewhat intuitive level, are not completely outside the main-stream of thoughts and experiences

I believe, that reflective people of the future will share many of my thoughts, insights and concerns, and, I hope to have written with suficient clarity and coherence to be useful, and, to function as a sort of framework or guidance-pattern to help people orden their own thoughts in a way that is satisfying, useful and coherent. This is the reason, why I am not ashamed to reveal, occasionally, a rather personal glimpse of my thoughts, hopes and dreams.

I know, that, too introvert an attitude would diminish the relevance of my thoughts, but a discussion without any personal touches may, eventually, create the suspicion, in a future generation used to the computer, that such discussions have been put-together by a machine, rather than a fragile, fallible and somewhat emotional human being. This is the reason, why I am not ashamed to open the discussion with a reference to nuclear arms and the dangers of political sloganeering, while the main thrust is going to be an orderly discussion of the phenomenon of deception, as well as the mechanisms of credulity and exploition that lie behind this phenomenon.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Deception in nature; the mechanisms of "camouflage".
A number of physiological deceptions.
The "mirage", or "fata morgana"; a physiological rather than a psychological deception.
UFO's.
The relative judgement of hot or cold.
The judgement of being in "Heaven" or "Hell".
We are continuously influencing each other's reality perceptions.
Evaluating "a story".
We are continuously up-dating the mental images we have of our environment.
The disadvantages of being too rigid, or too imprecise.
The sharpness of a structure of beliefs.
The emergence of symbolically representable awarenesses.
The need for a system to classify representative symbols.
The burden of having to learn arbitrary symbolic representations.
Common denominators and abstractions.
Eventually, language became a sophisticated instrument of communication.
The "secondary transfer" of knowledge or information.
Describing an unknown entity in terms of known qualities.
The purpose of "schooling" or education.
Laying a foundation for the ability to absorb the cultural legacy of a social environment.
Mechanisms of learning.
The inter-play between genetic disposition and accidental circumstances.
There is some sort of "rough justice" in the way nature spreads its favours and burdens.
A wise and compassionate society will make sure, that nearly everyone gets a chance to fulfill a meaningful role in society.
A natural tendency to form an ordened system of awarenesses.
The inclination to "extra-polate".
Postulates and anthropomorphic interpretations of reality perceptions.
Physics and "meta-physics".

If we look, once again, at the mechanisms that take place in nature, we see, that animals can already deceive and be deceived, but, there is, of course, no conscious awareness or deliberate intention to deceive. Rather, natural selection favoured amongst many different patterns of behaviour, also, a response, that can be classified as a form of deception or "camouflage". We are talking, here, about a physiological deception or a lowering of the quality of visibility, where a variety of behaviour-patterns, as well as actual changes in skin colour or pigmentation result in a marked decrease in "visibility". The predators or potential predators of such a species can, thereby, be made to overlook the presence of its prey. Distinctive features of the prey to which natural selection has sensitised the predator, are minimised by the development of behaviour-patterns or changes in appearance, which make a prey much more difficult to detect.

This is an example of a "physiological deception", and, it is, in essence, a defensive adaptative response, where natural selection has explored, and found, a measure of viability in a behaviour-pattern or physiological reaction that reduces the chances of being noticed, rather than the more common defensive patterns, such as the ability to run or fly-away, or to fight.

Human beings are also subject to a number of physiological deceptions, but, these are not the result of a defensive adaptative change in a species of prey, but are due to physical and physiological peculiarities, which make us interpret a phenomenon "wrongly". The "mirage", or fata morgana, is an example, where we are being "fooled" by an unusual physical occurrence. While it is a deception in the sense that our sense-organs are seeing something and projecting the object of this sense impression into the environment according to the "normal physiological or physical rules", this object is not where we see it, because of the peculiar reflective properties of the atmosphere. This is an example of a "physical deception", where, due to peculiar atmospheric conditions, we can see the reflection of a reality, such as a landscape, much further away than normally, because our reality perceptions and interpretations are based upon the fact, that, as a rule, we can not see anything , that lies beyond the horizon.

Similarly, we may state, with confidence, that, many of the so-called unidentified flying objects are based upon a physical deception, or, rather, a physical peculiarity, where unusually reflective properties of the atmosphere at a specific location may show the presence of lighted and fast moving "objects", which are, in all probability, short-lasting peculiarities in the way a small vortex or whirling column of air reflects light.

There are many examples of "physiological deceptions", which show us, upon study and reflection, how vague and uncertain, and, how arbitrary our reality perceptions really are. For example, we all know, that the judgement, whether a particular volume of water feels hot or cold, depends upon the fact, whether or not we have dipped our hand shortly before in a volume of water that is warmer or colder than the one we are asked to judge. If we dipped our hands into ice-cold water before, the second immersion may feel luke-warm, and, if we had dipped our hands in a container with warm water, the second container would feel quite cold in stead of luke-warm. This is an example of "physiological relativity", where the judgement of a condition is based upon its position in relation to a comparable condition, experienced shortly before.

We see an important psychological parallel in the experience, that a particular condition of existence can be judged as "Heaven" or "Hell", depending upon the question, whether this particular condition represents an improvement or a sharp deterioration from the conditions we existed in before. However, what we want to talk about, here, is the peculiar ability of the human being to influence the reality perception of someone else. Most of the time, we do not realise to what extent we are continuously influencing, or, even, changing each other's reality perceptions during an act of communication.

Every time I come home and tell my family a story I heard, I am conveying some sort of information from my mind to the attention of my listeners, and, I can not help but change their perception of reality, at least, to some extent, in so far as it concerns a particular individual or group of people contained in my story. At the same time, my listeners, and I, myself, assume, that there is, at least, some truth in this story, but, if we are careful, as we all should be, we qualify the story by saying; so and so told me this and this, etc., and, we give, at the same time, an opinion as to the likelyhood of its truthfulness and accuracy. Then, we may fill-in details, or we may recall corroborating evidence, if it seems to fit-in with something we knew or expected.

Similarly, if the story seems "strange", or, if it contradicts what we know, we may not even mention the story, or, we may mention it in passing, as a rumor that is going around. In short, we all are constantly in contact with a number of events and happenings that are going-on in the environment. We are continuously "up-dating" our information, and, we have to scrutinise, continuously, what we hear and make a judgement about its validity. If we fail to do so, our judgements, ideas, concepts and perceptions remain vague and confused, and, we will always have difficulties discerning between "true and false". However, if we are too rigid in our beliefs, and, if we tend to hear and believe only those stories and facts, that seem to fall entirely within our well-formed beliefs, we tend to stagnate in a particular point of view. Slowly, we get "out of touch", and, we find it more difficult to communicate with the people around us.

How, then, do we acquire a belief-structure? How do belief structures develop? When do they start to become rigid? To what extent do we allow our beliefs to be transformed or changed? What is the purpose of a belief, and, what sort of liabilities and vulnerabilities has the human being incurred as the price for this remarkable ability to form and communicate concepts and orden a large number of such concepts and ideas into a framework of coherent relationships? Such a framework of conceptual relationships is called a "belief-structure".

We have elaborated upon these ideas many times before, but, let us review, here, briefly the ideas that lie behind the development and the function of a belief-structure, and, we will see, that such an over-view will give us a broad perspective from which we can discuss the phenomenon of deception, be it intentional or un-intentional; the deception of an individual or a group, or, a form of self-deception. The latter is a distorted reality perception which we see, so often, emerge as an adaptative response to a chronic situation of stress.

How, then, do we get our beliefs? When man started to recall memory-traces with the help of imitative gesticulations and vocalisations, man began to build-up a repertoir of "symbolicallly representable" awarenesses, and, we have described, on various occasions, how this development led, eventually, to this remarkably fluent and highly efficient form of symbolic communication; speech. We have also seen, that the rapid accumulation of symbolically representable awareneses posed, quickly, a strain on the memory capabilities of the human being, because, after all, the symbolic representation for a particular awareness had to be "learned".

Just as we have to learn to handle a tool, so is the verbal representation of a particular awareness something we have to learn. It takes us, now, many years to master, at least, a portion of the word-symbols that are current in our modern societies, and, we have only to look at an extensive dictionary to see, that it is, in essence, impossible to master the entire language, which is the sum-total of all the word-symbols of a particular culture.

The burden of learning an often arbitrary symbolic representation, was eased somewhat, when a variety of related awarenesses were grouped-together according to a commonly shared feature. In this way, a momentous trend developed towards categorisation or classification, where all sorts of awarenesses, of events as well as more static items of existence, were grouped-together into a large number of categories. Often, an item of existence, be it an event with a large and important component of change, or an item, where the component of change was far less obvious or important, could be classified in a variety of ways, depending upon which particular feature we chose to emphasise. The principles of classification, represented by "common denominators", became, eventually, symbolically representable awarenesses themselves, and, they function then as "qualities" or descriptive features.

Numerous qualities and features, or common denominators, were slowly "abstracted" as observable features of a number of awarenesses, and so, the content of abstractions in our awarenesses and verbal communications began to rise, and, at the same time, the level of symbolic communications became more sophisticated. A large number of abstractions or awarenesses would again be "grouped-together" in order to make it easier for people to remember and use them, and, we see, that the process of abstraction can repeat itself, again and again.

Eventually, language became a sophisticated instrument, which allowed an individual to convey a particular story, an image or an idea, a "fact" or piece of information. Information, knowledge or speculations and opinions could now be transmitted from one individual to another, in spite of the fact that another individual may not have any personal experience about an event, an idea or an item of information However, if the audience shares with the author of a communication the knowledge of a large number of symbolic representations, it becomes possible to describe "the unknown" in word-symbols that are known, and, in this way, it becomes possible to transfer a new item of knowledge to the audience in a process of "secondary transfer", because no pre-existing knowledge of this new item of information is necessary before the act of communication can be carried-out.

Initially, the functions of language, or, rather, the more primitive forms of symbolic representation were limited to the "re-stimulation" of an existing memory-trace. This means, that the recognition of such a symbol depended upon the fact, that the members of the audience shared the same experiences as the individual who started a series of imitations and gesticulations. After language had become so sophisticated, that, every situation, awareness or story could be described in great detail, indicating what was happening, to whom, or, who did what, where and why it happened; what the results were, what was involved, etc.,etc., it became also possible to describe a "new event". Then, a new happening or experience could be described in the symbols of a sophisticated language, and the audience could form a composite picture of this "new event" or "new item of existence", on the basis of the known imagery of the language-symbols used by the author to describe what he saw or had in mind.

This, of course, is the essence of the transfer of "secondary knowledge", which becomes so important in a modern school curriculum. In a school curriculum, we are trying to teach our youngsters and adolescents, a summary of our society; its history and developments, as well as its relationships with other societies. The school curriculum teaches our youngsters an over-view of the social environment into which they have been born, including the many conclusions and reality perceptions of the civilisation upon which this particular society has been based. The subject-material is arranged into a number of "disciplines", or sciences, which are taught as accurately as possible. In order to do this, the teacher has to explain a large number of facts, ideas, concepts and stories, in a language that can be understood by the pupils, and, slowly, over the years, this imagery and comprehension is deepened and is enriched with more details and more complex insights.

