THE PROBLEM OF DISSENT








A Study in Thought

sa096



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

A sad commentary on the outlook on life
How can it be punishment to be alive and well, and a thinking human being?
When we prefer a state of "near-nothingness".
An adaptation to chronic stress.
Exorcising normal human drives in order to resign ourselves to an immutable status-quo.
An alien philosophy, especially, when we are able to indulge our whims and satisfy desires at the drop of a hat.
The road between a rigid straight-jacket of unhealthy emotional controls, and a life-stye of senseless indulgence.
The controls that are needed for a life of health and vitality.
The need to agree about our reality experiences, and, the need to agree about a code of generally acceptable conduct.
Cultural cross-fertilisation.
Generalising reality perceptions and principles of conduct.
Reality perceptions with a potential to spread far beyond existing political boundaries.
The spread of Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe.
The relative judgement that a certain situation represents a "sad commentary".
We are not going to get high marks from future generations for the profoundness of our wisdoms, nor for the quality of our insights.
Perhaps, a "Blissful Nothingness" will become the destination, as well as a justified objective of human existence, after the nuclear holocaust.
Let us have a close look at clashing reality perceptions.
How to prevent dissent from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.

It is a sad commentary upon the social conditions people have to live under, if they have to believe, as they do in many parts of the world, that it is "punishment" for wrong-doings in the past to have been born a member of mankind. Yet, in many heavily populated areas of Asia, the belief that re-incarnation is some sort of a punishment, is widely held. How is it possible, we may ask in astonishment, from a position of health and vitality, that people can really believe that it is punishment to be alive and to be living and thinking as a human being? What a sad situation must it be, if the prevailing circumstances are so depressing, and, so full of a dull sense of pain and frustration, that a state of near-nothingness is preferred over the attributes of life?

What a sad adaptation to chronic stress is the belief, that life is punishment and non-existence is the reward for good behaviour! This attitude of passive resignation to the ills of society and the miseries of existence are continued in the belief structures of the Buddhist Reformation of Hinduism. Can we describe the efforts to control all normal human longings and desires, aspirations and dreams, as anything else than a desperate effort to cope with an apparently immutable form of oppression? What a way to solve the problems of frustration and conflict; by controling and exorcising normal human drives to such an extent, that people become passive, will-less and emotion-less automata.

At least, it seems to me, as a cursory student of the Hindu and Buddhist beliefs and life-style, that these beliefs, as well as the efforts to control normal psychological mechanisms, are a truly extra-ordinary way to cope with the immutable conditions of a rigid social structure. Perhaps, it may have, indeed, contributed to a measure of social stability, whenever people could accept their fate in life on the basis of a feeling of guilt for wrong-doings in a past existence, or, if people could avoid all strife and confrontation by cutting-out, ruthlessly, from their personalities and their bodily existence, those behaviour-patterns, attitudes, drives and manifestations, which are, in our modern interpretation of human existence, a commonly shared biological heritage, as well as an expression of shared existential needs.

These religious ideas are nothing less than an attempt to castrate or mutilate the human personality, and we find this abhorrent, in particular, at a time, when so many of us, living in an affluent social environment, are able to indulge and satisfy our whims and desires at the drop of a hat. While the rigid straight-jacket of excessive emotional and behavioural control must lead to an impoverishment of human existence, so is the undisciplined behaviour of senseless indulgence also a severe handicap to obtain a measure of insight and wisdom, which has become such an important commodity to ensure a measure of long-term, collective viability.

Where, then, does self-discipline slide, on the one hand, into a form of control that is too rigid and too restrictive, and, when is self-discipline so relaxed and haphazard, that it is in danger of disappearing all-together? Indeed, what sort of controls are necessary to live a life of health and vitality, without the danger of being too rigid and lose the ability to adapt, and, without the danger of becoming so spine-less and self-indulgent, that, we, individually or collectively, are in danger of falling-apart from lack of cohesion?

Obviously, such a question is difficult to answer, because it requires, first of all, that we agree, to some extent, about the nature of human existence. We know, that we still disagree, to a remarkable extent, on the nature of individual and collective existence. There are a large variety of primarily religious interpretations of our existence. These view-points include moral or ethical codes of behaviour, and, these behavioural codes, as well as their intellectual foundation and the perception of commonly shared realities, rarely agree with each other. It seems very difficult for people, or groups of people, to live together in close contact with each other, whenever there are fundamental differences of opinion about the perception of reality or the code of conduct.

People's views about political and social realities are closely related to their religious beliefs, because the moral guidelines, the judgements of right and wrong, as well as the accepted lines of authority, depend upon the way people interpret the nature of their existence.

When people became grouped-together under the regime of a large and powerful political unit, they were forced into a much closer contact with each other, without the ability, or the freedom, to settle conflicts or differences by the sword, or, by moving away from each other, and, as we have described before, these forced religious and cultural contacts often led to a remarkable spurt of cultural and intellectual developments. People began to reconcile their different ways of believing and living, and, these close contacts were a spur to formulate more generalised principles of conduct. An attempt was made to give a measure of equality and dignity to all groupings and beliefs, and, specific religious reality perceptions with their specific codes of moral behaviour, became subjugated to a more generalised code of conduct, together with a more encompassing perception of reality.

We can summarise the trend towards more generalised rules of conduct and reality perceptions as an effort to create principles of conduct and interpretation that were more widely applicable. Then, the precise definition of a specific religious reality was left to individual discretion. The various ethnic and religious features of a number of social environments were synthesised into a more encompassing belief, while specifics that did not fit-in, were suppressed. The road of slowly synthesising a more generalised point of view, or code of conduct, was not always followed, however. Frequently, the overall political leadership, or the dominating ethnic segment of society, would stamp its particular reality perception upon the society as a whole, but, as a rule, the force-ful imposition of ideas and beliefs had unsatisfactory and short-lasting results.

Occasionally, a religious reality perception became so attractive and over-powering, that it spread far beyond the boundaries of a particular political entity. The spread of Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe is a good example, but, it is probably fair to say, that, all the major religious beliefs that are still being practiced today, found a measure of emotional and intellectual appeal that transcended a particular political unit. Certainly, the spread of a particular religious belief, or, the lack of its spread, was often dictated by political events. For example, the spread of Islam into Europe was halted completely, when the Moslim invaders were defeated, but, in Asia and parts of Africa, the Islam spread rapidly, and, not only, because it was brought by the sword. Long after the political powers of Early Islam had decayed, the Islamic Faith persisted in many areas, providing, thereby, a living proof of the viability of its simple and direct creed.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that collective and individual conditions of existence, as well as the traditional forms of insight and knowledge, can change so dramatically, that an apparently viable solution to the problems of perceiving reality for many hundreds of millions of people, can be interpreted as a sad and deplorable adaptation by an outside observer. Yet, the realities of this outside observer, or, the perceptions, attitudes, beliefs and solutions to existential problems represented by the outside observer, may again be interpreted as a "sad commentary" by observers of future generations; perhaps, after the emergence of a different type of civilisation. Or, do you believe that future generations will applaud our life-style and reality perceptions, if there will be future generations to mourn our follies? Do you think, that our behaviour-patterns, beliefs and attempts to cope with contemporary problems will not evoke a biting comment from future observers? It may well be that our behaviour, today, will be judged as a sad commentary upon our life-style and reality perceptions.

Do you really believe that future generations will not consider it a "sad commentary", that we thought it necessary to surround ourselves with suicidal nuclear and chemical weapons? Or, that we thought it necessary to live a life of luxurious affluence and waste-ful consumerism, while a large segment of mankind still lived in impoverished conditions? Do you think, that it is a sign of wisdom and insight, that a mad arms-race is going-on, while millions of people are literally starving and are callously neglected by their own governments? Do you think, that future generations will consider our era one of wisdom and insight, if they look at the reckless consumption, resource extraction, pollution and other unnecessary problems we created for ourselves and future generations? Do you think, that they will give us high marks for furthering the causes of social justice, the essential equality of man, or the dignity of individual existence?

Just as we understand, and know, now, better, the psychological mechanisms that led to the various belief structures that became popular and accepted amongst the peoples of the world, so will future generations, probably, understand our behaviour and our actions, better, than we do today, but, let us not delude ourselves in believing, that they are going to give us high marks for wisdom and insight. In many ways, the trends and happenings of today are just as sad a commentary on our lack of insight and our enslavement to primitive passions and emotional mechanisms, as the belief, that it is a punishment to have been born a human being.

If we continue our present trends, and, if we indeed pollute the earth and the air disastrously with our nuclear and chemical follies, the miserable remnants of human life that will be desperately struggling to survive on a lethally contaminated planet, may, indeed, have good reasons to believe, that it is punishment to have been born a human being. Then, they may be quite right to believe, that a "Blissful Nothingness" is the ultimate goal and destination of all human life, and, the last few survivors may well utter a sigh of well-deserved relief, when they die and take the human genetic code with them into their grave. A futile struggle to survive will, then, have ended, and, the prospect for intelligent life to evolve, again, on our planet, will be very remote, indeed.

Perhaps, within a few hundred years after such a holocaust, even, the hardiest forms of life will have succumbed to the lethal levels of man-made toxic and radio-active pollutants, and, the earth will, then, be one giant, lifeless scene of devastation, where the wind and the tides, the floods and the volcanic eruptions do not stir any form of life anymore.

Perhaps, a few microbial or other uni-cellular forms of life will cling, tenaciously, to a precarious existence, here and there, and, perhaps, they may spread, again, over most of the earth, if they have been able to wait-out the long period of decline in toxic and high levels of radio-active contamination. Yet, mankind will have disappeared, and, probably, most of the larger multi-cellular life-forms will have been destroyed as well. The high levels of radio-active and chemical hazards will make it impossible for complex genetic codes to remain undisturbed and to be transmitted intact from one generation to the next, and, we know, now, this has to be possible, before natural selection can do its work and explore possibilities of existence.

Let us, therefore, not assume, lightly, that natural evolution will, eventually, create, again, a varied spectrum of highly evolved life-forms after man has unleashed the ultimate nuclear catastrophe. It is far more likely, that the experiment with the living organisation will come to a premature and abrupt halt, and, the only possibility for the earth to contain intelligent life again, is through colonisation from another planet.

Our main objective, here, is not to sketch the ultimate catastrophe, but, to analyse and study the wide variety of reality perceptions that keep us so far apart. The clash of different reality perceptions seems to be the main reason, why we are so powerless to change a dangerous course of contemporary, collective behaviour, and, in this essay, we like to review, briefly, the mechanisms of perceiving reality, as well as the various disagreements we are likely develop.