We see, clearly, how important this art of transferring secondary knowledge has become, because the pupils have, still, only a small fraction of the language-symbols at their disposal. This is the reason, why the first part of formal schooling is devoted, primarily, to the development of the ability to master the basic skills of verbal communication, including the principles of logical reasoning, or arithmetic. After this basis has been laid, it becomes possible to teach the cultural legacy upon which so much of future viability and responsible adult behaviour, rests.

The point we want to emphasise here, is the fact, that, all our knowledge is classified and organised, and, those, who develop a knack to organise everything they hear or see, quickly and effectively, will be "quick learners", who have no difficulties following the pace of teaching at school.

If, for one reason or another, this ability to classify incoming information or sense impressions has not been developed well, we are faced with the difficulty, that a variety of items of information "do not click"; they do not "fit into" our framework of understanding, and, we do not know what to do with this information. We try to compensate for this by making an extra effort to "retain or learn" this item of information. This poses an additional burden on our memory-functions, but, as we have seen, it is a futile and almost hopeless task. Our brain rejects such an approach, and, as soon as we relax the effort to retain something we do not understand, it will slide out of our conscious awareness and is lost.

The ability to form coherent classfications is, partly, a matter of genetic predisposition, but, it is also determined, to a large extent, by a good coherent sequence of learning. Every time this learning sequence is broken, and, every time we are asked to learn something we can not fit into our classification systems, we feel a strain, and, we are fortunate, indeed, if our educators have foreseen this problem and have made sure, that we receive a well-sequenced series of educational programs. We are, indeed, fortunate, if we have been taught to become aware of something we do not understand and to ask questions, immediately.

Even so, most of these classifying and learning abilities arise spontaneously and subconsciously, and, all we can do as a youngster or an adolescent, is to struggle, to the best of our abilities, with the variety of subjects we have to learn. Fortunately, there is some sort of rough justice in the way nature has spread its favours. Those of us, who do not excel in intellectual capabilities, are, often, better endowed with physical abilities and strength, or, we have greater affinity for sports, athletics or the arts, compared to those, who are intellectually gifted. Vice vera; those, who are not particularly gifted physically, may still shine and earn a place in society by their artistic or intellectual skills.

In our varied, modern societies, there are numerous opportunities for every normal and healthy member of society, and, even, those, who are born with a handicap, often receive a remarkable degree of care and compassionate concern, making it more likely, that every bit of potential is developed, because, only then, can an individual find some sort of a useful position in the large and complex social environment.

These considerations still do not lead us to the concept of the belief-structure, and, indeed, the origin and function of the belief-structure is something that is different from the more or less subconscious ability to orden and classify a large number of awarenesses into a coherent system of related categories. As we have outlined before, we assume, that, the early human groupings learned, eventually, to "communicate" with each other by re-stimulating a number of memories into a focus of awareness. Almost certainly, this was accomplished, initially, with elaborate gesticulations and acts of mimicry, which became, later, stylised or stream-lined into a fluent flow of gestures and vocalisations. This led, eventually, to the ability to ask a question, which is the awareness of a gap in understanding, as well as the expectation that a particular gap in understanding, or an intuitively felt dissatisfaction with an apparent incompleteness, can be corrected by further information.

Our natural tendency to form an ordened system of awarenesses, is so strong, that we create such an ordened system, whether or not we have all the facts available. This means, that man has a strong inclination to "extra-polate" and assume the existence of a particular order that goes beyond the particular "horizon" he is able to see. As we have discussed before, the peculiarities of man's willed actions, his mood swings, together with the fact, that he can be constructive, caring and compassionate, or, angry, destructive and in a rage, means, that all the forces of nature to which man is subjected, are interpreted in essentially the same manner.

This is the reason, why man has such a strong tendency to explain the forces he experiences within his sphere of awarenesses, in a system of antropomorphic or man-like forces. This is the reason, why man postulates, or extra-polates, the existence of these forces, even, if they actually disappear beyond the boundaries of what he can investigate or examine. This is the reason, why man has always been tempted to think about, and construct, a coherent set of relationships and anthropomorphic force-fields that are lying behind the world of immediate and tangible reality. This world of immediate tangible reality is the sphere of "physics", where its bodily presence is a matter that can be verified by each and everyone of us.

However, in order to make the existence of the world of physics logical and understandable, man, in particular, before the advent of the modern sciences, needed an elaborate structure of concepts and ideas that explained the existence of this world of physical realities. This structure of thoughts and beliefs was called "meta-physics"; indicating that, which lay behind the realm of physical existence, and, we like to equate the concept of a belief-structure, primarily, with those meta-physical concepts that were used to grasp the world of awarenesses and tangible realities, into a coherent unit.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The emergence of religious reality perceptions.
The contraction of a polytheistic complex of contradictory force-fields into the concept of a single, inscrutable God.
A remarkable and audacious scientific conclusion.
Man, a creature of evolution with a unique conceptualising mind, is quite alone; at least, in our sphere of reality experiences.
None of our images are "absolutely true".
A common bond of uncertainty is shared by all absolute truths.
A scaffold for prudent behaviour.
A long struggle, before Christianity became an exclusive source for the meta-physical belief-structures of Medieval Europe.
A confusing spectrum of "absolutely valid" religious beliefs.
Nothing is as variable as our opinions about meta-physical realities.
Comparative studies reveal many similarities between religious beliefs.
Modern man is too busy dealing with a complex and changeable world to give much thought to the meta-physical aspects of his beliefs.
Being vulnerable to a loss of direction and a sense of confusion in moral outlook.
What is affluent, modern man looking for?
A shaky foundation for ethical concepts and moral guidelines.
The concepts of a "natural ethic".
Pragmatic rules of a sensible family-unit.
An intuitive appreciation for socially constructive attitudes.
Yet, problems arise, and are not easily solved.
Trusting attitudes are not always reciprocated.
When our sense of justice has been wounded.
The pragmatic insight, that we have to respond with a flexible mix of egocentric concerns and a willingness to give others a chance as well.
The natural mechanisms of a hierarchical order.
Psychopathic behaviour flourishes in a weak, vacillating and indifferent social environment.
Religious beliefs are still the most important regulator of moral behaviour-patterns.
The problems of clashing religious beliefs and practices whenever a social environment becomes large and multi-cultural in outlook.
An urgent need for common-sense, moral principles of behaviour.
An odd mixture of beliefs and attitudes.
When cultural and ethnic roots are mixed with foreign influences.
Finding guidance in long-term goals with a socially constructive orientation.
The hybrid, ambivalent belief structure is a curiously unfinished and incoherent structure of beliefs.
It is not surprising that few professionals are willing to talk about their beliefs.
My sympathies lie with those, who are confused.
An intuitive appreciation for the fallacies of fanatic and dogmatic view-points.
Waiting patiently for affluent public opinion to mature.

We have described, in essence, the emergence of a religious reality perception, and, on various occasions, we have traced the idea, that such an anthropomorphic reality interpretation of the forces of nature, contracts, slowly, from a poly-theistic or pan-theistic complex into a single, inscrutable God, Who, then, becomes the ultimate source of all existence and power.

We have also seen, that the modern sciences have enlarged our conceptual horizons to a remarkable extent, and, one of the most audacious conclusions of our scientific insights has been the idea, that there is nowhere in our sphere of reality any evidence for the existence of force-fields with an anthropomorphic or man-like nature. We have come to the conclusion, that the conscious and willed force, exerted by a human being who can direct his compassionate care, or his towering rage, at one thing or another, is a typically human mode of behaviour, which is not reflected in the forces that guide the Universe and the stars, or, the forces of micro-cosmic existence; the atom and its internal components.

Man, as a creature of evolution with a unique conceptualising mind, is quite alone. He is the only species with such a remarkably conscious and directable will, and, we have slowly come to the conclusion, that our meta-physical concepts and thought-patterns were useful and logical images for a reality perception, whose time has passed. These anthropomorphic images have to be taken with some caution, and, we would err, seriously, when declaring, that our religious ideas and beliefs are "absolutely true", because we have to take the modern scientific insights into consideration.

However, our scientific images are not "absolutely true" either, and, while most people would not be able to formulate, clearly, the reasons, why their faith in the religious, as well as the scientific, realities has been somewhat shaken, it seems to be a characteristic feature of intelligent human existence in our complex, modern societies, to be quite unsure, to what extent, either the traditional, cultural and religious images are true, and, to what extent the modern scientific and technological images can be trusted as a scaffold for wise and prudent behaviour.

However, modern man's uncertainties about the way he should integrate all the forces he is subjected to, do not stem, only, from a conflict between the imagery of the sciences and the concepts of traditional religious explanations. Long before the sciences started to mount their momentous challenge against the concept of an absolute Christian Truth, as it was generally accepted in Europe, prior to the Renaissance, the all-encompassing Truth of a revealed Christianity had gone through a long struggle to establish itself as the ultimate victor for the meta-physical beliefs of Medieval Europe.

Ever since man became faced with the problems of living together in large communities, the clash between different meta-physical or religious belief-structures must have been a perplexing and confusing experience. As we know, these religious beliefs, together with a code of conduct and various emotionally and psychologically satisfying rituals, became quickly endowed with a high level of sanctity and absolute validity, and, yet, it must have been man's experience, from a very early stage in his communal inter-actions on a large scale, that there was nothing more variable than man's religious beliefs.

There must have been an intuitive and somewhat bitter irony in man's ever-recurrent discovery, that his most sacred experiences and reality perceptions were uniquely "his own", or, at least, that they were uniquely related to his own small community, and yet, nothing else seemed to set man so much apart from one community to the next, as these diverging view-points about meta-physical realities.

Certainly, there were many similarities between the various religious interpretations with only minor variants between them, because the overall outlines of these meta-physical beliefs were, indeed, very similar, but, let us not forget, that, these similarities are largely a product of our own retrospective studies, and, they were much less visible to the peoples of the past. Just as we can see, now, as an outsider, the many similarities between the various religious denominations of Christianity, or, even, the similarities of the Christian and Islamic beliefs, the differences are so crucially important to the believers themselves, that they have fought and killed each other for differences of opinion that are so slight, that we have difficulties, in retrospect, to put our finger, precisely, on the essence of these disputes.

It is ironic, then, that a study of man's beliefs seems to show, almost invariably, that the most sacred belief structures upon which he often staked his life, turned-out to be more variable from community to community than the more mundane features of conscious awareness, such as the techniques of language and arithmetic, of agriculture and technology, of trade and industry.

If we go back to modern man and his huge, complex and unoverseeable societies, we see, as a rule, that man is so busy dealing with this complex and changeable world, that he loses the opportunity, as well as the inclination, to think much about the need to construct a coherent, overall or "meta-physical" picture of the realities around him. Educated and urban man knows, now, that the sciences have largely discredited the meta-physical imagery of the religions, but, at the same time, the scientific imagery is so complex and fragmented, that it does not function as an adequate substitute for the religious imagery.

Therefore, if people become stressed by loneliness, adversity and confusion, they tend to go back to the more traditional images of their youth, in spite of the fact, that it is often difficult to become, or remain, intellectually totally committed to these beliefs. The result is utter confusion and chaos, as we can see, so clearly, in the behaviour of modern man in affluent societies. Modern man is extremely vulnerable to a loss of direction and a state of confusion, especially, in moral outlook, as soon as he begins to slip on the ladder of social and economic progress.

Let us review, briefly, in overall outlines only, what affluent, modern man is looking for, and, we see, indeed, a bewildering variety of confusing and contradictory influences. The religious or meta-physical beliefs are not really needed, anymore, as an intellectual scaffold for the comprehension of our realities, except, perhaps, for those, who have not been exposed to the scientific realities. However, the moral and social guidelines are still predominantly under the influence of traditional religious images and values, in spite of the fact, that the intellectual foundation for these values has often been severely challenged.

We need a structure of moral guidelines for the many complex behavioural decisons we have to make, where we have to choose between our immediate interests and the possible harm to others, and, a more long-term view of the most beneficial way to conduct ourselves, taking into account, not only, the needs of others, but, also, what they can do to us, if we fail to take their interests into consideration.

Most of the time, we can not see, clearly, the implications of our actions and decisions, and, we need to follow a set of rules, where we shape our behavioural responses, not only, by the most obvious and instinctive promptings, but, also, on the basis of considerations, which, we know, are needed to keep the peace with people around us.

If we have the good fortune to grow-up in a sensible family, where a set of definite rules has been formulated to keep the peace and to keep a measure of justice in the relations between the members of this family, we are exposed to a set of pragmatic rules, where we see and experience, time and again, the wisdom of taking the interests of others into account, if we want them to take our interests into account when choosing their behavioural response.

If we grow-up in a sensible community, these principles will be enforced, and, we see a fairly good and pragmatic attitude emerge, which emphasises, not only, such qualities as the consideration of others, but, also, the attitudes of honesty and openness; of fair-play in dealing with others, be it in games or in all sorts of social inter-actions. In this way, we learn, smoothly, what we are allowed and what we are not allowed to do, and, we learn, that others will give us some leeway to do what we like, if we can reciprocate, at times, and cooperate with, or tolerate, others, if they pursue something to their particular liking.

Yet, problems always arise, and, often, they are not easily resolved. For example, we can not always rely upon reciprocity, as we experience to our dismay, and, often, with a deeply wounded sense of justice. We experience, that people may abuse our trust, or, that they may take advantage of our willingness to let someone else go first and get ahead. We find ourselves urged by our friends and parents, to "stand-up and fight for our rights". Similarly, we experience, sometimes, the baffling phenomenon, that someone else is deliberately harming or hurting us, to see, what he or she can "get away with", and, we begin to realise, that life is a mixture of concerns for others, as well as a concern for our own well-being, making sure, in the final analysis, that we get what we want, and, that we have to put some pressure on others to get our fair share, because no-one is going to hand our fair share to us.

Our experiences tell us, as we grow-up, regardless, where we are in the world, that we have to respond to our environment with a flexible mix of egocentric drives and a willingness to give others a chance as well. If we grow-up in a well-ordened and law-abiding society, we rely, naturally, quite heavily on the rules we have learned, and, it may, then, be a highly perplexing experience to have to deal with people, who do not obey these same rules, or, who obey no rules at all, except the rule of "me first".

On the other hand, if we grow-up in a human jungle, where the rules of loyalty and fairness count for little, we become almost like a psychopath, where we can only think of ourselves, and, we become then extremely unscrupulous. However, even most youngsters, growing-up in ghettos and slums with a near law-less environment, still learn to behave according to a set of "natural" or hierarchical rules, as we have mentioned before, because very few individuals can survive completely without rules, and, these people will not be tolerated by a rough and tough social environment.

Therefore, the most blatant forms of abnormal or psychopathic behaviour occur, if people are allowed, by a weak, vacillating or uncaring environment, to exploit others, without learning to give something in return. This leads to a parasitic attitude, but, as we have seen, a natural "rough and tumble" teaches, at least, to be loyal to the members of the group one belongs to, even, if the world at large is seen as an enemy to whom no loyalty has to be extended, and, who can be exploited in a ruthless or lawless manner.

Most of the time, however, the rules do not reflect a common-sense arrangement, based upon the reciprocity of good-will, nor, is it merely an indication of a natural hierarchical order. By far the most common basis for the rules of conduct are a specific religious belief structure with which the moral code of society is closely interwoven. When the religious foundation becomes weakened by frequent challenges, or, the integration of many different religious or meta-physical beliefs under a common political roof, we see, that the moral code, based upon such a religious conviction, also starts to weaken.

This weakening of the moral code has two reasons. On the one hand, it is a reflection of the fact, that a particular religion loses a great deal of its sanctity and authority, if it becomes just one of many different view-points, but, the more important reason stems from the fact, that an enlarged political unit requires a greater sphere of mutual identification than is provided by the religious rules of conduct, which apply, as a rule, only to a specific religious community.

In other words; the enlarging societies with their multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, and, often, multi-religious groupings, require guidelines that apply throughout the entire social environment, and, therefore, the national leadership of such a large and diversified society establishes "laws", or common-sense rules and regulations, which are based, in part, upon the predominant religious beliefs, compelling people to adhere to these rules and regulations in preference over local cultural rules and guidelines. If such a common-sense, non-discriminatory body of law is acceptable to most people, it will greatly contribute to the political stability of a large, multi-cultural society, but the strength of moral and intellectual convictions for the peoples who make-up such an enlarged society, remains, primarily, in the cultural roots and religious beliefs that dominate the atmosphere of their local community; where they grew-up and lived during childhood and adolescence.

What we see, then, is an odd mixture of beliefs and attitudes, which depends, in part, on one's up-bringing, the intensity of the beliefs in one's parental home, as well as the willingness of people to carry-on the parental or local traditions. Many youngsters, however, will drift rather far-away from home, as they pursue a particular career, or seek greater opportunities for themselves in a different part of the large-scale social environment. Cultural and ethnic, as well as religious roots become then mixed with a variety of new influences; the teaching of a career or a science; the intense contacts with peoples from a different cultural background, different religious beliefs, and, often, quite different political beliefs and opinions.

Guidance or direction becomes more difficult, as the numerous demands of living and working in a foreign environment absorb almost all their energies and attention. People can, then, find guidance from a tenacious long-term social goal or career, or, one can find security in one's own professional work-environment, and bond-together in professional organisations or trade-unions with the many people who share the same existential needs, because they share more or less the same working and living conditions.

Sometimes, an individual finds strength in aligning him- or herself, closely, with a particular political Party or a specific social movement, which sees reality in terms of a clearly defined direction of development. The point we want to make, is the curious fact, that life in our affluent societies is so complex and so absorbing, that, many of us, in particular, those, who strayed rather far from our cultural and religious origins, do not have the time, nor the inclination, to think about a coherent structure of beliefs, which would give us, not only, an intellectual guidance for the questions of life and death, illness and accident, or any of the great events of upheaval and turmoil, but, a structure, that will also provide a firm intellectual basis for our moral decisions.

Most professionals and highly skilled workers are curiously ambivalent about what they believe or not believe, and, their conduct becomes, largely, a pragmatic and intuitive adaptation to the many stressful situations that present themselves, one after the other. Most educated and highly trained people show, therefore, this curious mix in their beliefs; partially holding-on to beliefs that were current during there up-bringing; partly influenced by the impersonal atmosphere of the scientific belief-structure; partly oriented by the pride and the existential interests of belonging to a successful segment of society, and, partly, torn by the chronic anxieties and the constant struggles necessary to keep-up an affluent life-style required by a successful citizen in such a large society.

It is not surprising, therefore, that few of these professionals are willing to talk about their beliefs, as they are somewhat ashamed of the confusion and the chaos of thought, which would reveal itself in a thorough discussion. It is not surprising, that these people become defensive and suspicious of anyone, who tries to convince them of a particular opinion, in particular, because, nearly all of those, who present themselves with a clear-cut and dogmatic point of view about these matters, appear to be somewhat superficial thinkers, who can only propagate, tenaciously, or, even, fanatically, a set of old-fashioned, traditional religious beliefs.

My sympathies lie with those, who are somewhat confused, but yet, refuse to be drawn into a fanatic religious or political belief, because they recognise, at least, intuitively, how harmful and shallow such fanatic and dogmatic opinions really are; contributing very little to a genuine solution, but polarising, dangerously, public opinions, until the last vestiges of cooperation between the large factions of society have been submerged by a rising tide of hostilities. The silent majority of educated and sensitive people may not know what to believe, or, whom to believe, in such a confusing world, but, at least, they recognise, that shallow opinions and fanatical view-points are not a help but a danger, to society and themselves.

Therefore, I believe, that, in the near future, these people will want to excercise their faculties of thought, and, they will then be in a better position to demand fair, balanced and complete information from their leaders and their social institutions. Until such time, they will have to be cautious and careful, slowly thinking through whatever thoughts and ideas come their way; careful not to be deceived by facile promises; facile promises of material goods, or facile promises of a heavenly reward.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Beliefs and behaviour-patterns.
Why sense-impressions are "handled" in essentially the same manner by the central nervous system.
The contents of what is familiar, is specific for each behaviourally flexible animal.
The cultural pool of beliefs, notions and attitudes for the members of mankind.
An overall, conscious belief structure acts as a "program" for the cerebral computer.
Beliefs do not play a role in every behavioural response.
The attitudes of atonement and practices of sacrifice.
Structures of belief must have provided an existential advantage before they could become "entrenched".
The relevance of a belief structure may disappear before its practice ceases.
A reality perception, or belief structure, based on a common biological heritage, should have the potential to be persuasive across many cultural environments.
An unfortunate complexity and fragmentation of the relevant scientific imagery.
The sciences are, often, perceived as servants of industry and the military.
The difficulties of deciding what is true or sensible.
The vague and often arbitrary boundaries between legal and illegal means of "making money".
We are always enticed to adopt a life-style that costs a lot of money.
The logical stratification of a large and complex society.
The burdens of the affluent, working consumer.
A sagging morale, and a sagging currency.
Once the trap has been sprung, insight becomes irrelevant or a hindrance.
A gigantic web of deception and enslavement.
Whom can we trust?
When deception becomes so common, that it is considered to be "normal", we lose an opportunity to understand, what is happening to ourselves and our social environments.

The existence of a structure of beliefs is the main reason, why people react differently to circumstances that are essentially similar. If we look at a number of healthy adults of a particular species, e.g. the cat-family, we see, that their reactions to more or less similar situations are quite comparable. This means, that cats, as well as many other species', react to the usual stimuli in a stereo-typed manner. Sense impressions are "handled" in the same way by the central nervous system, and we can, therefore, say, that the manner in which an animal reacts to its sense-impressions is primarily determined by the way its central nervous system has been shaped by the genetic code.