Yet, because of our species-wide faculty of language communication, we should be able to discuss our disagreements with each other in a calm and rational manner. It seems important to come to grips with the fact, that, sometimes, we are able to discuss points of disagreement in a reasonably harmonious manner, to the advantage of us all, while, on other occasions, we are unable to prevent dissent or disagreement from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Dissent and disagreement are everywhere.
There is so much to clean-up and organise.
A deep chill in super-power relations.
The struggle for dominance.
The ideological conflict.
What we consider to be true or false, determines, what we find right or wrong, and, whom we believe or mistrust.
The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our beliefs.
A stark contrast between the worlds of the righteous and the sinners.
We all construct a sphere of reality perceptions around our own existence.
The reality perception arises through a "dialogue" between the members of a small, tightly-knit social unit, prior to a sense of "individual differentiation".
When the political unit began to include a number of different communities and reality perceptions.
Communicating, constructively and meaningfully, between culturally different groupings is not an easy task.
Mechanisms of "emotional synchrony", or the harmonisation of moods.
An aggressive mood of revenge and violence spreads easily throughout a mob.
Cultural and genetic factors in sexual behaviour.
The "orientation" of an outlook or attitude.
Establishing or re-enforcing a hierarchical position.
Verbal and sub-verbal communications.
Verbal tools are rarely sufficient to change the direction of an attitude or outlook.
Gullible people are easily taken-in by showmanship and "smooth talk".
An attitude of trust is quickly eroded by false rumors.
The risk of giving one's trust in a deliberate act of good-will.

If I look around, I see dissent and disagreement everywhere. There is a sea of disagreement between nearly everyone, topped by this vicious propaganda-war between the super-powers. It is discouraging and infuriating to watch the bickering and arguing, the mutual attacks, the falsehoods and half-truths that are being thrown at each other, while there is so much to do. There is so much to clean-up and to organise, before the world is a better and a more just place to live in. However, if we can not agree amongst each other about, even, the most basic goals and priorities, how can we ever hope to accomplish anything?

I believe, that we are in a period of global decline, in the sense, that the level of international contact and cooperation is actually declining. We are not contributing anything, these days, and the contacts that are still taking place, are a left-over from the past, when the world was less polarised between East and West.

Perhaps, it is true, that the economic and cultural activities between countries of the same block are rising again, at least, to some extent, because economic activities seem to be increasing, once again, after we have gone through a world-wide depression. However, the deep chill in the relationships between the United States and the Soviet Union, has paralysed many avenues of contacts between East and West. Can we attribute the increased tensions between East and West as a result of widely diverging view-points or reality perceptions, or, is it justifiable to classify the entire contest between the super-powers and their allies as a struggle for dominance?

Probably, the struggle for dominance is, indeed, the major underlying motivation, especially, for those in a position of leadership, but, the battle of words is designed, primarily, to align their followers and persuade those, who do not belong firmly in one camp or the other. The mechanisms of the tug-of-war for the hearts and minds of people, are essentially the same, regardless, whether we see these processes on a global scale in the battle between the super-powers, or, in a contest between local politicians, fighting for support from the voters.

What, then, are the factors that play a role in the struggle between competing view-points, ideologies and leadership candidates? When is a battle, indeed, an all-out battle, and, when is it a more subdued and good-natured contest with the purpose to persuade an audience and clarify ideas? When is a struggle between opposing interpretations a vehicle to get a better and widely acceptable imagery of a particular event or happening? When can a dialogue, indeed, be a manifestation of cooperation, geared towards the socially beneficial goals of clarification and education, and, when has it nothing to do with the gathering of knowledge, or the clarification of a mental image? When is it purely a battle of words, where the object is to smear and discredit the opponent, and, to persuade the listener that honour, decency and truth are represented only by one's own ideological stance?

Perhaps, the most fundamental reason, why dissent, or a difference of opinion, deteriorates, almost always, into a struggle for dominance, is the fact, that a reality perception determines, not only, what we consider to be true or false, but, it also determines, what we see as right and wrong, and, it determines, whom we believe and distrust. The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our beliefs, and, if our beliefs differ, we nearly always differ, also, in our judgement about the authorities.

If we happen to believe, strongly, in a particular religious imagery, we interpret, not only, our own existence, as well as everything around us, in the light of this particular religious belief structure, but, we divide the world into "we"; those, who belong to the congregation of believers and who have been "saved" from eternal damnation, and, "they"; the sinners, who are rejected by God, for one reason or another, and, who will be cast in Hell, doomed forever.

While such a stark distinction between the world of the righteous and the sinners is, perhaps, limited to the fundamentalist religions and their believers, we all have a tendency to divide the world into "we and they". "We" always represent those who are on the side of good and right, and, "they" are a very large mass of people whom we stand apart from, and upon whom we look without much interest or concern, unless "they" become a rival, a competitor, or a threat.

The inevitable result of the fact, that we all construct our sphere of reality around our own existence, means, that the group we belong to, can still be torn-apart by dissent, because our existential concerns may still compete and clash, even, if we belong to the same grouping. However, alone, our combative instincts are muted, because we are quite vulnerable, and, we have a strong, instinctive tendency to belong to a particular group and share the reality perceptions of this group without questioning.

You may recall, that we have discussed, on previous occasions, how the conscious reality perception arises as the result of a "dialogue" of symbolic communications between the members of a small, nomadic grouping, where people live together and share their daily experiences. We have also seen, that, the conscious reality perception emerges as a common structure of beliefs, shared by everyone, and, this communal reality perception is older than any individualised perception of reality, including the reality of one's own specific and, perhaps, unique existence.

It is, therefore, understandable, why we tend to share our most intimate beliefs with the small community we live in, and, why we absorbed the language, customs, ideas and concepts of this community as we grew-up. As part of our cultural heritage, we develop strong but poorly verbalised feelings about foreigners and strangers, who may constitute a threat and are certainly an "unknown" factor. No wonder, we clash with each other, if we realise, how many different beliefs, ethnic origins and customs, prejudices or locally coloured reality perceptions we represent, even, if it seems, that the overall society constitutes a fairly harmonious political unit.

Yet, a reasonable degree of political tranquility does not preclude the existence of dissent, and, as we have seen, political coherence has always a strong element of coercion, as well as persuasion. Even, if most members in a healthy and vigorous society recognise the fact, that this political unit is to their advantage, they can hardly resist the temptation to tear-down this unit, if weak central leadership gives them an opportunity to do so. It is amazing to see, how quickly, a variety of intellectual arguments are found to justify such a process of social destructiveness. Because man has such a strong combative instinct, it is not surprising, that the tools of communication are used, primarily, to test or challenge an opponent or a competitor, and, only on rather specific occasions, is the art of communication used to foster a spirit of harmony and cooperation.

In a sense, these mechanisms are, again, a reflection of the fact, that man grew-up and evolved in the small local grouping he identifies with, and, that the groupings or individuals who come from a different area, are viewed as outsiders and intruders, who can not be trusted; at least, not initially. The tools of a common language may be helpful to bridge the feelings of suspicion, as long as neither party tries to present a deceitful image.

Communications have various methods and levels of expression. The oldest and most primitive forms of communication take place on a pre-verbal level between the members of non-conceptualising species', such as, e.g., the "herd effect" of the grazing mammals, where a danger-signal spreads quickly throughout a herd. Here, one member perceives a danger, and, its instinctive but highly noticeable and specific behaviour-pattern causes an "alert" amongst the others. The herd becomes, thereby, much less vulnerable to a predatorial attack.

This sort of communication is based, in essence, upon a form of "emotional synchrony", where a highly characteristic and stereotyped emotional state is seen by the other members of the herd, who are, then, "swept up" into a similar emotional state. The spreading of an alert or danger-signal is based upon the emotional synchronisation of the defensive pole, but, all three existential poles can be aroused by the process of emotional synchrony.

We see, how the aggressive mood of revenge or violence can spread though a mob, and, how the aggressive confidence of an anonymous mob tends to reverberate and re-enforce itself by a process of "resonance", or emotional synchrony. Because of the protection of the mob, people are swept into behaviour-patterns they would rarely adopt, when alone or in a small group. The presence of many people provides a measure of protection, and, together with the emotional resonance or amplification of being in large numbers, the effect of emotional synchrony brings people, easily, to emotional and behavioural extremes.

Similarly, we see, that an emotional communication of synchrony is also possible around the sexual pole. The elaborate courting rituals of many animal species' are designed to inhibit, and overcome, the strong, antagonistic pressures or competitive behaviour-patterns that are usually present between adult members of the same species. Through a combination of factors, such as the emotional synchrony of stereotyped behaviour-patterns, as well as the physiological synchrony of hormone cycles, the members of the adult population are brought into a "mood", or a state of sexual excitation, which induces them to take upon themselves the burdens of pro-creation.

Even, in the human species, we see evidence for the possibilities of emotional synchronisations of a sexual nature, in spite of the fact, that, most people have lost a "species-specific" behavioural stereotype. This has been replaced, by and large, with cultural stereotypes. Then, the behaviour of sexual arousal and mating becomes much more variable; at least, so far as its social manifestations are concerned. The actual act of copulation is, of course, almost entirely under the control of genetic instructions, and, it is so stereotyped, that it is nearly identical across a very wide range of cultures. Perhaps, it is even justified to say, that all mammals copulate essentially in the same manner.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that the basic layer of communications between human beings is based upon the ability to sense each other's moods, and, often, each other's intentions, from the way we behave. As we all know, a long experience in dealing with the people of our immediate surroundings, makes it possible to sense, quite accurately, not only, in what sort of mood an individual is in, but, also, what he or she is thinking about.

The most important, but ever-fluctuating, parameter of an inter-action between individuals is the "orientation" of an outlook or attitude. By this, I mean, that the atmosphere of a dialogue or encounter is determined by this outlook or attitude, and, we should realise, that we always fluctuate, somewhat, in our attitudes towards each other. This varies from the extremes of loyalty, affection, love or togetherness, through various degrees of "distance taking" or reservation, and, through mild feelings of disappointment and resentment, to outright feelings of hostility, mistrust, jealousy or competitiveness, which may culminate in a fight. The fight may not have to be an outright combat, and, it may represent, merely, a "showing of teeth"; a sign of assertiveness and dominance; an effort to establish or re-enforce a position of hierarchical differentation. Within a small community, the instinct to settle an all-out conflict with force is subdued, and, it has been replaced by the "test-fight", which establishes the hierarchical stratification.

In addition to this basic or sub-verbal layer of communication, there is the specifically human mode of verbal or conceptual communication, but the words that flow between people who are communicating verbally, are nothing more than the "icing on a cake", and, often, just like an icing of opaque material, it tends to hide some of the real feelings, moods, hostilities and antagonisms, which are such an undeniable part of all our inter-actions.

However, in spite of the fact, that our conceptual or verbal communications form only the tip, or the top, of a whole ice-berg or mountain of communications, we see, that these verbal communications can, either, enhance a trend towards antagonistic or hostile relations, or, they can enhance a trend towards cooperation and understanding. In the first instance, our verbal tools become a weapon of combat, and, in the latter, it is a carefully used tool to cement cohesion, togetherness, but, also, to enhance flexibility and viablity.

It is rare, however, that verbal tools are sufficient to change the direction of an emotional thrust; at least, it seems nearly impossible to prevent a slide towards mutual hostilities as a result of verbal skirmishing, as we see, so clearly, in the futile and interminable arms-negotation talks that are going-on between the super-powers. Once there is a firm trend towards increased belligerence, the tool of verbal negotiations becomes nothing more than an excercise in propaganda, where each side tries to score points with its followers, or tries to impress its adversaries. Only gullible people are fooled by such showmanship, and, most of us know, that these efforts are not going to lead to a real solution or a real reduction in tensions between the belligerents.