In spite of the existence of a "basic mode" for handling and categorising sense-impressions, we see, that, most of the more highly developed animals do have somewhat different experiences and memory-traces. For example, the domestic cat is "home" at a particular place, and, this means, that each cat has a specific environment with which it is familiar. While a specific cat may share, to some extent, its surroundings with a neighbouring cat, it is clear, that, each animal has its own specific territory, as well as its own "people" whom it is familiar with. While the sense-impressions are processed in the same way, depending upon the genetic instructions, or, rather, the anatomy and physiology of its central nervous system, the content of the memory-banks is different from one animal to the next. Yet, its behaviour is so "predictable" and so comparable with the responses from other cats, that its behaviour can be considered to be "species-specific".

Certainly, a particular cat could have had a highly unpleasant experience in association with a particular sense-experience. This sense experience may, then, acquire a particular connotation, while it remains virtually neutral for another cat. As a result, behaviour-patterns will differ somewhat. However, as a rule, it is fair to say, that the experiences a cat receives are more or less the same, and these experiences are processed in a similar manner. Consequently, the behaviour-patterns of cats are very similar.

You may argue, that the same applies to human beings, because, from an overall point of view, their behaviour is, indeed, remarkably similar. We all get hungry, sleepy, or, we may become interested in the opposite sex, from time to time. We all get angry when provoked, and, we become defensive when threatened, and, this shows us, once again, the overall biological heritage with its three existential poles, determining, at least, in outline, how, and why, we behave the way we do.

However, there is one remarkable difference between the human being and the highly flexible animals. The human being forms a "layer" of conscious awarenesses, in the form of a variety of images, ideas and concepts that can be represented by word-symbols. We absorb, or learn, these images and their symbolic representations from the "cultural pool" of our social environment. The cultural pool represents a complex of beliefs, notions, ideas and attitudes, which is current in our particular community. This cultural pool of beliefs, notions and attitudes, determines, to a large extent, how we behave and react to the tensions, frictions and needs of people.

The communal pool of ideas, notions and behavioural regulators acquires specific characteristics, whenever a social unit has had time to develop in relative isolation. The beliefs and religious or cultural guidelines, regulating the behaviour of the members of a community, represent a particular "way of life". They represent a particular way to orden and correlate the many apparent forces into an understandable coherence. Man does not behave or react, only, according to the way his brain has been formed and shaped by the instructions of the genetic code, or, in accordance with the particular memory-traces that have been formed and categorised over the years, but, a human being also reacts in accordance to an overall "interpretation" of the sense impressions. This represents an overall conscious belief-structure that acts as a "program" for the cerebral computer and "colours", to a large extent, our behaviour.

A new variable has been placed in the reflex-arc between sense-impression and behavioural reaction. Man reacts, not only, to the realities as perceived by his physiological mechanisms, but, man reacts, also, in accordance with the conscious belief-structures in which the sensory impressions are being classified. However, we should not come to the conclusion, that this belief structure comes in between all our sense-impressions and behavioural reactions. We know, for example, that a very large number of "internal adjustments" between organ-systems take place entirely outside the sphere of conscious awareness, and, obviously, these reactions are not influenced by our beliefs; nor, are daily, routine movements and motoric adjustments influenced by a conscious belief-structure. We step over obstacles, walk around them, or, we jump from rock to rock, regardless of the beliefs we adhere to, and, we see, how a very large number of "routine" and nearly sub-conscious or automatic reactions take place according to our "physiological" perceptions, un-influenced by a particular structure of beliefs.

Yet, in the way we see ourselves and our social environment, as well as the forces we are subjected to, we react, to a large extent, in accordance with our beliefs. If we believe, that God can punish those who sin against Him, then, it is logical that an adversity or a disaster is interpreted as such a punishment for wrong-doings, and, it is usually not too difficult to find some sort of a wrong-doing in our collective or individual past. The community, then, adopts a fervent attitude of atonement for past sins and omissions. These attitudes of atonement and sacrifice bring-back, slowly, the conviction, that God must have forgiven the community its past sins, and, the renewed vitality, in particular, the sense of a renewed beginning, together with a spirit of cooperation and hard work for the common good, represents a highly effective attitude in seeing such a community through a period of adversity.

On previous occasions, we have elaborated the psychology of religious behaviour. Here, we only want to re-iterate an important principle. The belief-structures and the associated attitudes and practices that "emerge" in a process of "natural selection", as the community struggles for survival and feels the need to orden its many confusing sense-impressions and conceptual awarenesses, must have given this community and its members some sort of an existential advantage. One such advantage is the adoption of an attitude of atonement, characterised by an increased sense of togetherness, as well as an increased effort to extricate themselves from the difficulties.

Therefore, in spite of the fact, that, many belief structures, as well as behavioural attitudes of small, primitive religious communities seem strange to us, and, in spite of the fact, that many practices seem to harm rather than help an individual or a community, we can be sure, that, none of these beliefs and religious practices would have developed, if, for one reason or another, such a practice or belief would not have been associated with an advantage. We have to be careful to interpret a religious attitude or practice in the light of its own beliefs, otherwise, it remains meaningless and incomprehensible for us.

Certainly, isolated and primitive communities often adhere, for a long time, to beliefs and practices that have lost their significance a long time ago, and, these belief-structures and rituals become, then, a somewhat slovenly and mechanical excercise, which is continued because of a lack of something better. Such a religious community with primitive beliefs and practices, will be at a disadvantage when it is confronted with a more sophisticated reality perception. Then, the primitive beliefs and practices may be a hindrance to the struggle for survival, just as a species with an out-dated adaptation in the struggle for survival, will be quickly over-taken by a species that is better equipped to make use of the prevailing circumstances.

The point we want to make, here, is the curious and remarkable fact, that a belief-structure influences our most concious, communal and individualised reality perceptions and behavioural responses. Now, we can also appreciate the reason, why a highly "local" way of believing in a particular reality, must depend upon the local history of the community, in contrast to a reality interpretation that is not dependent upon cultural notions and beliefs, but is based upon the universal functions of the senses. I mean this; a reality perception that is based upon our common biological heritage, our commonly shared physical and physiological capabilities, must, eventually, be more persuasive to a large number of people, across many cultural backgrounds, compared to a belief-structure, or a reality interpretation, that finds its strength in a local culture.

For example, the persuasiveness of the scientific reality perception is based upon the fact, that, all its conclusions go back to observations each and everyone of us could verify for ourselves, if we would be willing to make the effort, and spend the energy, to acquire the necessary skills and knowledge. The cultural or religious beliefs and reality perceptions are always based on a set of "sacred" or absolutely true revelations or writings, which are themselves not subject to the test of truth, even, if scholarly analysis and study may clarify a number of difficulties or potential misunderstandings.

Unfortunately, the sciences have become so complex and fragmented, that, in essence, no-one is in a position to verify all conclusions and observations, and, as a result, people have to take these conclusions and observations "on authority", just as they take their religious images and the code of conduct on the authority of their leaders. No wonder, that it remains very difficult for most people to see an essential difference between the religious and scientific imagery. For many of them, the imagery of either one remains clouded with suspicion and disbelief, as people in a chaotic, affluent society feel that it is increasingly more difficult to know, whom to believe, and, in what to put their trust. No wonder, then, that people are suspicious about being defrauded and led astray. People are afraid, that everything has a commercial bias, and, that the religious imagery and sentiments are used, and abused, to get people to open their purse and donate, just as the commercials of the advertising industry are used to lure people into buying this or that.

Even the sciences are, now, seen as the servants of industry and the military, where technology is, primarily, used to make us buy more, consume more and waste more, and, where the fruits of science have long since been over-shadowed by the menace of science, as we see in industrial pollution, the dangers of radio-active contamination, as well as the horrifying but essentially unimaginable manner in which many millions of people can now be killed by nuclear weapons of one sort or another.

It is becoming very difficult to know, what is true, and, what is only partially true; what is an outright lie, or an unintentional deception. People do not know, anymore, what to believe, or, whom to believe, as they have experienced, all too often, that the channels of communication and authority are used and abused to enslave them; to entice them; to lure them into one sort of behaviour or another, which was, ultimately, always to the benefit of someone else. The larger affluent societies have become a jungle. They have become a battle-field, where the struggle for survival is being played-out ruthlessly, almost without any rules and regulations, and, the rules that still exist, are seen as obstacles to be avoided or circumvented, and, they are not recognised, anymore, as structures that are essential to keep the spirit of social justice alive.

The large and affluent society is so complex and confusing, that, virtually nobody recognises it, anymore, as a society upon which, ultimately, our security and possibilities of existence depend. In our struggle to survive and "make money", we use every tool available. Some tools, such as black-mail, extortion, prostitution, drug-trafficking and protection-rackets are still so obviously illegal, that they have to go "under-ground", and become organisations with their own rules and ruthless methods of enforcement. These are the hall-mark of organised crime. However, the boundaries with "legal" means of obtaining money, are, often, somewhat fuzzy. Gambling or the manufacture and sale of alcohol and tobacco have been instutitionalised in some countries, and, governments are reaping huge profits from human weaknesses and bad habits. Minor offences have become another institutionalised way of extracting monies from the poor by the imposition of fines and penalties through the Courts, and, our affluent societies are full of subtle methods to entice us to adopt a life-style that is expensive.

It is not surprising to see, therefore, that affluent societies tend to stratify into three broad layers. At the top, we see the large industrial, financial and bureaucratic complexes, including the military, which depend on the tax-revenues and the spending habits of the affluent consumers. At the bottom, we see an enlarging segment of the population that has given-up trying to find decent employment, and tries to survive at subsistence levels, often supported by welfare. These people are often handicapped by ignorance, and they lack the incentive to live frugally and wisely. They do not save anything and live from hand to mouth, without realising, how vulnerable such a life-style is.

Then, there is this large middle layer; the affluent consumer, who works hard, spends a lot, is in debt, and has preciously little to show for a life of hard work and constant worries. Because of his willingness to go into debt, together with the constant enticement to spend more than he or she earns, the affluent consumer carries a lot of other people on his back. Literally, he carries the upper layer of industries, the bureaucracies and the military on his back, because, without his willingness to spend his entire income, the "economy" would collapse. After all, the assets of the rich stay, by and large, outside the money-circulation upon which the manufacturers and employees depend for their profits and incomes.

Indirectly, the affluent, working consumer also supports all those who are out of work, on social assistance, or, on old-age pensions, because all these people are supported out of current revenues. No wonder, the affluent consumer has to work hard and pay dearly, because he is supporting a lot of people. The whole social system of the affluent society has become one giant deception. This deception is, not only, apparent in the advertising industry, as well as the life-style that is being propagated as the highest virtue of the land, but, the deception has worked its way through into the political slogans and promises that are so freely made by aspiring and incumbent political candidates. The rising public debt, the burdens upon the natural and social environments, as well as a precarious outlook upon the living conditions of future generations, together with the deception, dishonesty and weakness of our present attitudes, all these mechanisms are reflected, quite accurately, in the sagging value of our currencies, together with the sagging morale of our workers and political leaders.

However, in a social system, where the bondage of financial enslavement is strong, and, where the first step of voluntary indebtedness is re-enforced, for years to come, by a variety of financial obligations, it does not really matter, whether or not we wake-up to our mistakes, once the trap has been sprung. As long as we can be enticed to make this initial step, and put ourselves in a position of financial enslavement, the enforcement agencies, together with the arm of the law, will see to it, that we remain faithful to our financial obligations, and keep carrying the burdens, year after year, as our health declines and our frustrations mount. Just at the time, that we can see a little light at the end of a long tunnel, we suffer our first major illness, putting an end to our dreams and hopes for a little freedom from our enslavement.

The responsibility for this gigantic web of deception and enslavement rests with us all, and, only our collective will can make an end to this vicious circle of mutual deceptions. Whom can we trust? Can we trust our political and religious leaders to lead us, or, do we have to be suspicious that their leadership leads, only, to the well-being of the leadership, the glory of the fatherland, or the financial success of the elite, rather than the material and spiritual well-being of the people?

Can we trust our professionals, doctors and lawyers, or, do we have to be afraid, that good medical and legal care is going to ruin us financially? Can we trust the people in the trades to do their work properly? Can we trust the mechanic in the garage, or the salesman, who is advertising a new automobile, or, do we have to be afraid, that, they, too, are only after our money, and, that they care little about providing good workmanship, or telling us a scrupulously honest story about this shiny new car?

In a world, where so many of our transactions involve a transfer of monies, we can not expect complete honesty and a balanced view. If the doctor and the lawyer make their money according to the case-load, the services they provide, or, the time they spend doing their work, we can be sure that, they too, will try to squeeze as much money out of their clients as they can. Even, if they realise, that it is somewhat unscruplous to adopt such an attitude, they will soon discover, that an attitude of scrupulous honesty is dangerous, and, that they will be facing hardship soon.

The strong competition for the earnings of the public makes it very unlikely, that the consumer will be given honest and fair information in his search for a consumable item, and, as a wage-earner or business-person, one will have to participate in this frantic and competitive pull for money, otherwise, one will be losing-out in the competitive struggle.

We see, therefore, that the practice of free-enterprise, together with the strong competitive forces at work in society, (in particular for this sought-after commodity "money"), leads to an aura of deception that is so wide-spread and so universal, that it is not even recognised, anymore, as abnormal or undesirable. However, by accepting this practice as normal, or as unavoidable, we also lose a major opportunity to understand the reasons, why our societies are so full of tensions and frustrations, and, why it is so difficult to create an atmosphere of social justice and wide-spread contentment.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

Do we resist deception as much as possible?
A willingness to "play ball" provides many lucrative opportunities to make money.
Can we still admit, that we have been captured and enslaved?
We have to leave the mechanisms of psychological adaptation intact.
Truth, and the terminally ill patient.
Reacting from day to day, and, hoping for the best.
The deliberate distortion of reality is often used as an adaptation to chronic stress.
Justifications and rationalisations.
Strength, resilience and combativeness.
A shift from rational analysis to hopeful endurance.
The wisdom of avoiding an exposure to severe stress.
The criteria for defining an attitude of deceptiveness.
Honest mistakes, or behaviour-patterns based on erroneous assumptions, are no deceptions.
When we try to make someone "see" reality "our way".
Different objectives for influencing a reality perception in a specific manner.
A leadership, whipping-up nationalist feelings and belligerent sentiments.
An act of "good faith".
Intuitive decisions have to made when presenting "the news".
We have to develop generally agreed-upon criteria for the gathering and presentation of information.
The essence of "propaganda"; it represents an intolerable attempt at manipulating beliefs and attitudes.
Good-will and trust maintain the social contract of essential equality and social justice, and, these attitudes depend on a freedom from deceptive manipulations.

So far, we have assumed that we all resist deception as much as possible, and, that we are all aware of the fact, that deception plays an important role in our affluent societies. However, many people may not agree with this assessment, and, they may argue, that it is a gross exaggeration to call these pressures to sell something, or to provide a service, as a harmful and deceptive mode of behaviour. Many people obviously believe, that there is no better way to develop "the economy", and, they believe, by and large, in the virtues of free-enterprise, in particular, if they have been somewhat successful at this game themselves. They experience, also, that a willingness to "play ball", and to work hard and enthousiastically for the free-enterprise system, provides them with many lucrative opportunities to make money and keep the whole system going.

No wonder, that many people, especially, those, who are still young and energetic, will refuse to acknowledge the reality of this gloomy and deceptive atmosphere, which I have sketched on so many occasions. As long as they remain willing, and able, to work within the mainstream of society, they will, indeed, fail to notice to what extent they are being exploited, and, to what extent they are exploiting others, but, when adversity strikes; when they have a quarrel with those, who control their lives; if they fall-short of an expected performance, or, if they are in danger of being made redundant, then, they will understand, better, how deceptive and pernicious the relationships between people have become in our Capitalist societies.

True, many of us can not admit to what extent we have been captured and enslaved, because our self-respect and sense of dignity would be severely undermined. Therefore, we tend to adapt our beliefs and attitudes in such a way, that we minimise the stress of frustration and the feelings of enslavement, in particular, when we are trapped to the point that we can not escape. Only those, looking-in from the outside, or those, who are relatively free, can judge, with a measure of objectivity, to what extent those who are enslaved, have been captured by the circumstances.

Let us not try to destroy the psychological adaptation of those who have been trapped; by trying to convince them, how much they are in bondage, and, how unwise they have been to let themselves be captured. Let those of us, who have some freedom, as well as the ability to form a more objective point of view, give form and shape to our concerns in a way that is not too repulsive. Let us expose these general trends and their consequences, and, let us give time to the enslaved to recognise, slowly, the magnitude of their predicament. What is the point to tell someone, that he or she is incurably ill, if this individual is not prepared or capable to handle such knowledge?

Give people time to think about it, but do not deceive them, and, do not tell lies. If someone comes outright with pertinent questions, then, you know, that he or she wants to know, and, the individual then deserves to hear the full and honest truth. Many terminally ill people never ask the questions that would reveal the full truth to them, and, most people have enough problems coping with the realities from moment to moment. They are, then, not capable of handling an even more depressing assessment of their situation.

The same mechanisms apply to the behaviour of a social environment, and, especially, if a large and complex society is in a period of steady decline with rising tensions and frustrations, many of us are completely helpless to change anything, and, we are so utterly incapable of escaping from a detrimental development or an impending collapse, that we can only react from day to day, and "hope for the best".

Precisely this attitude of "hoping or the best", shows us, that we all tend to use a deliberate distortion of reality as an adaptation to a situation of chronic stress, because we have no other avenue of reacting to this stress, and, it has become the only way to keep our sanity. The attempt to deny the reality of a bleak outlook is supported by an attitude of hopeful expectations, where we acknowledge, that our present situation is not very desirable, but, we have a number of reasons to believe, that the situation is going to improve in the near future.

Another way of coping, is to convince ourselves, that the predicament we are in, was unavoidable; that we made the right choices and decisions. We keep convincing ourselves, as well as those around us, how right we were in the decisions we have made, and, the final stage of this process of "justification and rationalisation", is to believe, that we are in the service of our God, and, that we suffer hardships for the sake of our Faith. These attitudes and beliefs may lend a remarkable degree of strength and resilience to the resolve and attitudes of an individual or an entire community, but, on the other hand, such rigid view-points make it much more difficult to seek and accept a compromise, and, it makes the occurrence of a violent conflict much more likely.

Again, we have to remind ourselves, that our beliefs, as well as the code of conduct we live by, are pragmatic tools to make our behaviour more viable, and, to give us more strength to resist and overcome stress. Here, we see a good example of the trade-off between strength and resilience; strength, induced by a fervent and absolute belief structure, and flexibility, that comes with a more open and compromising attitude. However, such a flexible attitude does not give this ultimate strength to see an individual, or small community, through a period of despair.

What I mean is this; as long as a flexible, probing and rational analysis of a stress situation rewards these attitudes with a variety of possibilties to escape from, or minimise, the stress, it is logical to see people exploring these avenues, but, as soon as a careful analysis starts to "draw blanks", the feelings of hopelessness and depression become an intolerable burden of additional stress, and, the attitude of rational analysis will be replaced by a psychological adaptation that is a mixture of hopeful expectations and rationalisations, together with an attitude of religious fervor. These attitudes fortify the resistance to stress, and, we see, then, a shift from the avoidance of stress and a flexible agility to escape the forces of stress, to the last phase of stress resistance; endurance.

It is clear, however, that a shift away from rational analysis to hopeful endurance, makes a return to an attitude of rational analysis more difficult. Only, if the route of stiffened resistance to chronic stress is successful, (in the sense that the stress is endured for a prolonged period of time and does not seem to get worse), only, then, is it possible to return to a more rational evaluation of a situation of stress. In essence, there is an adaptation to the chronic stress by accepting it as "the norm", or, at least, by accepting it as a situation that is compatible with life, and, this intuitive conclusion allows a return to an emotionally more neutral zone of existence.

Therefore, if we want to encourage conditions that favour a rational analysis, it is important to avoid exposure to situations of severe stress. Just as a society tends to polarise and find a measure of stability away from the principles of essential equality under a social contract, so is the zone of emotional neutrality a labile balance point, and, our behaviour becomes easily "polarised" around one of the existential poles.

"What, then, are the criteria for an act of deception", you may ask. Obviously, we can not measure it against an absolute truth, because there is none, and, different people believe many different things. An act, that is based upon an erroneous belief, is not a deception. We imply in the word deception, that a deliberate attempt is made to influence a particular belief-structure, so that the behaviour of an individual or group becomes advantageous to the manipulator of a deceptive reality perception. Every time someone, (such as an influential person, group or leadership), tries to "make someone believe" a particular fact, we are dealing with a deliberate manipulation of the reality perception, and, invariably, every manipulator tries to influence beliefs in such a way that the behaviour of people becomes more advantageous to him. Then, we may label such a manipulation a form of deception.

Obviously, all manipulations to make us buy something, or, to make an impression upon us, or, to put something, or someone, in a particular light, are deceptions, because they are not an honest and scrupulously balanced discussion of all the features and aspects that can be seen and discussed. Even a leadership that wants us to believe, how dangerous and vile our communal enemies are, is practicing a blatant act of deception, because sentiments of communal hatred, together with a pre-occupation with hostile feelings towards our alleged enemies, are a convenient way to hide failures, short-comings, or outright corruption and incompetence by the leadership and its bureaucracy.

Therefore, every time a leadership stirs nationalistic feelings and tries to whip-up belligerent sentiments, we should suspect a deliberate manipulation of our emotions and our reality perceptions, and, if we let ourselves be manipulated by our leaders, we will soon be sent into the battle-fields to fight those law-abiding citizens of enemy societies, who have also been deceived and sent into battle by their equally deceptive leaderships.

We have argued before, that an erroneous belief is not a deception, and, that the transmission of faulty or erroneous information, in an act of "good faith", is not deceptive. However, frequently, we get faulty, erroneous or incomplete information because of incompetence on the part of those, who are supposed to be professionals in the gathering, selecting and presenting of the news. We, as the audience, do not have an opportunity to question those, who bring us the news, and, we have to rely on their professional skills and insights, to make sure, that we get accurate and complete information, and, that the selection is not biased. These qualifications are not easy to come-by, because, often, a story is not easy to investigate or corroborate; communications are difficult, and, it often takes time for the whole story to come-out. Therefore, a reporter, or, a news-editor has to go-on his intuition and his experience, whenever he has to decide what to select as news, and, how to present the "news" to the public.