On the other hand, verbal communications can fairly easily undermine an atmosphere of trust and togetherness, indicating, quite clearly, that the "socialised mode" of our moods and emotions, is far more fragile compared to the hostile or competitive mode. On previous occasions, we have outlined, in more detail, how the capability of verbal communication has led to the possibilities of deceit and treachery, because verbal communications are a powerful way of influencing each other's beliefs and opinions, and, it did not take man very long to discover, that he could slant his communications in such a way, that the "audience", or the listener, was brought into a favourable mood. Then, the audience or followers would adopt an attitude, or opinion, that suited the existential or manipulative purposes of the author or communicator.

This means, however, that verbal communications introduce a new dimension in the relationships between people and the ability to manipulate and deceive, to influence and cajole, to persuade or threaten. Verbal communications lead, often, to situations where people feel threatened and abused, giving rise to anger and resentment, frustration or disappointment. Certainly, verbal tools can be used to appease flared tempers; to apologise for wrong-doings or treacherous acts. It can be used to atone and show humility; it can be used to be honest and truthful, and, it may be possible to turn a soured relationship around and re-establish an atmosphere of trust and cooperation. However, such attitudes are risky, because they may be abused. It leaves the "apologizer" wide open to an opportunistic attack, and, it does not take much before an opportunity of vulnerability is used or abused in an unscrupulous manner.

Again and again, we come to the conclusion, that the atmosphere of trust, good-will and cooperation is so much more fragile than the attitudes of suspicion, hostility and deceit, and yet, as we have argued before, our viability on a large, global scale, may well depend on our collective efforts to create such a world-wide atmosphere of trust and cooperation. Let us hope, that the awareness for the need to behave in such a "symbiotic" way, arises fast enough to keep abreast of the need to do so. If the need for such a sophisticated behaviour-pattern outstrips our ability to recognise and design a collective pattern of trustful behaviour, we will have lost the ability to adapt quickly enough to survive.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

A difficult dilemma.
Has man already outstripped his ability to adapt to long-term existential needs?
The essence of a "cultural transmission".
The rising importance of the "collective will".
The collective will can be seen to work effectively in small and coherent social groupings.
The qualities of competence and openness.
Disagreement and dissent are muted by the insight that social cohesion takes priority.
An endless stream of practical problems and challenges to the chores of survival.
The focus of a debate or an inquiry.
Spontaneous, natural leadership.
The direction we have to move into.
We still try to solve large-scale problems in an essentially primitive and competitive manner.
Laying the foundation for a shared perception of the realities of human existence.
Agreement about the channels of authority and legitimacy.
When we can only agree about the need to go to war.
A search for common grounds that are already in existence.
Our biological heritage.
Shared existential needs, and the mechanisms of territoriality and competitive strife.
The poor and the powerless are locked-up in the most barren areas of the globe.
Cultivating an agreement about democratic ideals.
Human rights, and the social ideal of essential equality.
Many people pay only lip-service to these commonly shared ideals.
A pre-occupation with super-power rivalry.
An obsession with national self-interests.

"Are we not in a terrible dilemma?", you may ask; "We see, that our instinctive behaviour-patterns of suspicion and hostility are far stronger than our ability to cooperate and trust each other, at least, on a large scale. We have also seen, that the tools of verbal communication lead, far more easily, to an atmosphere of suspicion and hostility than to a mood of trust and good-will. Yet, our technological developments, in particular, those of industry and weaponry, have made cooperation on a truly gigantic scale, essential for long-term survival. It seems, then, that man has already outstripped his ability to adapt to contemporary existential needs, and, this means, then, inevitably, a road towards extinction, is it not?".

Indeed it does. If man does not adapt, appropriately and quickly, to the possibilities of destruction and pollution on a global scale, which have become an undeniable, and, perhaps, unalterable factor of human existence, man will, eventually, create such a high level of destruction and pollution in his efforts to settle a conflict, that, unwittingly, man will have destroyed the ecological niche upon which his continued existence depends. We have argued, before, that an essential part of this ecological niche is the "cultural know-how" to survive under difficult and adverse conditions, and, the loss of viability that will come with an all-out conflict with nuclear or chemical weapons, is partly due to the destruction and contamination of our ecological niche, and, partly, to the loss of the technical ability to compensate for the environmental dangers we will then be faced with.

Therefore, it does not take much to push mankind, irrevocably, upon the road towards extinction, but, then, man has faced important crises before, and, the species of mankind has been able to adapt in surprising and highly innovative ways in the past. We should certainly not come to the conclusion, that there is nothing we can do, and, that it is impossible to stop the drift towards an all-out nuclear confrontation. Let us see what can be done; what possibilities there are, even, if it appears highly unlikely, at the present time, that such a beneficial momentum towards a greater degree of collective viability can be set into motion.

If we look at a small community, we see a number of factors or mechanisms at work that enhance the cohesion of such a group. Perhaps, the most important factor is the extent to which the existential needs of the members are tied-together. In extreme cases, the indvidual members could not survive without the group as a whole, or an effective social organisation of some sort, because the fulfilment of the basic existential requirements goes far beyond the capabilities of each individual member, existing in isolation from the social group he belongs to.

Perhaps, the most obvious example, here, is the small crew during a space-flight, where, even, the most basic existential needs require careful and sophisticated management that is dependent upon the unit as a whole, in addition to the much larger, socially integrated effort and accomplishment of launching a space-voyage in the first place. But, even, on earth, many small groupings live under tough environmental conditions, like the crew of an observation station in the Arctic or Antarctic, and this makes the continuation of social cohesion a necessity for the survival of each member.

In addition to the degree to which the existential requirements have become linked-together, we see other factors that contribute, or detract, from the level of social harmony. Very important are the quality, competence and openness of leadership, where each member can experience a sensation of belonging and of fair treatment. Then, there are such factors as the sharing of a language, a culture, a religious belief, etc. Within such a community, we see, that, debate, disagreement, or, even, dissent, are still possible and tolerated, and, sometimes, even, encouraged, because debate and discussions may, then, function as a collective search to solve problems or cope better with them.

Every society or community that lives under relatively harsh climatic and environmental conditions, will be facing an endless stream of practical problems and challenges, threatening to jeopardise the security and survival of the group and its members, and, there is, therefore, a shared need to cope with these problems efficiently. Since circumstances always change, there is a continuous process of adaptation at work, which requires conscious thought and debate, logical analysis, as well as clear, synthetic thinking. Sometimes, a series of tests, probes, experiments or trials are needed, before the most successful and satisfying response can be formulated.

In such circumstances, we see debate and discussion, investigation and common-sense at their best. The commonly shared existential concerns and requirements will keep the debate, experimentation and focus of attention concentrated upon what is important. Priorities are not likely to be confused under these circumstances. There is a large core of general agreement, and, the discussion deals, primarily, with the evaluation or judgement of a particular phenomenon, or the response to a particular problem. We assume, here, that the quality of leadership is excellent, and, that a great majority of the members experience a situation of justice.

We have argued, before, why it is possible for such a beneficial leadership to emerge in a small community, without any significant awareness of the psychological mechanisms at work, and, without a large and complex bureaucracy. The principles of fairness, openness, and equality are such basic and inborn attitudes, (a heritage of our long evolutionary development in the small, nomadic grouping), that a talented and gifted leader can emerge and guide the small community "by the seat of his pants", so to speak. A natural leader is able to lead with a measure of intuitive wisdom that is based on a far-sighted and common-sense interpretation of a largely unwritten and unarticulated code of behaviour, reflecting the prevailing moral attitudes and religious beliefs of the small community.

If we compare this situation with an intellectual excercise to design a way of life that will transform the whole of mankind into a viable social entity, we see, clearly, into what direction we have to move. We see, equally clearly, how far removed we still are from the ideals of a small, efficient and beneficial social unit, and, it is somewhat depressing to engage in such a theoretical excercise. Yet, whether we want it or not, the momentum of technological and social developments makes us, the living members of the species of mankind, increasingly inter-dependent, and, at the same time, we are beginning to resemble the small-scale social unit that is trying to survive under relatively harsh environmental conditions.

Certainly, the absence of any awareness or recognition of the fact, that we are becoming rapidly more dependent upon each other, makes a solution of the associated problems not any easier, and, we should, therefore, concentrate, here, on the aspects of recognition. There is no sense in talking about what we should do to avoid a certain danger, if we can not agree amongst ourselves, that such a danger is present.

When we look at the mechanisms of social integration on the scale of a large national unit, or the projected unity of the federation of mankind, it is clear, that we do not agree, as yet, about, even, the most elementary outlines of the existing realities. We do not speak the same conceptual language, (aside from technical linguistic differences), and, we interpret realities from widely divergent cultural and ethnic view-points. In spite of the fact, that we are increasingly facing the same environmental dangers, we still tend to solve problems from our particular local point of view. We still try to solve our large-scale problems in a primitive, essentially competitive manner. We try to occupy the best territories and defend them with military might and an attitude of unquestioned righteousness.

Therefore, inter-national and inter-cultural contacts are still coloured, primarily, by the emotions of competitive strife, and, the lack of a shared, if basic, reality perception, is one of the reasons, why the processes of a judicial settlement are still so ineffective in solving tensions on a large, international scale. Before we can hope to promote, more effectively, a united and well-articulated body of world opinion, we have to lay the foundation for a shared perception of the realities of existence, and, we can only do this, if we are able to find a true common denominator in our existence, transcending local cultural attitudes or religious beliefs. We still do not agree amongst ourselves about the channels of authority and legitimacy, and, therefore, what one group considers evidence for a divinely ordained social order, is considered to be unjust, archaic or abominable by those, who do not share in the basic perceptions of a religious reality.

If we can not agree about our beliefs and reality perceptions, nor, about our moral outlook, or the lines of authority and legitimacy; if we can not agree about anything, except, perhaps, the need to go to war, where, then, do we begin to create this basic framework for a scaffold of common-sense agreement and understanding? Let us examine this question, in detail, and, let us see, whether or not the outlook is, indeed, as bleak as it seems. Is there, indeed, no common ground at all, or, is there the beginning of an agreement upon which we can build and expand? I believe, that we have a larger common ground than most of us realise, but it is obscured by the intense ideological struggle between East and West.

If we look, closely, at the needs of our existence, we see, that we can agree about a fairly large range of principles that enhance social harmony, regardless of religious or ideological beliefs. After all, we share this essential "biological heritage", because, looking at the gene-pool of mankind as a whole, we know, that all human beings can still inter-breed, and, we form therefore, one spectrum of the human gene-pool, in spite of racial differences and widely different, or, even, incompatible belief-structures. But, the concept of a shared biological heritage may be somewhat nebulous, and, let us, therefore, translate this concept into a number of observations about shared aspirations and existential needs.

We know, now, that we all share the need to sustain ourselves, and, that we have to fulfill a number of primary existential needs. We need food and shelter, and, we have to have the ability to live in a small, harmonious community, and, we have to have the opportunity to develop, at least, some of the talents nature has endowed us with. The need for a certain territory and resources lies at the heart of the fierce competitive strife between human groupings, and, we see, clearly, that the weakest and poorest groupings are inhabiting the most barren territories. The strongly defensive attitudes of communities are also responsible for the fact, that it is not possible, anymore, for a grouping to pick-up and leave their territories, if climatological changes has made their territory much less fertile.