Accurate and balanced news-reporting requires the establishment of generally agreed-upon criteria for the gathering and presentation of information. Too often, the media become, or remain, an instrument in the hands of governments that are not primarily concerned with objective news broad-casting or publishing, but, with the manipulation of public opinion to their own advantage. A form of deception, then? Indeed, and it represents an intolerable form of deception, because it constitutes the essence of "propaganda". This is the reason, why the gathering and reporting of news should be considered as serious a matter as the judiciary, and, why it should be practiced with the same principles of scrupulous balance and honesty.

Accurate and well-balanced information is so important for our beliefs, attitudes and opinions, that these processes should not be left to the damaging and haphazard performance of untrained and incompetent people.

In the final analysis, this all-important, but fragile sense of justice depends upon the question, whether or not we all have access to complete and accurate information about everthing we want to know; because, only then, can we be sure, that, everyone is doing his or her fair share in carrying the burdens and obligations of society, and, only, then, can we give our trust and our good-will to our social environment. The attitudes of good-will and trust are indispensible to sustain the contract of essential equality and social justice, and, this contract has already become an essential element in the viability and future of mankind.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

An over-crowded space-craft with scarce resources and fragile life-support systems.
Looking across the globe and watch other people live.
An obsessive concern with the causes of injustice and warfare.
Looking, once more, at the mechanisms of social polarisation.
A choice, that keeps haunting us at every level of existence.
A "water-shed" of behavioural choices.
The mechanisms of secondary social integration.
It is far more difficult to negotiate and compromise, than to posture belligerently and fight.
A threat is a commitment to violence.
Limiting the room for negotiation and compromise.
The need for a mediator to cool emotions and judge a dispute accurately.
Who is going to mediate between super-powers?
Super-powers are a menace to us all.
Waiting for the natural decay of a large power-structure.
Not everyone is convinced that a nuclear conflict will be suicidal.
We, ordinary people, know, that a war solves little and destroys nearly everything.
We will die, when exposed to a deadly atmosphere.

The earth and its many species' of life will look increasingly like an over-crowded space-craft with scarce resources and fragile life-support systems. This imagery has been used by many, and, it is familiar to most people, but, so far as I can see, we still have not fully realised the implications of such a situation. We still have not acknowledged, how important the questions and problems of social justice and harmony really are. Just as the viability of the crew of a small ship depends upon the ability to remain a functioning social unit, so will the collectve viability of mankind become dependent upon our ability to solve the causes for social tension and injustice.

When people of the past lived under vastly different conditions of affluence and privilege, the consequences were not so important, because there were no rapid means of communication, and people lived in virtual isolation from each other, but, now, we live in glass cages. We may not have much room to manoeuvre, as we have become locked into the situation we find ourselves in, but, if we want to, we can see almost across the entire globe, and, we can look and see, how other people are living, and, what sort of problems or privileges they enjoy.

Because of the rising importance of social justice for the survival of mankind, I feel myself drawn back, again and again, to a topic that is almost becoming an obsession with me; the causes of strife and warfare, which are the same as the causes of social tensions, chronic frustrations and a feeling of injustice. I intended to use this essay to review the many instances in which we may be deceived by others, or, where we participate in a process of deceiving someone else or ourselves. However, time and again, I come to the conclusion, that the most important problem is to find a solution for the causes of social tension, turmoil and injustice, and, to understand the mechanisms of strife and belligerence.

We have to understand the mechanisms of oppression and revolt, and, we have to recognise, how large a part is played by the deliberate as well as unintentional deception. A good insight into these mechanisms gives us the best opportunity to evaluate the effects of manipulating, for one reason or another, the reality perceptions of ourselves and other people.

Perhaps, then, we should look, once more, at the overall processes of polarisation, as well as the safeguards necessary to maintain a sense of trust and justice. Let us look at what is happening to our reality perceptions and attitudes, whenever the winds of war are gathering strength. Let us understand the reasons, why our enemies always appear "hostile", while our attitudes are always considered to be legitimate and defensive, at least, in our own judgement.

We are often baffled by the tenacity with which man opts for strife, but we should not forget, that we are dealing, here, with the most fundamental instinctive drives of our biological heritage. These drives go back to the origins of the living organisation. As we have discussed before, the "choice" between a mode of behavour that seeks survival by the ability to carry-out combat or strife, successfully, and, a mode of behaviour that is symbiotic or mutually inter-dependent in nature, is such an important one, and, it represents such a watershed in the behavioural choice, that we should not be surprised to see, that this choice keeps haunting us at almost every level of existence.

For example, the concept of a "water-shed" in the mode of behaviour and the range of existence possibilities, is already illustrated by the divergence between life-forms which remain uni-cellular and seek their security and possibility to exist in a variety of aggressive and defensive adaptations, and, life-forms with a multi-cellular mode of existence, where the existence possibilities of a community of cells become so inter-twined, that they, either, stay alive together, or, they die together.

This behavioural "water-shed" is not nearly as clear-cut in the behavioural choices for the human being, but, we are dealing, in essence, with the same mechanisms, as well as the same search for survival. The choice, here, is not so much between the extremes of a complete solitary existence and an obligatory social integration. Man has already become so dependent upon his "small-scale" social organisation, that he can only live as a solitary individual under exceptional circumstances, and, even then, for only short periods of time.

We see, that a human being must grow-up in a small-scale social entity, or, at least, one must be able to grow-up in a family-unit, in order to learn the use of the basic tools of language and knowledge, which are necessary for survival. The choice, or the "water-shed" for the human being seems to be, whether or not he is able, and willing, to secure his chances for long-term survival by the abolition of all-out inter-communal strife. Man has to go through another process of "secondary socialisation" on a much larger scale than the initial process of secondary socialisation, which became genetically engraved in our behavioural characteristics. We have to engage in another process of secondary socialisation, because the solution of combat between social groupings has become extremely weakening, and may become suicidal, in the near future.

On a smaller scale, we have to make the same essential choice; are we willing to negotiate and compromise with our adversaries and competitors, or, are we going to fight them with all the means at our disposal. In a compromise or a negotiated settlement, we know, that we will, often, have to share meagre resources with our adversaries or competitors, and, the best we can hope for, is a social contract of scrupulous equality in sharing these resources.

We can not deny the observation, that it is far more difficult to negotiate and compromise, than to posture belligerently and fight. The mechanisms of negotiation and compromise are, often, so fragile, and, they are so easily blocked by suspicions and mutual hostilities, that we do not see any other way of solving the rising tensions than by a call to arms. Yet, if we remember the time when we were an intelligent but impartial observer of a conflict-situation, we should be able to recall, how we could identify a series of happenings and events, that were governed by logical and predictable causes and their effects.

For example, it may have been possible to see, how one social environment was growing vigorously and required more territory, more supplies, as well as a greater degree of say or influence in the region. We saw, how neighbouring societies started to feel threatened and became resentful of the pressures of the more vigorous society. We saw, how the confrontations escalated from episodes and incidences of "friction", to open accusations between the two parties, until a full-fledged verbal war was going-on with accusations and counter-accusations. Eventually, threats were being made; "if the other party does not do this or that, we will do so and so", etc.

It is interesting to note, that this verbal warfare, together with the flow of threats and counter-threats, are absorbing or dissipating, quickly, the last chances to come to an accord, or, to discuss, calmly and rationally, the many complaints and points of friction, which both parties have, by now, against each other. A threat is a commitment to violence, and, at the same time, it is an ultimatum. To follow an ultimatum is a sign of weakness, and the people of a country, and, in particular, their leaderships will feel humiliated, if they have to obey an ultimatum. To make a threat, therefore, is already a deliberate step towards armed conflict, and, if we are really interested in serious negotiations, where we leave each other as much room for manoeuvre as possible, we will be very careful not to issue threats or ultimata, regardless, how tempting it is to do so.

Any definitive statement about demands, minimum requirements or limits of tolerance serves, only, to limit the room for negotiation and compromise, and, if two adversaries are genuinely interested in reaching a negotiated settlement, then, it is absolutely necessary, that all this verbal warfare, belligerent posturing and the issuing of threats and counter threats, be abolished.

Most of the time, however, the emotions of hostility and suspicion run so high, that a negotiated settlement is not possible, unless there is a powerful mediator who can impose a solution. An ideal situation would be the presence of a mediator, who is completely impartial but competent, and, who can investigate and judge a dispute accurately; who is powerful enough to stop the adversaries from engaging in hostile acts or violent confrontations, either before, during, or after a judicial settlement has been reached.

This is the reason, why, looking at an international scene, small conflicts, or, rather, conflicts between smaller and less powerful adversaries can be contained, if stronger powers, e.g., the super-powers, consider it to be in their interest to curb the level of hostilities. However, who is going to mediate in the chronic hostilities between the super-powers? Who is going to make them stop their verbal warfare, or their interminable flow of propaganda? Who is going to prevent them from sliding into a situation of inevitable warfare, as they lock themselves into hardened and irreconcilable positions with a series of threats, demands, firm statements and principles of conduct? Who is going to judge their positions and mediate their quarrels? Who can stop them from destroying each other, as well as the rest of us, especially, if their formidable weaponry and military might falls into the hands of fanatics?

The existence of super-powers is a menace to us all, in particular, to those, who are not "aligned" with either super power and are able to see the relative weaknesses and strong points of either social system or philosophy. We all should make a serious attempt to bring-about the establishment of an effective body of world opinion, where the belligerent super-powers can plead their case, and let world-opinion be their judge. The only mediator and authority that can ultimately impose a binding solution upon super-power rivalry, is world public opinion. We have to make sure, that, even, super-powers can not afford to ignore a well-articulated opinion of peoples all over the world.

It will be very difficult to deliberately abolish these super-powers and, we probably have to wait for their demise or decline, as they exhaust themselves in the arms-race. Yet, it is time to organise world-opinion in such a way, that it can be heard with a clear and impressive voice, and, I am sure, that an honest, world-wide referendum on the morality of the existence of nuclear weapons, would result in a resounding victory for the forces of sanity and common-sense. Such a world opinion would clearly denounce the threat of nuclear warfare and annihilation, because this threat contributes absolutely nothing to our life, our existence, or the progress of social justice.

Unfortunately, the media of communication are still controled, too much, by the protagonists of either side, and, therefore, the existence of nuclear weapons is always defended as an absolutely necessary deterrent against the hostile and irreponsible attitudes and intentions of the other side. Each side is so convinced, that it is absolutely right, and, that its particular system of social organisation is the path along which mankind should evolve! Each side believes, honestly, that it wants peace and would never start a nculear war, unless as a "last resort".

However, if Nato believes, that it can keep the other side from using a military advantage with the threat of a nuclear first-strike, we see that it is not unreasonable for the Warsaw-Pact countries to try to neutralise the threat of a nuclear first-strike, by making it an irresponsible and reckless act of suicide. On the other hand, a chronically suspicious totalitarian regime, regardless of the fact, that such a regime may be based on sound and well-meant social principles, should not be surprised to see, that its adversaries and competitors are aroused by a large build-up of nuclear and conventional weaponry and armed forces. Ultimately, there has to be a genuine willingness, on both sides, to come to a negotiated settlement between the various social systems for which each side is prepared to risk a devastating and suicidal nuclear war.