Let us recognise, that we all need a place to live, and, that we need a sufficient territory and availability of natural resources, in order to secure a minimum level of healthy existence. Indeed, the impediment to reaching a level of healthy and satisying existence, is not only the result of a lack of territory and suitable resources, because, it is the attitude of competitive strife that keeps the poor and the powerless locked-up into the most barren areas of the globe.

However, even, the emphasis on a number of shared existential needs, may still be too abstract for many people, and, they may want to hear more pragmatic and tangible ideas, how to lay a bridge between rich and poor, East and West, or North and South. Allright, let us look at specific areas of agreement that already exist. We see, that, one of the most widely agreed-upon ideas, is the "democratic concept", where everyone in society should have an equal influence upon the leadership by the principle of "one person, one vote".

Similarly, there is fairly widespread agreement about the principle that everyone should share the available resources more or less equally, the Socialist Ideal, and, that everyone has the right to a minimum standard of living and justice, which are embodied in a somewhat variable concept of "human rights". No responsible people, in East or West, will disagree with the principle that everyone in society should be treated with a measure of dignity and justice, or, should have the right of access to the basic necessities of life; or should have a say upon the way society functions.

No-one argues with these basic principles, and, yet, in spite of the agreement about the principles of social justice and human dignity, the rivalry and suspicions between the two political and military power-blocks is so great, that a continuous propaganda-war gives the impression that all evil is embodied by the opposite side. In spite of the wide areas of agreement that already exist, or should exist, the super-powers are so totally engrossed in their propaganda-war and muted acts of belligerence, that they neglect, completely, to do something about the many hundreds of millions of people, who suffer under ruthless dictatorships of one sort or another.

These people have far fewer rights, and far less social justice, than the peoples in either of the super-powers, and, yet, the hostilities are heating-up to such an extent, that the arms-race is escalating all the time, and more and more monies, resources and energies are spent in the preparation for war, while the problems of injustice and disparity, the trampling of human rights and the appalling conditions of existence in many countries, are completely neglected.

This neglect of the social conditions of many peoples all over the world, as well as the obsession with the interests of the super-powers, are the greatest obstacles to the implementation of more widely spread conditions of social justice. If there will be future generations of mankind, they are probably going to consider this insane arms-race between the major nations, together with an indulgence in hostile acts of propaganda and belligerence, as the greatest waste and most blatant act of criminal negligence in our times.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

The fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned argument.
We are faced with an "essential choice".
The faculty of rational evaluation, and the mechanisms of natural selection.
Continuing the search for a scaffold of rational agreements.
A constructive federation of socially integrated entities.
A universal social contract of essential equality.
What constitutes a rational and honest discussion?
The willingness to listen, seriously, to an opposing point of view.
Avoiding the arousal of aggressive or defensive instincts.
Conditions of good-will and trust.
The need for mediation, whenever the conditions for a fruitful discussion are lacking.
A genuine willingness to compromise.
Practical psychological mechanisms lie at the foundation of the possibility to communicate fruitfully.
Do we have the right to question each other's points of view closely?
A careful and honest debater will always avoid exploiting someone's vulnerability.
A good discussion respects the limits of tolerance.
Avoiding the unnecessary break-down of psychological defenses.
When reality is exclusively interpreted in terms of good and evil.
The need for an agreement about human nature, including commonly shared psychological mechanisms.
The sobering effects of a period of warfare and devastation.
The swing between "builders" and "destroyers".
Conscious faculties are a behavioural tool.
Stress, and the slow movement of "tectonic plates".
A series of less destructive, but still painful and humiliating "adjustments".

We know, now, that emotional behaviour-patterns, together with the promptings of instinctive drives, are far more powerful than the fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned argument, regardless, how clearly the insanity of certain emotional or instinctive behaviour-patterns has been demonstrated. Yet, we have to keep trying to bring our collective emotions and instinctive drives under control, because the essential behavioural choice is coming ever more clearly to the fore; we either persist in defending a favourable local status-quo or a privileged position with force against envy and attack, or, we create a bond of security by mutual reliance and inter-dependence, based on a social contract of essential equality. There seems to be no other choice.

The only alternative to the ever-recurring need to reach for weapons, is a global contract of essential equality, but this solution to the ever-escalating pressures of competitve strife is so difficult to obtain, and, even more difficult to maintain, that I have serious doubts about the possibility of ever bringing-about a satisfactory contract of essential equality and social justice on a world-wide scale. Our only hope is, that, a sufficient number of people will recognise, in time, that the difficult but necessary solution of a globally implemented social contract of essential equality, is the only route for continued viability, because the age-old instinctive drive to obtain security by force and the use of armaments, seems to lead, inevitably, to a contract of mutual suicide.

Let us take heart from the fact, that natural selection was able to favour, and bring to the fore, the potentials and capabilities of the rational evaluation. As we have discussed before, this trend is quite old, anteceding the emergence of the human species by many hundreds of millions of years, because this "rational solution" is, after all, the foundation of the emergence of behavioural flexibility. Already a very long time ago in the evolution of life, the mechanisms of natural selection "recognised" the limitations associated with a purely instinctive or genetically encoded set of behavioural instructions. Now, it is our turn, to recognise, in a conscious and verbalisable manner, that, we, collectively, as members of the species of mankind, have to be able to behave, react and respond rationally. We have to behave adequately, as a society, as a community of societies, as well as global species of mankind. If we fail to recognise this need in time, we will be firmly set upon the road towards self-extinction.

Let us continue, therefore, to search for a scaffold of rational agreements, acceptable to peoples all over the world. Such a scaffold may, then, hopefully, function as a point of departure for this international dialogue, which will, eventually, have to culminate into a globally acceptable structure of social rules and regulations, including leaderships and government institutions, which will be able to transform the world from a bickering and suicidal cauldron of hostile and insane belligerence, into a constructive federation of socially integrated environments, where every human being lives under the auspices of a sober, realistic and essentially just "social contract".

We have outlined, before, our ideas about this social contract of essential equality, and here, we will, concentrate on the role of our rational faculties and the fruits of a rational and honest debate, because they are going to be ever more important tools in our efforts to bring-about this swing-away from a suicidal momentum.

What really, is a rational and honest debate or discussion? If we try to define this concept, we see, that we run into a number of qualifications and restrictions, which show us, that it is not easy to create the right conditions for an honest and fruitful debate. Before an honest and open debate can take place, there must be, on both sides of the argument, a willingness to listen and learn from the other's point of view, and, such a willingness or orientation of good-will is only possible, if the defensive or aggressive instincts have not been aroused.

This means, that the prevailing mood of the participants must be one of compromise and reconciliation, and there must be an assurance, that, neither party will take an unfair advantage of this mood of openness and cooperation. Only under such conditons of good-will and trust, is it possible to avoid a resurgence of the sentiments of suspicion and fear, and, only, then, is it possible to talk to each other honestly, with an atmosphere of calm rationality; in an emotionally more or less neutral zone; without the fear for, or the temptation of, a recurrence of exploitation or opportunism.

You may point-out, that, under such ideal conditions, it is hardly necessary to come to an open and honest debate to discuss problems or points of disagreement. Besides, it seems, that, any serious point of disagreement will prevent a mood of openness and trust to establish itself, and, it seems, then, that a debate is only fruitful, if the conditions of good-will have already been established. This is true, and, it is realistic to keep clearly in mind, that an atmosphere of good-will and trust is essential for the flowering of a fruitful discussion.

If it is so difficult to create conditions for a fruitful discussion, we may come to the conlusion, that a debate is only possible amongst friends who agree, in essence, beforehand, about the major issues or the ground-rules that determine the relationships between the discussants. Can a discussion or debate play a constructive role amongst people, or participants, who are suspicious of each other and lack, therefore, an atmosphere of good-will between them? How can we prevent a useless battle of words? How can we create conditions that may favour a more beneficial and open exchange of views?

Here, we see the role of a mediator emerge. Because a mediator may help to create, at least, the beginnings of an atmosphere of trust and good-will, provided, that both parties are, in essence, seriously motivated towards an improvement in their relationships. Only, if both parties have genuinely come to the conclusion, that it is better to talk than to fight, only, then, can a mediator start laying the foundation for an atmosphere of good-will and understanding. If one of the parties in a conflict-situation is still convinced, that it can dictate the terms of surrender to the other, or, if it is still convinced, that it can win or gain in a violent confrontation, then, the road of an honest discussion remains resolutely closed, and, the weaker party can only work frantically to reach a position of parity, where it can "force" the other party to negotiate or talk seriously.

Unwittingly, we have shifted the focus of attention in the question what an honest and rational debate is, to the practical psychological mechanisms that underly the possibility of a fruitful verbal communication, and, in particular, the practical psychological mechanisms that underlie a conflict-situation between powerful rivals or nations.

However, even, if the debate or discussion is taking place between friends, within an atmosphere of essential trust and good-will, we still see the need for a careful management of the debate in order to avoid the emergence of feelings of hostility and suspicion. Especially, if the debate is about feelings, beliefs or politics, we see, that, close questioning about the rationale of a certain attitude, opinion or belief, may cause a certain defensiveness to come to the fore. Most of us are not able to substantiate, clearly and logically, what we believe to be true, and, what the reasons are for our beliefs, attitudes, practices or political and philosophical views. We see, then, clearly, how a close, incisive scrutiny is perceived as a threat, and, it is logical that an intense scrutiny of beliefs and attitudes will cause a defensive reaction.

Does this mean, that we do not have the right to question or examine each other's points of view closely? No, this would be an erroneous conclusion, but, we have to realise, and carefully respect, the intellectual weaknesses that may be associated with a particular opinion or position. Any attempt to expose an intellectual weakness, an uninformed opinion or belief, has to be done carefully, with a full awareness of the painful consequences such an exposure will bring.

A careful and honest debate will, always, scrupulously avoid making use of the weakness of someone's position, and, a careful and honest debater will recognise, when the exposure of a weakness starts to lead to a feeling of embarrassment, and, the debater will then stop exposing this weakness any further, giving the exposed party time to recognise what has happened, as well as time to digest the events. As a result, one's position, attitudes and beliefs become better founded and more mature.

We may include, therefore, in the preconditions for an open and honest discussion, a clear recognition of the existential needs and concerns of the parties involved. While a discussion is often impossible without touching, at least, to some extent, upon each other's weak spots and prejudices, a good discussion respects the limits of tolerance, and, it avoids a further break-down of defenses, whenever a discussion has exposed a weak spot. This willingness to respect each individual's limitations of the ability to acknowledge or discuss certain topics, is an essential element in this continuous effort needed to keep an open and honest debate on an even keel.

These considerations also play a role in efforts to create an atmosphere of trust and good-will by a mediator. It is the essential task of mediation to keep clearly in mind the existential needs and concerns of the parties involved, and, to seek, diligently, for a basis of agreement or understanding upon which the beginnings of a dialogue between belligerents can be founded.

However, you may object to this line of reasoning, because it assumes a way of seeing reality, which may not be present. All too often, even, a rudimentary acknowledgement of shared or common existential interests is absent, and, if belligerents can not recognise the common roots of existential requirements and competitve strife in each other's behaviour-patterns, then, the basis for a possible agreement, or the foundation for a fruitful dialogue, becomes very narrow, indeed.

If reality is interpreted, exclusively, in terms of good and evil, it is unavoidable, for either side, to identify with the side of Good, or God, and to see the other side as the personification of Evil. Then, no dialogue or compromise is possible; only all-out strife, which is seen as the ultimate struggle between God and Satan. Then, violence and conflagration will have to follow their inexorable course, and, if mankind as a whole would ever be fragmented into such utterly irreconcilable camps, we have to fear for the viability of mankind.

However, it is possible, but, perhaps, not likely, that such an all-out violent confrontation between the factions of mankind can be avoided. This can be done, if dialogue and discussion are able to spread the concepts of a shared biological heritage and behaviour-patterns, before such an ultimate polarisation has taken place. It is, therefore, of the utmost practical importance to spread, as quickly and as widely as possible, an imagery of man that lets us see ourselves and our adversaries, as people; as human beings with very similar behaviour-patterns and ambitions; as people, who are locked into a position of competitive strife and are, therefore, adversaries and enemies of each other. We have to see ourselves as people, who are able to develop the insight, that it is preferable to cooperate rather than fight with each other. We know, that it is possible to become close friends, regardless how much we mistrust and despise each other at the present time.

A shared reality perception, together with a shared imagery about the nature of man and the psychological mechanisms that are experienced by us all, are, therefore, a pre-requisite for laying a foundation of good-will and mutual respect, which can, in turn, become a foundation for a fruitful dialogue. A dialogue about the fundamental questions of the nature of man is, therefore, necessary, in order to build this foundation of good-will and understanding, which may, later, support a much more practical discussion about the type of society we need and want, as well as the implications of the "social contract", which each and every modern, sophisticated, social solution has to concern itself with.

This is one of the reasons, why a philosophical discussion about the nature of man is not merely a pass-time for those who have nothing better or more urgent to do. Such a fundamental discussion is a necessary prelude to the emergence of a shared reality perception and a judicial settlement of disputes. However, a shared reality perception is no guarantee, that an atmosphere of good-will is going to prevail, as we all know from the bickering and fighting we can see amongst those, who are of the same Faith, or belong to the same ethnic or cultural grouping.

On the other hand, we see, also, that an intuitive recognition of the need for cooperation and a shared way of life can rise to the fore, in particular, following a period of warfare and devastation, where people know, that the price of warfare is too high, and, that no "Cause" can be so holy and so righteous, that it justifies the miseries and injustices of violent conflict. Then, a pragmatic good-will can arise, which may lead to an atmosphere of mutual trust, in spite of the fact, that it lacks the intellectual foundation and precision, which could make this feeling and intuitive sense of recognition into a more clearly grasped and durable basis for cooperation.

We see such an intuitive recognition of the need for good-will and peace emerge after a period of devastating war-fare, but, within a few generations, these trends towards good-will have disappeared, and, even, those, who share an intellectual basis for cooperation and agreement, fall into an atmosphere of strife and slide recklessly towards a violent confrontation. Man seems to alternate, inexorably, between a group of "building generations", and a few, or, even, a single generation of destroyers. Soon, man will be able to wage war on such a devastating scale, that, too few survivors are left to pick-up the pieces and create or pro-create again.

The orientation of people's attitudes is, therefore, the over-riding factor in determining, whether a verbal communication is used "to build or to destroy"; to cooperate and solve problems, or, as a prelude to war. This conclusion is completely in line with the observation, that our conscious faculties are merely a behavioural tool. Therefore, it is irrealistic to expect too much from verbal contact. It is not realistic to expect, that a trend towards belligerent confrontation can be changed into an attitude of mutual respect and cooperation by the mechanisms of a verbal exchange alone.

Yet, verbal contacts and negotiations can, at times, provide for a peaceful adjustment of the forces at work, and, they may postpone a violent conflict. Indeed, sometimes a violent conflict can be avoided all-together, but the forces of competitive strife are rarely changed as the result of verbal contacts alone. The situation is comparable to a situation of stress building-up in the earth's crust at the junction between tectonic plates. The slow movement of the tectonic plates in relation to each other, builds-up enormous tensions at the fault-line, because the process of friction prevents a smooth and gradual slide. These tensions can be released in one violent, gigantic shudder, a major, devastating earth-quake, or, they can be released in a series of minor shocks and tremors, which are far less devastating.

Similarly, verbal contacts, and the gradual yielding of the weaker party can accomplish a process of re-alignment that is less painful and devastating than an all-out war with a strong opponent, and, such a series of gradual, but nevertheless painful and humiliating "adjustments", can provide the lessons, insight and resolve needed to strengthen a nation or society to the point, that it does not have to yield again.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The lure of "talking tough".
The price of "feeling good".
Why the memories of warfare and devastation fade quickly.
Prosperity, and the inevitable resurgence of strife and dissent.
When the need for social cohesion diminishes.
The decay of the attitude of cooperation, as soon as a measure of security has been reached.
Dispersion and dissent represent the mechanisms of "social entropy".
The advantages of possessing a clear conceptual grasp.
Experiencing a "flash of recognition".
A remarkable resemblance with the hated enemy.
Security, dignity and essential equality.
Why it is so difficult to create the conditions that are necessary for a social contract of essential equality in a much larger society.
A "social contract" does not imply a specific conceptual model.
Many diverging reality perceptions should still be able to agree about the basic outlines of a social contract of essential equality.
Beneficial and harmful forms of disagreement.
Retrospective judgements.
When the response of a socially integrated entity becomes more flexible and appropriate.
Finding an alternative to a state of "paralysis".
Viability is the ultimate criterium for the forces of natural selection.

We see, then, that verbal contact may still be useful, even, if the contact is not a tool to promote understanding, but a weapon in a skirmish. If the pressures are so strong, that the weaker party fails to see any advantage in yielding, compared to the devastation caused by a possible defeat, only then, will there be a reckless hardening of attitudes, and a flight into the euphoria of a belligerent stance.

The main reason, why it is so attractive to adopt a belligerent stance, is the fact, that "talking tough" against a domineering adversary, restores a sense of pride. The acknowledgement that one exists in a position of weakness, is painful, and, one has to weigh, constantly, the price of humiliating adjustments and the loss of prestige against an even greater loss through all-out warfare. However, we are inclined to be impatient, and, especially, the younger members of a nation may not appreciate, clearly, how much they have to lose by an all-out defeat. Then, they can easily be swept-up into a belligerent euphoria. Such an attitude makes everyone "feel good", and, it restores, not only, the pride of the nation, but, also, the prestige of the leadership. Soon, the ordinary members of society will be called to arms, and, they are going to sacrifice, once again, their lives on the battle-fields.

After a period of peace and prosperity, the generations born into such a benevolent social status tend to forget, how easy it is to lose everything during an act of war-fare, and, they have no personal recollection of the hard work their forefathers have put-in to reach such a state of prosperity and well-being. These psychological mechanisms lie behind the observation, that there seems to be an almost inexorable trend towards a cycle of building and destruction, but, at the same time, we should not forget, that the phase of rebuilding may become impossible because of the destructiveness of modern war-fare.

The phenomenon of an alternating cycle between build-up and break-down, applies, not only, to the relationships between large groupings or nations, but, we see essentially the same mechanisms at work on many levels of collective and individual existence. For example, as soon as a nation or community is relatively free from external threats or internal stresses, we see, almost immediately, a resurgence of strife and dissent between different sub-groupings within a social environment. These sub-groupings may be diverging along ethnic or cultural differences, or, they may be diverging because of differences in social standing, different occupations, different religious or political view-points, etc., etc.

In short; as soon as the need for cohesion and cooperation diminishes during a period of easy affluence and the absence of an external threat, the internal dispersive forces are coming to the fore, once again. We see this at all levels of existence, including the smallest groupings. Even, within a family-unit, we see the trend towards dispersion or fragmentation, as soon as affluence, opportunity and the freedom that comes with assets or a large income, create an opportunity for the marriage-partners to go their own separate ways.

We may even see these same dynamics at work in the psychological mechanisms of a single individual. As soon as the need to "perform" in society falls-away, and, as soon as a certain level of "security" has been reached, the coherence of the personality may suffer, in particuar, if the individual has not recognised, intuitively or consciously, the need to "keep active", and to channel one's energies into one goal or another. It is rare, that such an unstable personality would gain total financial security, unless by fortunate inheritance, but, we see, that a measure of security within a job or bureaucratic position may lead to a slackened performance, as well as the temptation to squander energies on many futile and non-productive activities, which are only a financial burden or a factor of stress upon one's health.

Fortunately, the dangers of such dissipating activities for individual health and small-scale social well-being are more easily recognised, compared to the need for a large social grouping to remain coherent and unified, after a state of affluence or prosperity has been reached. If we, as individuals, would as easily fall-apart as the social groupings we belong to, we would never have reached this remarkable status of dominance over the terrestial environment, which we, as members of the human species, still enjoy.

The trend towards disintegration for a social entity, be it the social unit of human individuals, (or any other social unit, which may be defined in its broadest concept as pre-cellular units of biochemical complexes that have found a possibility to exist during the early evolution of life), any unit, is, therefore, subjected to the most fundamental characteristics of the living organisation; nl. divergence, and the trend towards "dissent", disagreement and dispersion, or "entropy". The sphere of verbal communications, reflects, therefore, this most characteristic aspect of the living organisation; the tendency towards entropic dispersion.

Can we talk, then, about a "problem of dissent", or, should we shrug our shoulders, and try, in a pragmatic manner, to live with the inevitable trends of dispersion and disagreement? Do we have to consider dissent an unavoidable by-product of the living organisation, like the phenomenon of entropy, or, can we also see a more positive role for the phenomenon of dissent?

I believe, that the main advantage of a clear conceptual grasp over these mechanisms lies in the improved or increased manipulative mastery that arises, whenever we grasp or understand a particular phenomenon better. If we understand, better, the mechanisms at play, we will have a better idea, what can be accomplished with the verbal tools of communication, and, we will be less surprised and discouraged with failures and miscalculations. As we begin to understand, how we function and behave, we will understand and appreciate, more easily, when, and where, there is a chance to communicate fruitfully, and, when we are up against mechanisms that exclude the possibility of holding a fruitful discussion.

For example, if both parties are locked into an implacably hostile attitude, we know, that verbal communications will only be used as a weapon in a war of words and nerves. It will be used as a weapon of propaganda to damage each other's credibility, as well as in an effort to win-over bystanders, or fortify the resolve of loyal followers. Even, if only one of the parties is beginning to realise the mechanisms that are involved, it is possible to mitigate the atmosphere of outright confrontation. If one of the parties is beginning to realise, how much his own belligerent posturing resembles that of his adversary, we see, that a "flash of recognition" can take place, and, the insight may emerge, that we resemble, to a surprising degree, the hated enemy.

Certainly, such a realisation or insight is likely to occur, first, in the strongest party, because the feeling of relative security in a conflict-situation prevents an individual, or a leadership, to be pushed into the most extreme range of anxiety. It is reasonable to assume, therefore, that the most rational attitudes are likely to be adopted by the stronger and more secure party. The contract of social justice or essential equality, which gives each individual and social grouping a measure of security and dignity, is one of the most effective foundations upon which rational contact becomes possible. Once we have a measure of equality, security and dignity, it will become progressively easier to build-up this foundation of rational contacts, but, as soon as this foundation of the social contract of social justice and essential equality has been destroyed, the possibilities to avoid a disastrous confrontation with the help of verbal contact, become almost nil.