Many people, and many leaders, may not believe, that a nuclear conflict is suicidal, and, they may believe that a small elite, including themselves, of course, may survive, but, we, ordinary people, we know, that, we, as usual, will have to bear the brunt of their hostilities, and, we know, that we will suffer the most as our homes and lands, our families and relatives, are destroyed by a war, which none of us want, and, none of us will be able to understand why it is happening, if, and when, this fateful day has come.

Most of us, ordinary citizens, in each and every country in the world, know, that warfare solves little and destroys nearly everything, but, we have to realise, that the instinct to engage in a violent solution of a conflict-situation, is strong in each and everyone of us. Just as I, and you, and, we all, can be provoked into an act of violence by a situation of chronic frustration and mounting tensions, so can our national leaders be goaded, very easily, to reach for their weapons and send their armies into battle against each other.

If we, as ordinary citizens, become involved in a violent confrontation, we may end-up killing a few people, and, the tragedy of such an act of violence may be devastating for those who are involved. Then, the sobering effects of our violent behaviour may take hold, and, it may induce the survivors to seek for a more rational solution to their problems. At least, if ordinary citizens or smaller communities and countries grab for their weapons, they may destroy themselves and their adversaries, but, they give the rest of mankind a chance to survive and learn a lesson. Now, with the nuclear weaponry of the super-powers, we all are drawn into this deadly conflict, whether we want it or not, and, the arsenals of the super-powers are now so potent, and so destructive, that these weapons can destroy each and everyone of us, many times over. There is no way of escaping their effects, as nuclear, chemical or bacteriological weapons may poison the atmosphere to the point, that we all will die as a result of exposure to a deadly atmosphere.

How long, you think, can we protect ourselves from these toxic or radio-active pollutants that spread through the atmosphere, as well as the water-systems of the globe? We are being deceived people, if we are being told, that we need all those weapons to "protect" ourselves. These weapons do not protect anything, and, once they have been detonated or released into the atmospere, there is nothing anyone can do. After our leaders and military advisors have unleashed a nuclear war, they can only regret their actions, before we all die and take the whole species of mankind into an irrevocable state of extinction.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

Short-lived memories of the tragedy of warfare.
Surviving by collective insight, or perishing, together, by collective neglect.
We deceive ourselves, because we are unable to cope with the thought of an ultimate calamity.
A fervent plea for the development of collective insights.
Let us visualise, as accurately as we can, what the consequences will be, if a nuclear holocaust has been unleashed.
A number of questions.
Who would be responsible?
The tool of intelligently analysing our realities has become an indispensible part of our arsenal to survive.
A quick and fatal case of "nuclear belligerence", or, a prolonged and harmonious symbiosis on a global scale.
The nearly irrepressible tendency to relieve frustrations by acts of violence.
The tools of social justice.
None of our conflict-situations are "insolvable".
We can create efficient mechanisms for administering social justice on a global scale.
The strong temptation to delude ourselves, in order to postpone the acknowledgement of a bleak reality.
Learning to discuss, honestly and openly, without using our intelligence as a weapon, or as a tool for propaganda.

I told you, that I am obsessed with the probability of all-out nuclear warfare, together with an unmanageable level of atmospheric pollution, because there will not be time to correct our mistakes, and, there will be no more new generations to try again, and rebuild the earth and the species of mankind. The children of belligerent parents who went to war and killed each other on the battle-fields, are often horrified enough to foreswear the use of all-out war-fare, and, they bring up their children in affluence and indulgence. However, children, grown-up in affluence and indulgence, have no first-hand knowledge anymore of war, and, they are always tempted, again and again, to settle their conflicts in a violent way, and, they become, then, a warring parental generation, whose children will try, once again, to avoid war, as they build-up, what their parents destroyed.

This cycle may be interrupted, however, as nuclear war and chemical contaminants carry-off the warring parents to their graves, but, also, their children, as well as the unborn offspring that was to form the subsequent generations. We either survive by the collective insight that we have to abolish these dangerous weapons, or, we perish, perhaps, never knowing, that, we, ourselves, brought mankind abruptly to extinction.

We still have some time left, because no nuclear or chemical war has been fought, as yet, and, there is still time to reflect upon the horrendous consequences of an escalating level of confrontation between the super-powers and their ever enlarging weaponry. Let us not forget, that, even, accidental and unintentional explosions or contaminations may pose life-threatening problems for millions of people, and, I hope, that it is not necessary for us to experience such a calamity, before we finally realise, that we have to come to grips with these problems.

Too many people are only concerned with their immediate well-being, and, they may blithely support the deployment of nuclear missiles, or the stockpiling of dangerous chemical weapons, or, they may support the outpouring of more industrial pollutants, as long as they get their wages, together with all the trappings of affluence which their politicians have promised them.

We are being deceived, and, we keep deceiving ourselves, primarily, because it is so depressing, and, it seems so futile, to face-up to the gigantic problems that exist already. We behave like a terminally ill patient, who does not really want to know how sick he really is, and, who only wants to be kept comfortable, so that he can slip into a merciful coma and death. Is this, really, what we want? Do we really want to hide from the enormous problems, as well as the painful radical solutions that have to be implemented?

I hope, that a sufficient number of people are able and willing to ween themselves off this chronic political deception, perpetrated by erroneous and short-sighted leaders, and, I hope, that there are enough people to call a halt to this drift into an inevitably collapse; either, a total economic and social collapse with incredible chaos, or, the collapse of the last vestiges of restraint, leading to war and deadly levels of contamination; or, the collapse of all ideas and concepts of social justice, where we revert to an attitude of the jungle; a ruthless free for all, without realising, that we lack the terrestial resources to provide a viable possibility of existence with such a primitive and instinctive mode of behaviour.

Perhaps, it may seem somewhat alarmist to many people, if we keep emphasising that we are at "cross-roads". Mankind, societies, as well as individuals always come for cross-roads, or, at least, very important decisions that will affect their whole future. Perhaps, it is difficult to believe, that, indeed, time is running-out, and, that we may, suddenly, face a catastrophic situation.

If we hesitate to believe the likelyhood of such a gloomy scenario, let us, then, gather information. Let us get the facts plainly on the table; how many nuclear missiles and nuclear war-heads are there? What sort of a destruction do they cause, if they are detonated over a large population center? What does it do to our communications and our ability to distribute water, food and electricity amongst the survivors? What will happen to our ability to get food, medical care, shelter, as well as all the technological help we need to survive for any length of time?

Make a realistic picture for yourself about the consequences of a large nuclear bomb exploding a few kilometers from where you live. Even, if you think that you can survive the initial blast, what will happen to you in the hours, days, weeks and months afterwards? What sort of a life are you leading? Are you healthy? Are your children healthy? What is going to happen, when children are born after the nuclear holocaust?

What have you gained from an act of nuclear warfare? Do you think, that there will be any political leader, who can justify the fact that a nuclear war has been fought? Do you think, that there will be anyone you can blame for the horrible circumstances you will find yourself under? Do you think, that there is anything you can do, except to try to survive the best way you can, and, regret the immense stupidity of the people, who were responsible for such a catastrophe?

Those, who were responsible were, not only, the soldiers, or the generals, who pressed the nuclear button, or, the politicians who thought that they had no choice, but to give the order to start a nuclear war. The responsibility will also lay, at least, to some extent, with all of us, who did not do everything we could to avoid this holocaust, and prevented it from taking place. If we sooth our conscience, now, by thinking that these images are exaggerated, or, if we think, that it is more important to get our economies going again, to create jobs, or to get higher wages and incomes; if we adopt this attitude, then, we are also somewhat responsible for the fact, that the event of nuclear war has, again, come closer.

Our beliefs and reality perceptions have given us the tools, as well as the weapons, we use. We can now feed ourselves in numbers that far outstrip the ability of our terrestial enviroment to support us "naturally", without all these special cultivating techniques that increase the yield of the earth far beyond, what it would yield without man's "interference". Similarly, our tools make it possible to make all those things we need to live comfortably and under decent conditions, and, this same tool of our intellect and our ability to manipulate natural mechanisms, sustains our life, but, it also poses the most serious threat to our collective existence.

Just as we can not survive, anymore, without the tools of intelligent manipulation, so is this same ability responsible for the fact, that a handful of people could decide to exterminate the whole of mankind. We might as well face these facts, and, it is very unlikely, that we will ever be able to eradicate, completely, the ability to commit mass-suicide and self-extermination, without eradicating, also, the means to sustain our existence at the level of comfort and dignity we have become used to.

The tools of a conscious and deliberately chosen reality perception have become an indispensible part of our expertise, needed to stay alive, and, for this reason, the possibility of nuclear warfare, or, rather, the technological know-how of manufacturing and delivering a nuclear war-head at a specific target, anywhere in the world, will also remain a possibility we have to learn to live with. However, even, if we can not eradicate the knowledge necessary to make these horrendous weapons, by destroying these weapons and their delivery vehicles, we can certainly minimise the risk that someone in the future can make such weapons secretly. Especially, since the future society, if it ever comes-about, and, if it ever reaches a state of stability and harmony, will be characterised by a great deal of transparence and honest inter-actions.

Our beliefs and attitudes, our insights and knowledge, have brought us to a crossing of widely divergent roads; between a quick and fatal case of nuclear belligerence, or, a prolonged and harmonious symbiosis on a global scale. As we have discussed, there will be a strong tendency, for some time to come, for tensions and frustrations to seek an outlet in warfare, and, for super-power rivalry to threaten a nuclear war. Only, after we have been able to create a condition of global justice, together with the mechanisms to maintain a state of global justice within a narrow, but precarious range or equilibrium, only, then, will it be possible to look forward, with a measure of confidence, towards the long-term survival of mankind.

We need the same tools that gave us our technological abilities, in order to create the tools for social justice. As we have discussed on many occasions, the conditions of social justice are going to be just as important as the primary resources that need to be distributed in order to create a sense of well-being. Look at any small community that is in a precarious position, and has scarce resources and difficult circumstances to contend with. The distribution processes, the mechanisms that maintain a sense of justice, and make it apparent to all that everyone is getting an equal, if small, ration of whatever is available, are just as important as the rations themselves. The sooner we realise, that the world is quickly becoming an over-crowded refugee-camp, where life can only be sustained by careful management and just rationing, the better it will be for us, and, the more likely we are to avoid serious mistakes and conflicts, which may well make life in this over-crowded terrestial refugee-camp, unbearable and impossible.

The art of seeing reality objectively, is a necessary beginning towards the road of global justice. We have to learn to see, that, none of our conflict-situations are "insolvable", if we really want to solve them. In order to save ourselves from our own emotional fervor and willingness to jump into a violent confrontation, we should set-up, as quickly as possible, a world-wide international forum, where a conflict-situation can, at least, be analysed and discussed, and, where an international referendum can give the effect of a world-wide jury, who will judge the conflict and make recommendations for an equitable solution.