Here, again, we see the importance of sharing amongst each other, at least, the most basic insights about our common psychological mechanisms, but, as long as these insights do not exist, we will have to go through a slow and painful discussion, with many possibilities of misunderstanding, before we obtain this basic framework of knowledge and insight upon which we can build a "social contract".

We know, now, that it is relatively easy to implement such a social contract on a small scale. For example, in a family-unit, we see, that the principles of essential equality and mutual respect are applied, intuitively, irrespective of the particular religious, philosophical or social structure lying at the foundation of a particular set of family relationships. As the group becomes larger, it becomes more difficult to create the conditions for a viable social contract. Then, we see the same difficulties arise, regardless of the social, political or religious foundation of the group. We have discussed the nature of these difficulties before, such as the increasing number of events taking place, as well as the inability of the leader or leadership to remain in touch with all these events, as the social grouping grows larger.

We have also seen, that, modern computer technology will find its most useful application in helping us to make the larger societies, even, the global society, as transparent as a small-scale social grouping. Still, the application of the principles of the social contract on a world-wide scale, between nations and within nations, seems to be such a gigantic and far-away objective, that, most of us have the impression that these goals are irrealistic and utopian dreams.

However, we have to learn to see, that there are no compelling technical reasons that prevent us from creating a viable and stable, transparent and just society, but, we have to develop the vision, as well as the collective will, to reflect about the necessity, and the requirements, of a social unit on such a large scale. We have to learn to cooperate with each other, and, we have to learn to give-up, at least, to some extent, our positions of privilege, wealth and security. At the same time, it will also become clear to us, that, ultimately, our security depends upon such a global implementation of the "social contract".

Perhaps, we should emphasise, here, the fact, that the concept of a social contract does not necessarily imply a particular conceptual model. Under the term "social contract" we should understand, not only, the intellectually stated or explicitly formulated principles of essential equality and social justice, but, we should also include every form of social organisation that has come, for one reason or another, to the practice of equal treatment under the laws of society and essentially just living standards.

Many, mostly small-scale social models have come to the intuitive conclusion, that the relationships between people are most advantageous and harmonious, if there is some sort of system of "law and order", which gives a measure of equality to a large majority of the members. The recognition, that harmony is best served by some sort of commonly agreed-upon principle of justice, is one of the foundations that made the larger civilisations possible in the first place, but, man has also recognised, that such a system of justice is fragile, and, therefore, we see, that, most social systems that provide a measure of justice for their members, require a firm hand and a ruthless suppression of dissent or diversity of opinion.

It has always been very difficult to make a clear distinction between a diversity in opinion that is beneficial and gives society a heightened degree of flexibility, innovativeness, vigour and enthousiasm, and, those acitivities of diversity or dissent, which lead, slowly, but surely, to a break-down of socially beneficial attitudes and relationships.

Indeed, is it possible to make such a distinction? Can not every act of individualised behaviour be transformed into an act of egocentric advantage-seeking? Is diversity and divergence of opinion, as well as the resurgence of individualistic tendencies, not always a fore-runner of the processes of decay? How can we separate or indicate, with any degree of precision, which activities are socially beneficial, and, which are detrimental? Is it not true, always, that the same activities and developments that may temporarily benefit society, will, sooner or later, turn into destructive elements? Are the free-enterprise acitivities of our Capitalist societies not, at the same time, a foundation for the affluence and well-being for some, as well as the root-causes for the mechanisms of social decay, the emergence of organised crime, and the mounting tensions of social injustice which always rear their head in affluent social environments?

Let us concentrate, here, upon the question, whether or not it is indeed possible to make a clear-cut distinction between the socially beneficial and the socially harmful aspects of diversity of opinion, or "dissent". It certainly is possible to make this distinction from a theoretical point of view, because we can, in hindsight, judge, quite well, whether or not a certain activity or trend has been a benefit to the social environment. Yet, to make this distinction as a member of a large, contemporary society, where innumerable contradictory trends and events are taking place simultaneously, is a near hopeless task, unless we refer, again, to a number of criteria to help us make this judgement.

From a theoretical point of view, we can define as a beneficial form of dissent, any discussion, debate, activity or intellectual search, which makes the response of the social unit as a whole, more flexible and more appropriate. This, of course, is entirely analogous to the behavioural flexibility of a living organism, such as a mammal, shaped by the forces of natural selection. Here, too, we see, that a set of "conflicting sense impressions" requires an "inner debate", before the discrepancies can be resolved and harmonised. If this process of harmonisation is defective, the individual may become "paralysed", not knowing, what to do, as the conflicting impulses and sense impressions continue to strive for dominance.

Similarly, within a social unit, conflicting trends and efforts to deal with certain problems, or necessary adaptations, may lead to a paralysis or a fragmentation of the social entity, and, if this is the case, the level of dissent is obviously harmful. However, if the response by a socially integrated entity can be improved and more precisely adapted to the requirements of the moment, as a result of such an internal debate or "process of dissent", we see, that the social unit has become more viable.

Indeed, viability is the ultimate criterium for a judgement of benefit or harm, but, it remains a retrospective judgement and, the criterium of viability is not all that helpful in deciding what a beneficial form of dissent really is for a large and complex, contemporary society, unless we can define, clearly, what sort of trends, attitudes and activities of a large, contemporary society are going to enhance, or endanger, its viability.

This, in a nut-shell, is the outline of the problem of dissent, but, our particular individual experiences may be remarkably different and varied, because we occupy widely divergent positions in our social environment, and, our view of the overall society is strongly coloured by the position we occupy. We have to learn to see, first of all, the bias in our judgements created by our position in society, as well as by the place of our society within the family of nations. Then, we can begin the draw-up a set of criteria of health; of social, as well as individual health, and, we will come to the somewhat surprising conclusion, that a study of the requirements for individual health will also be helpful to formulate the guiding principles for a condition of social health, viability and stability.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

Specific examples of the criteria of viability "at work".
The disastrous effects of loss of employment for the bread-winner.
Everyone makes intuitive decisions about the size, nature, location and type of social unit one feels dependent upon.
Identifying, simultaneously, with partly overlapping social units.
Different classes, different responses.
Leaders always try to make us identify with a social entity they have assumed jurisdiction over.
Enslavement and loyalty.
When we are tired of social upheaval.
There are many different forms of dependence.
Different spheres of identification.
When a political entity has "died".
When a viable and properous political entity has led to a large number of inter-dependencies between its members.
The struggle for liberation from oppression by an exploitative elite.
Nobody likes to lose a position of power and privilege.
When people fight desperately for their "Cause".
The clamor for social reform still takes, so often, the route of ruthless violence.
The element of "reckless restlessness", or "reckless dissent".
A "break-down" of relationships, caused by ignorance.

Let us clarify these generalised statements with a number of specific examples. As a child, we are completely dependent on the family-unit, and, therefore, tension or serious dissent within this family-unit is going to affect our security immensely. Naturally, we are highly sensitive to any dissent in our social environment, but, we soon become aware of the fact, that the family, and, especially, the parents of a family-unit are subjected to a variety of pressures from the larger social environment in which the family exists as a small sub-unit. Anything that affects the security of the parents, or their ability to put food on the table, will adversely affect everyone in the family.

As soon as the head of the family, or the parents, are "in trouble", there will be a natural tendency for the dependents to look for other sources of security, guidance or affection. A high level of strife and dissent weakens, not only, family ties, but, also, the ability of the family to bring-up the younger members properly. Its ability to guide and console, to give shelter and security, to give a valuable example and provide a stimulating place to grow-up in, are undermined.

On the other hand, a family or a bread-winner may run into "external" difficulties, such as the loss of employment, while the family ties remain strong. A sense of togetherness, as well as efforts to preserve the family-unit will promote an attitude of cooperation. A variety of activities are initiated by the members in the search for an income or a job, and, their discussions are conducted in an atmosphere of solidarity. As a result, the benefits experienced from the efforts to keep the family together, make the family-unit stronger, and, discussions about what each member should do, or should not do, have at their root the drive to keep the family-unit intact and strengthen it.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that, each and every individual, throughout life, makes primarily intuitive decisions about such essential elements as the size, the nature, the location and the type of social unit one feels dependent upon. Throughout childhood and adolescence, we feel, naturally, that the family is the most important social unit upon which our security rests, but, then, as we grow into adulthood, we have to provide for our own security by working and earning an income. We become a bread-winner ourselves, and, together with the initiation of another family-unit, the adult members experience a variety of needs to associate themselves or identify with a number of partially over-lapping social entities.

In the middle-classes of Capitalist societies, there is a strong tendency to impress upon the offspring the need to learn a skill, because a skill that can be marketed, represents a source of security. Without such a skill, our ability to generate an income is severely endangered. Even, the "rich" classes, which form the establishment in the Capitalistic, as well as most under-developed countries, acknowledge the fact, that their offspring should learn a trade; obtain a university degree, or, acquire, at least, some sort of skill or merit. In spite of the fact, that the "family capital" can sustain these heirs, the chances for blundering and squandering are somewhat lessened, if these heirs have been exposed, to some extent, to the "outside world".

Amongst the poorest classes of society, the pressures upon the offspring are so great, that they are forced, from an early age, to contribute as child labourers to the family income, perpetuating a vicious circle of sub-human living conditions, with an appalling level of poverty and ignorance, as well as a significant lack of health and sanitation. Nevertheless, sensible parents, all over the world, will impress upon their offspring to look ahead, and think about the need to earn a living in the larger social environment. The size of the social unit enlarges, therefore, from the family-unit to the social stratum into which an individual has been born, and, in which he or she can find the means of employment and sustenance.

For most of us, the social unit we identify with, and, which we experience to be necessary for our livelyhood, is not large, because it does not really encompass much more than the local social environment and the social class in which we find ourselves. How our region or our particular social stratum fits into a larger unit, is rarely clearly visualised, in spite of the fact, that our political and religious leaders try to make us aware of the fact, that our allegiance should extend to the national entity.

Our political leaders are quick to teach us the virtues of the national unit, as well as the need for "patriotic attitudes", while our spiritual leaders make an effort to make us identify with all people who belong to the same parish or religious denomination. Nevertheless, the social environment we really identify with, remains localised to people we depend on for our livelyhood and well-being.

Sometimes we exist in a position of bondage, and, we realise, then, all too clearly, that we are dependent upon "over-lords" for our income and sustenance, even, if we do not have any social contact with the privileged and wealthy classes in whose service we find a meagre existence. The process of identification is, then, incomplete. We may feel, on the one hand, some sort of a blind loyalty to the people who povide us with income and employment, and, at the same time, we tend to suppress questions related to the existence of such discrepancies or disparities between classes of people. We realise, that, too insistent an inquiry into the nature of social justice and social relationships, may lead to disruptive, or, even, destructive tensions, even, if the ultimate goal of such questioning and clamoring for social change would be a significant benefit for those, who have been caught in a position of bondage.