Just as we can create a judiciary within our societies, and, just as we can create satisfactory conditions of social justice in a few fortunate countries, (where the benefits, as well as the burdens of belonging to society are shared more or less equally between everyone), so is there nothing impossible about the task to "impose" such conditions of social justice upon every social environment in the world. There is nothing impossible about the ability to impose binding arbitration upon those societies, large and small, which are unable to resolve their differences by themselves.

It can be done, but, we, the ordinary citizens of the world, we must be concerned enough to put pressure upon our leaders to get some movement into this direction. We have to be concerned enough to genuinely "will" such changes in direction, and, it will take an enormous effort, as well as a lot of patient study and reflection, to get this far, because we are always so quick to see the faults in the behaviour of our adversaries, while we are so slow to acknowledge, and correct, the same short-comings in our own behaviour-patterns.

There is a strong temptation to use the technique of self-deception to postpone acknowledging a bleak reality, or a burdensome responsibility, but, we will have to learn to recognise these tendencies, and, we have to learn to control them, before we can begin to exert, collectively, the articulated will and opinion, which will force our leaders to work, genuinely, towards a situation of global justice; with justice between societies, as well as between individual human beings. The tools of deceptive manipulations are so tempting, and so irresistible, to leaders, as well as anyone in a position of power and privilege, but, unless we all recognise, how dangerous, unfair and debilitating such manipulations are, we will not have sufficient insight, nor, will we have a strong enough collective will to bring-about the changes we need to secure our collective survival.

The time has passed that we could dismiss divergent or clashing reality perceptions as an inevitable consequence of human nature. Now, we have to learn to cope with diverging opinions, and, above all, we have to learn to unmask the mechanisms of "rationalisation", which justify a slide into belligerent behaviour. We have to learn to debate and argue, honestly and openly, without using our intelligence as a weapon, or as a tool of propaganda, because, only then, can we use it as a tool that can be trusted by everyone.

.......

Summary

1. What will it be like, when we have deliberately and collectively decided not to deceive each other, anymore?
   The lure of a carefully balanced discussion.
   Now, we have to demonstrate and yell in order to get our views across.
   We are inundated by inuendos, sub-liminal stimuli and half-truths.
   The channels of communication are invariably dominated by the ruling segments in society.
   When dissent is branded as a scandalous and subversive activity.
   The ruling elite in the "free world" is represented by the economic might of the enterprising classes.
   Making the people into obedient consumers.
   We have to control the many opportunities for manipulation and deception.
   A vulnerable attitude of hope and prayer.
   Quackery; the unscrupulous exploitation of hopeful expectations.
   The factor of psychological dependence.
   The willingness, and need, to believe and trust.
   What we are going discuss.
   We all are inclined to be a little bit deceptive, at times.
   Politeness; putting-up an effable and acceptable "front".
   The short-comings of dogmatic attitudes and practices.
   Understanding the mechanisms of quackery and credulity is helpful to find the most appropriate behavioural response in a sea of conflicting sense-impressions.
   It is remarkable, how willingly man reaches for the tools of warfare.
   What I write about.
   My "credo".
   
   
   
2. Deception in nature; the mechanisms of "camouflage".
   A number of physiological deceptions.
   The "mirage", or "fata morgana"; a physiological rather than a psychological deception.
   UFO's.
   The relative judgement of hot or cold.
   The judgement of being in "Heaven" or "Hell".
   We are continuously influencing each other's reality perceptions.
   Evaluating "a story".
   We are continuously up-dating the mental images we have of our environment.
   The disadvantages of being too rigid, or too imprecise.
   The sharpness of a structure of beliefs.
   The emergence of symbolically representable awarenesses.
   The need for a system to classify representative symbols.
   The burden of having to learn arbitrary symbolic representations.
   Common denominators and abstractions.
   Eventually, language became a sophisticated instrument of communication.
   The "secondary transfer" of knowledge or information.
   Describing an unknown entity in terms of known qualities.
   The purpose of "schooling" or education.
   Laying a foundation for the ability to absorb the cultural legacy of a social environment.
   Mechanisms of learning.
   The inter-play between genetic disposition and accidental circumstances.
   There is some sort of "rough justice" in the way nature spreads its favours and burdens.
   A wise and compassionate society will make sure, that nearly everyone gets a chance to fulfill a meaningful role in society.
   A natural tendency to form an ordened system of awarenesses.
   The inclination to "extra-polate".
   Postulates and anthropomorphic interpretations of reality perceptions.
   Physics and "meta-physics".
   
   
   
3. The emergence of religious reality perceptions.
   The contraction of a polytheistic complex of contradictory force-fields into the concept of a single, inscrutable God.
   A remarkable and audacious scientific conclusion.
   Man, a creature of evolution with a unique conceptualising mind, is quite alone; at least, in our sphere of reality experiences.
   None of our images are "absolutely true".
   A common bond of uncertainty is shared by all absolute truths.
   A scaffold for prudent behaviour.
   A long struggle, before Christianity became an exclusive source for the meta-physical belief-structures of Medieval Europe.
   A confusing spectrum of "absolutely valid" religious beliefs.
   Nothing is as variable as our opinions about meta-physical realities.
   Comparative studies reveal many similarities between religious beliefs.
   Modern man is too busy dealing with a complex and changeable world to give much thought to the meta-physical aspects of his beliefs.
   Being vulnerable to a loss of direction and a sense of confusion in moral outlook.
   What is affluent, modern man looking for?
   A shaky foundation for ethical concepts and moral guidelines.
   The concepts of a "natural ethic".
   Pragmatic rules of a sensible family-unit.
   An intuitive appreciation for socially constructive attitudes.
   Yet, problems arise, and are not easily solved.
   Trusting attitudes are not always reciprocated.
   When our sense of justice has been wounded.
   The pragmatic insight, that we have to respond with a flexible mix of egocentric concerns and a willingness to give others a chance as well.
   The natural mechanisms of a hierarchical order.
   Psychopathic behaviour flourishes in a weak, vacillating and indifferent social environment.
   Religious beliefs are still the most important regulator of moral behaviour-patterns.
   The problems of clashing religious beliefs and practices whenever a social environment becomes large and multi-cultural in outlook.
   An urgent need for common-sense, moral principles of behaviour.
   An odd mixture of beliefs and attitudes.
   When cultural and ethnic roots are mixed with foreign influences.
   Finding guidance in long-term goals with a socially constructive orientation.
   The hybrid, ambivalent belief structureis a curiously unfinished and incoherent structure of beliefs.
   It is not surprising that few professionals are willing to talk about their beliefs.
   My sympathies lie with those, who are confused.
   An intuitive appreciation for the fallacies of fanatic and dogmatic view-points.
   Waiting patiently for affluent public opinion to mature.
   
   
   
4. Beliefs and behaviour-patterns.
   Why sense-impressions are "handled" in essentially the same manner by the central nervous system.
   The contents of what is familiar, is specific for each behaviourally flexible animal.
   The cultural pool of beliefs, notions and attitudes for the members of mankind.
   An overall, conscious belief structure acts as a "program" for the cerebral computer.
   Beliefs do not play a role in every behavioural response.
   The attitudes of atonement and practices of sacrifice.
   Structures of belief must have provided an existential advantage before they could become "entrenched".
   The relevance of a belief structure may disappear before its practice ceases.
   A reality perception, or belief structure, based on a common biological heritage, should have the potential to be persuasive across many cultural environments.
   An unfortunate complexity and fragmentation of the relevant scientific imagery.
   The sciences are, often, perceived as servants of industry and the military.
   The difficulties of deciding what is true or sensible.
   The vague and often arbitrary boundaries between legal and illegal means of "making money".
   We are always enticed to adopt a life-style that costs a lot of money.
   The logical stratification of a large and complex society.
   The burdens of the affluent, working consumer.
   A sagging morale, and a sagging currency.
   Once the trap has been sprung, insight becomes irrelevant or a hindrance.
   A gigantic web of deception and enslavement.
   Whom can we trust?
   When deception becomes so common, that it is considered to be "normal", we lose an opportunity to understand, what is happening to ourselves and our social environments.
   
   
   
5. Do we resist deception as much as possible?
   A willingness to "play ball" provides many lucrative opportunities to make money.
   Can we still admit, that we have been captured and enslaved?
   We have to leave the mechanisms of psychological adaptation intact.
   Truth, and the terminally ill patient.
   Reacting from day to day, and, hoping for the best.
   The deliberate distortion of reality is often used as an adaptation to chronic stress.
   Justifications and rationalisations.
   Strength, resilience and combativeness.
   A shift from rational analysis to hopeful endurance.
   The wisdom of avoiding an exposure to severe stress.
   The criteria for defining an attitude of deceptiveness.
   Honest mistakes, or behaviour-patterns based on erroneous assumptions, are no deceptions.
   When we try to make someone "see" reality "our way".
   Different objectives for influencing a reality perception in a specific manner.
   A leadership, whipping-up nationalist feelings and belligerent sentiments.
   An act of "good faith".
   Intuitive decisions have to made when presenting "the news".
   We have to develop generally agreed-upon criteria for the gathering and presentation of information.
   The essence of "propaganda"; it represents an intolerable attempt at manipulating beliefs and attitudes.
   Good-will and trust maintain the social contract of essential equality and social justice, and, these attitudes depend on a freedom from deceptive manipulations.
   
   
   
6. An over-crowded space-craft with scarce resources and fragile life-support systems.
   Looking across the globe and watch other people live.
   An obsessive concern with the causes of injustice and warfare.
   Looking, once more, at the mechanisms of social polarisation.
   A choice, that keeps haunting us at every level of existence.
   A "water-shed" of behavioural choices.
   The mechanisms of secondary social integration.
   It is far more difficult to negotiate and compromise, than to posture belligerently and fight.
   A threat is a commitment to violence.
   Limiting the room for negotiation and compromise.
   The need for a mediator to cool emotions and judge a dispute accurately.
   Who is going to mediate between super-powers?
   Super-powers are a menace to us all.
   Waiting for the natural decay of a large power-structure.
   Not everyone is convinced that a nuclear conflict will be suicidal.
   We, ordinary people, know, that a war solves little and destroys nearly everything.
   We will die, when exposed to a deadly atmosphere.
   
   
   
7. Short-lived memories of the tragedy of warfare.
   Surviving by collective insight, or perishing, together, by collective neglect.
   We deceive ourselves, because we are unable to cope with the thought of an ultimate calamity.
   A fervent plea for the development of collective insights.
   Let us visualise, as accurately as we can, what the consequences will be, if a nuclear holocaust has been unleashed.
   A number of questions.
   Who would be responsible?
   The tool of intelligently analysing our realities has become an indispensible part of our arsenal to survive.
   A quick and fatal case of "nuclear belligerence", or, a prolonged and harmonious symbiosis on a global scale.
   The nearly irrepressible tendency to relieve frustrations by acts of violence.
   The tools of social justice.
   None of our conflict-situations are "insolvable".
   We can create efficient mechanisms for administering social justice on a global scale.
   The strong temptation to delude ourselves, in order to postpone the acknowledgement of a bleak reality.
   Learning to discuss, honestly and openly, without using our intelligence as a weapon, or as a tool for propaganda.

.......