This is only one particular example of a situation of dependence that recurs, again and again, in many different forms. A certain condition of dependence may not be a situation, that is, ultimately, in our best interests, or, the interests of other members of the social class we belong to, because it may contain an element of bondage and injustice, as we saw in the dependence of the serf on his over-lord. Or, we may have become dependent upon a social organisation that keeps others in bondage, and, such an unjust dependence upon a situation of privilege and exploitation comes under increasing pressures for a radical change.

In short, we have to realise, that our particular lines of dependence may contain a measure of injustice or undesirability for others, and, we have to learn to judge the overall criteria of social viability and justice from a broader point of view, and, not only, from the vantage-point upon which we have become dependent.

There are two curious problems with the perception of our vantage-point. On the one hand, we are naturally inclined to take our specific circumstances as "the norm", as well as as the criterium for the decision, whether or not we support or oppose a particular trend towards change, and, it is justified to say, therefore, that we tend to see our vantage-point as "too narrow", too specific, too much in isolation, because we tend to neglect those factors of injustice upon which our social class or stratum depends for its security or affluence.

On the other hand, there is a tendency to see our unity as "too broad". In particular our political leaders have a tendency to identify, strongly, with the political unit they have managed to build-up, by conquest or domination, or, which they may have inherited from their predecessors. Yet, this political entity is, often, much larger than the unit upon which the various groupings are dependent. Especially, if the political unit is made-up by a number of fairly large ethnic, cultural or religious groupings which have little contact with each other, it is clear, that this political unit is not really necessary for the existence of any of the cultural or ethnic sub-groupings.

This fact comes clearly to the fore in the uneasy relationships between the various sub-groupings, and, if one of them is not strong enough to outright dominate the others and impose its will, we see a continuous tendency for this rather artificial and fragile political unit to fall-apart. If the fragmentation has proceeded to the point, that there is no overall authority anymore, in the form of a national government with effective jurisdiction and authority over all the territories of the political unit, we can say with some justification, that this political unit has disappeared, or "died", and, the political entity is then nothing more than a concept or idea in the minds of those, who have, for one reason or another, an interest in the resurrection of this illusory political unit.

The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that the political coherence of a national entity may have lost all meaning. None of the much stronger and more cohesive sub-groupings will, then, depend for their existence or well-being on the existence of the overall social entity. On the other hand, if a political unit has managed, in one way or another, and often, over a prolonged period of time, to bind the entire population in a web of social, financial, cultural, linguistic and industrial or commercial inter-dependencies, then, the trend towards dissent and dissolution will be much more subdued. Most sub-groupings, and, even, a majority of citizens will, then, become quickly aware of the fact, that such "secessionist" attitudes and practices will hurt everyone, and, a loud and clear protest against such short-sighted actions and attitudes, will not be long in coming.

We have to learn to evaluate the significance of the various social units in terms of their real meaning for the people and the sub-groupings that already exist. Then, we can predict, fairly accurately, the strength of these units. If a small ruling elite depends on the ignorance and the slave-labour of the masses to perpetuate its position of privilege, we see, that, indeed, this elite will do everything it can, including ruthless suppression, to keep the status-quo intact. A majority of the people lives, then, in misery and poverty, and, it does not benefit at all from an existing political entity. Often, the average people are unaware of the extent to which they are being exploited, but, as soon as the level of awareness and insight rises, the pressures for a radical change, become relentless, and, essentially, unstoppable.

Similarly, a political unity imposed by a dominating minority will, eventually, lead to strife and rebellion, because the other groups can only benefit from the break-up of such a forcefully imposed political cohesion. There are, then, no existential brakes upon the trend towards dissent, because people will judge, that a break-up of the existing political unit will only lead to their liberation, in spite of the fact, that such a country may still exist as a recognised entity by a majority of the members of the United Nations.

We have to learn to be more realistic, and, we have to learn to accept, and recognise, social units of inter-dependence, as they really exist, or, as they are in the process of unfolding themselves, and, we should not let the anxious protests of politicians confuse us. Certainly, we can see clearly the reasons, why many political leaders will be anxious and insecure, if we challenge or debate the sovereignty of their national or political unit.

Nobody likes to lose his position of power and privilege, but, the time has come to ask the peoples of each and every social entity, be it a cultural, ethnic or political entity, to what extent they agree with the existence of the political unit they belong to, and, we should carefully study their suggestions for a different political alignment. By a process of clear thinking and patient discussion, it should be possible to point-out to most national entities and their political leaderships, that, it is in their own interest to study the claims and aspirations of the various sub-groupings under their jurisdiction, and, to examine the inter-dependencies between their particular unit and other social entities.

Very few people, or groups of people, will blatantly endorse a policy of opportunism and exploitation, and, most of them are quite willing to accept the principles of a contract of social justice and essential equality, but, they are willing to fight hard and persistently to free themselves from a dominating grouping and claim a position of true equality. In this light, it is not difficult to analyse the actions and motivations of individuals or groups of people. As long as we see dedicated groups fighting for what they consider their legitimate freedom and goals of equal opportunity, we would be well advised to re-examine our own ideas and concepts about the legitimacy of a specific political entity. We may keep condemning these rebels as agitators, terrorists or barbaric infidels, but, we only fortify our own ignorance and lack of insight.

Criminals are, by and large opportunists, and, they do not fight with ruthless dedication and acts of self-sacrifice. Whenever we see such fanatic acts of behaviour at work, we will have to acknowledge, that we are dealing with people, who are fighting desperately for their "Cause", even, if we find it difficult to identify with, or understand, this Cause.

It seems tragic, that, so many times, the clamor for social reform still has to take the route of ruthless violence. In spite of all our professed idealism for the principles of freedom and justice, we, the affluent West, seem, too often, to be siding with the established elite of lesser developed nations. Just like us, these elites are fighting to preserve a position of privilege and power against an under-privileged majority, which has often been exploited and oppressed for a long time.

It is a sad commentary in our times of technical progress and world-wide communications, that we still seem to be incapable of recognising the legitimate aspirations of a people, who have come to the conclusion that the status-quo of a particular social or political unit is unacceptable because of exploitation and dominance by a privileged elite. Too often, the considerations of narrow, egocentric or nationalistic concern dictate a policy of "containment", or "conservative preservation", which goes against the forces of social justice and the ideals of the social contract. Too often, in our ignorant efforts to keep the peace, are we fanning the flames of hatred and encouraging desperate acts of dedicated violence.

However, let us not assume, that peoples always clamor for a wise and justified Cause. Certainly, the most enduring and fundamental motivation for the clamor of change and the restlessness of dissent are based on a deep-rooted experience of discrimination and injustice, but, we see also, especially in affluent societies, as well as in social environments where the masses have obtained an unprecedented degree of justice, equality and freedom, the emergence of a "reckless restlessness"; the restlessness of ignorance and complacency; the restlessness that comes with a lack of objectives and a poorly channeled vitality. This "reckless dissent" is an activity of decay, and, it may quickly lead to a break-down of social units, in spite of the fact, that the existential needs and viability of a majority of these dissenters, are based upon these same social structures, which they are so busy tearing-down.

What are the psychological mechanisms of "reckless dissent", or, break-down by ignorance? Can we understand and control these tendencies and impulses? It will be very important to understand and control them, because reckless dissent may well be the most serious threat to a harmonious global society, if, and when, we will have been able to build such a globally organised society.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

The problems of an extra-ordinarily successful life-form.
An inevitable rise in competitive strife.
A large amount of "locked-up" energies.
The break-through of intelligence and manipulability.
A gradual enlargement of habitable and inhabited territories.
An expansion into harsher climates and more difficult environments.
Existing under "easy conditions".
The problem of "growing soft".
The rise of a more sophisticated and larger social unit.
When it is "hard work", just to survive.
An increase in "surplus energies".
When an "easement" of living conditions is expressed in a profound sense of relief and gratitude.
Elements for a constructive build-up.
An adequate reservoir of collective memories and insights.
The inter-twining of memories and anticipations.
The difficulties of transferring insights to the younger generations through the mechanisms of secondary learning.
During "easy circumstances", the awareness of the need for social cohesion diminishes rapidly.
An upsurge in strife, bickering and reckless dissent.
The "ease of existence" is quickly eroded, and a "balance of forces" is quickly restored.

The problem with man is essentially the same as the problem of every life-form that has become extra-ordinarily successful. As we know from our biological observations, every life-form that has found a successful mode of existence, alters the balance of nature, because it changes the balance between the forces that are hostile to it, and those that are favourable and make the existence of this life-form possible.

If a life-form is successful, it means, that it has found a condition of existence, or a mechanism of functioning, which requires less maintenance-energy than before. The amount of extra or surplus energy has increased, and, this surplus energy is translated into growth or reproduction, or, a combination of both. This universal tendency of living organisations to grow larger and more numerous, increases the energy requirements of a particular population of life-forms. Quickly, a balance between the hostile and favourable forces will have been restored, and the growth in size and population comes to an end.

This is a fundamental principle of the existence of life, which has been discussed, in detail, on many occasions. Any "easement" in the conditions of existence leads to an increase in population, as well as an increase in the level of competitive strife, and, this means, that it becomes more difficult, and more energy-consuming, to obtain the necessary food elements.

The increased level of basic energy-expenditure, resulting from an increased level of competitive strife, has two main elements. An increase in the population density leads, first of all, to a depletion of the level of energy-resources, and, it takes, then, more energy to "scrounge" the basic energy requirements together. The other factor is also due to the increased population density, and, it is directly related to the energy that becomes "locked-up" in the requirements to become, and remain, successful in the competitive and, often, armed struggle between living organisms with identical requirements. This means, that, in every case, where we see an increase in the density of a population, the basic level of maintenance-energy increases, too. As a result, any easement in existence, due to one break-through or another, is, inevitably eroded by the consequences of a condition of "easement", and, a new equilibrium between antagonistic force-fields will establish itself.

If we look at the species of mankind, we see, that the "break-through" of intelligence and manipulability led to a completely dominant position of the species in relation to most other species'. This is the reason, why the energy availability increased enormously, as more and more species' became vulnerable to a predatorial attack by man. However, man's rapid increase in numbers led to severe pressures of competitive strife, and, these mechanisms lie behind this remarkable extention of man's ecological niche, until it covered most of the globe. It also led to an intensification of strife between the members of the human species, because, as we have emphasised so many times before, another individual or group of human beings became man's most formidable enemy.

For a long time, increasing population pressures could be compensated for by a widening of the territories occupied by the members of mankind, but, the occupation of previously unoccupied territories meant, nearly always, a harsher way of life. The territories were colder, hotter, drier, sparser populated by wild-life and fruit-bearing plants or trees. In short; it is logical to assume, that the territories, already occupied by man, were somewhat more attractive compared to those, which were still unoccupied. This increase in "harshness", meant, an increase in the level of energy-expenditure necessary to sustain life and obtain the necessary energy or building-blocks. However, a higher level of basic maintenance-energy by going into unoccupied territories had to be weighed against the need for an increased effort to defend against attack, or the need to attack those, who were defending themselves with increasing vigour and ferocity.

Therefore, as long as territorial expansion was possible, we see, that man tended to disperse. However, at the same time, the "ease of existence" between the most fertile regions and the harsher regions, was quite spectacular. While it was relatively easy to sustain life in a fertile river valley, it was far more difficult, and, sometimes impossible, to sustain life on the slopes of a mountain, on a desert, or in a very cold region.

Yet, those, who existed under "easy" conditions, would multiply quickly, causing an increase in the level of competitive strife. Those, who were living under harsh conditions would multiply much more slowly, but, they would give rise to a hardy breed of individuals. Naturally, the temptation would arise, time and again, to attack and displace those, who were living in "affluent" circumstances, and had "grown soft".

Indeed, we see in the records of history, how, again and again, the settled valley-dwellers were attacked, harassed, and, often, conquered by those, who had become a hardy breed of warriors, living under harsher environmental circumstances. We have discussed, how these mechanisms of competitive strife favoured the development of a much larger social unit.

The emergence of the larger social unit, or "civilisation", was a necessary adaptative response. A superior social organisation, including effective mechanisms of defense, justice, distribution of food, irrigation and storage facilities, the domestication of plants and animals, etc., all these innovative adaptative responses led to the emergence of a more sophisticated and larger social environment that was better equipped to keep the more primitive, savage and hardier tribes, at bay.

In spite of the profusion of events that have taken place in the history of mankind, before and after the evolution of the art of reading and writing, we can still see, in essence, the same principles at work. The same principles play a role in shaping the conduct of contemporary mankind, be it as an individual or as a small social unit. As long as an individual or small social grouping is exposed to fairly harsh circumstances, it has to "work hard" just to stay alive. This large, basic energy requirement to stay alive, means, primarily, hard work in the fields to obtain a precarious existence from the soil, the vegetation, as well as existing wild-life or a variety of domesticated animals. Or, the energy expenditure may be largely one of defense against envious attackers, especially, if an individual or a grouping happens to occupy a rather favourable territory. In either case, or, as the result of a combination of the food-producing and military needs of existence, the basic maintenance-energy is increased, due to an increased level of competitive strife.

As soon as the energy required to obtain our basic requirements, decreases, or, as soon as the threat from potential enemies has become less obvious, we see an increase in the level of "surplus energy". The question is this; how is this surplus energy going to be spent, after the conditions of existence have eased significantly? The answer to this question determines, to a large extent, the health and viability of a human being or a social grouping. Before we can answer this question appropriately, we should remind ourselves, that the human being is a flexible animal, par excellence, and, a large part of surplus energy is normally channeled into a direction that will increase the grasp or mastery of the individual, or a small grouping, over the realities in which it finds itself.

The human being is a life-form with the capability to come to a remarkable degree of behavioural fine-tuning on the basis of past experiences, and, man experiences, therefore, the need to acquire an accurate insight about what is likely to happen in the near future, based on the clues that are visible in the present. This means, that, human behaviour is strongly influenced by the memories and experiences of the past, as well as the expectations of the future. If, e.g., a human being, or a small grouping, has just been exposed to a difficult time, a war, a drought, or, some other natural disaster, or, the horrifying consequences of a serious mistake, then, the "easement" of the circumstances will be expressed in a profound sense of relief and gratitude. The gods, or a monotheistic God, will be thanked for the easement of the circumstances, and, the increase in the level of "surplus" vital energies will be used in a constructive build-up.

A constructive build-up can take many forms, such as a rebuilding of assets, stocks, or other items which have been lost during the period of war or adversity. Also, a signifcant effort will be directed to ensure against a similar adversity or mistake. If, e.g., the period of adversity was due to a neglect of agricultural techniques, or a lack of fore-sight, there will be an effort, by the whole community, to build-up stocks and provisions, to work hard at obtaining a good crop; to build irrigation canals, instruments and tools, etc., etc. If the period of adversity was due to a neglect of social or leadership institutions, such as competent, fair and far-sighted leadership, proper relations with other communities, etc., then, we see a sustained effort to correct the mistakes, short-comings and neglects of the past.

In short; as long as an adequate reservoir of collective memory and insight is available to guide and direct the flow of surplus energy, this energy will be channeled into useful, positive and strengthening avenues, and, we see, then, the emergence of a "growth phase". We see these mechanisms take place everywhere, even, in fairly large communities, or entire nations, which have collectively suffered from a devastating war, or, these mechanisms can be seen in the growth and maturation of a single individual, who has gone through a difficult period and has learned and benefitted from the experience.

Whether or not the surplus elan-vital during a period of "existential easement" will be directed into channels of growth and strength, depends, not only, on the memories and insights of past experiences, but, also, on the insights that let an individual, or a group of people, idenfity trends, developments or attitudes, which are going to spell trouble in the future. In essence, it is impossible to separate, sharply, the insights of what is going to happen in the future as an extrapolation of existing trends, from the insight and memories that are based, largely, on past experiences. We are dealing, here, with an integrated perception of reality, which lets us see the past, the present, and the fuure, as a smoothly flowing web of causes and consequences.

If we have a good and firm grasp over the reasons, why, we, individually or as a group, have experienced difficulties in the past, we will, automatically, have a better grip over the realities of the present, and, we will have a good idea, what to expect in the near future. However, there is a profound problem in transposing, or, even, just explaining, these insights to people who have failed to build-up a similar perception of reality. If we are rather alone in the way we see reality, regardless, how well we can substantiate a particular point of view, we will soon come to the conclusion, that we are unable to warn people of the consequences of a particular trend. Different reality perceptions lead to differences of opinion about the significance of a particular event or trend in the present. If people differ markedly in their interpretation of the past, they will also differ markedly about their expectations or anticipations for the future.

A wide-ranging, all-encompassing and well-reasoned perception of reality, based upon a wide knowledge of the past and the present, as well as an excellent ability to discuss and anticipate trends from contemporary clues, is, unfortunately, still an exception. Most people have a limited concept of the past and the present, and, their reality perceptions are strongly influenced by the fashionable opinions of their time. Their anticipations and expectations follow the trends of the day, and, consequently, a majority of the people follows a number of leaders, who are popular and have managed, in one way or another, to capture their imagination. It depends, to a large extent, on the quality of their ideas, whether or not these popular leaders can bring a measure of health to collective and individual existence. If these popular and influential leaders spread ideas and sentiments that are going to lead to disastrous results, we see a dramatic and unstoppable slide into some sort of a social catastrophe.

As a rule, if seems fair to state, that, the collective, or, even, the individual pool of memories and anticipatory insights, is rather limited. Certainly, after a period of adversity, a group or an individual does not have any problems directing the surplus elan-vital in a way that is beneficial and adds to its growth or strength. However, soon, after a few decades or a few generations of collective affluence, we see, that the beneficial status-quo is accepted as the norm and is taken for granted. Then, it becomes more difficult to know, what to do with the surplus energies, and, we see, that these energies are easily led into wasteful or destructive pathways, leading to a rapid decay of the social environment.

During a period of "easy existence", the awareness for the need of social cohesion diminishes rapidly, and, this "loss of memory", has serious consequences for the social environment, as well as the individual members. There is an upsurge in strife, bickering and "reckless dissent", while people become more egocentric and strident in their attitudes, as they become obsessed with the gratification of their instinctive drives. The attitudes of frugality, long-term planning, saving, working towards a goal. etc., all disappear. We see an increase in frivolous and egocentric pleasure-seeking, as well as reckless spending; the level of alcohol and other drug-abuse increases; the level of accomplishment and performance suffers, etc., etc. Marital relations, as well as those at work, become strained.

However, all these trends bring-about, quickly, a condition, where the condition of "easy existence" is being eroded. We see a disappearance of savings, reckless spending with an increased debt-load, declining performance at work or at home, resulting from a combination of bad living habits, increasing tensions of frustration, alcohol abuse, etc. All these factors quickly raise the level of anxiety. An individual in society is quickly reminded of his vulnerability, especially, if he or she occupies a somewhat responsible position.

Therefore, in individual existence, we see, quickly, a restoration of this essential balance between the forces that make a certain style of living possible, and those, that restrict further expansion of the level of affluence, or the number of erratic behavioural decisions. It does not take long, even, in an affluent society, for an individual to adopt a way of life that absorbs all the energies such an individual can muster. We see this trend, most clearly, in the tendency to increase the level of "consumption" and spend all income, to such a level, that an individual has to work most of the day trying to cover with a cash-income, whatever are thought to be necessary expenses to live and work.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

The trend of consumerism.
Social success becomes a powerful lure, in spite of the religious imagery that life is a transient affair.
The possession of a skill lessens the necessary "maintenance-energy", later in life.
Learning to shelter ourselves from serious stress.
The decay of wealthy families.
Poor and ignorant members are hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of their social environment.
A paralysing confluence of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined behaviour.
The life-cycle of a social entity.
When we do not know, how to deal with a threat.
When the flow of energy becomes undisciplined and haphazard.
Reckless dissent; a stream of energy that has escaped from its customary constraints.
Adequate contemporary judgements are still very difficult to make.
We have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there.
We all need to fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements.
A curiously ambivalent attitude may be the essence of a healthy social relationship.
Learning to look at social and individual realities from many different perspectives.
We have to define, first, our overall objectives.
Learning to distinguish between constructive and destructive rivalries.
The fundamental dilemma.

The successful middle-classes of affluent societies have a strong tendency to "consume" their earnings as fast as the money is coming in. This frantic consumption fuels an affluent life-style, which is an important part of the criterium of "social success", together with the status associated with a position of social importance, such as leadership, a University degree, an artistic or sports achievement, etc. Social success becomes the main objective of most members in society, even, if they acknowledge in their religious beliefs, that life is a transient affair.

In most social objectives there is a measure of common-sense at work, in spite of the fact, that most of us learn to consider social success a rather relative judgement, as we get older. The affluent middle-class knows, how important it is for their offspring to learn a skill and obtain a diploma, because it makes it possible to earn money "more easily". If one does not have to rely only on rugged physical strength, and, if one can escape from the limitations of unskilled labour, it is much easier to "make a living", even, during the period of advancing age, with its inevitable decline in physical strength and endurance.

If we, ordinary people, have the fore-sight to use the period of youth and adolescence well, and learn as much as we can, we reap the benefits of these efforts for the rest of our lives, because we will discover, that our "maintenance-energy" is far less compared to those, who try to make a living as an unskilled labourer. Certainly, it is tempting to enter the market of unskilled labour when we are young, and, it can be done at a much earlier age compared to those, who have to spend time going to school, but, soon, one finds-out that the position is precarious; the level of income stays low, and, with advancing age, it is very likely, that an unskilled individual loses the ability to find work and generate an income. Then, the depressing situation develops, where one is dependent on social assistance of one sort or another.

The road of learning a trade, acquiring a skill, and entering a professional career, has to be based, therefore, on a realistic reality perception. It requires an accurate sense of anticipation for the inevitable period of decline with advancing age, and, it requires the insight, that the possession of a special skill may shelter an individual from the stress of being unemployed. If one has the fore-sight to save, whenever possible, it may even become possible to retire early, or, at least, to choose a life-style that is as congenial as possible. Without the ability to foresee, realistically, the rapid succession of the "seasons of life", we find ourselves caught in a trap of our own making, as soon as we get older.

If people are not taught, from an early age, to anticipate the normal life-cycle of human existence, as well as the need to make a living, we see, that people remain dependent upon their parents or family relations. We see this happen, especially, in the very wealthy, as well as in the poor and the uneducated. The wealthy classes can afford to live-off their assets, or, rather, they live-off the income generated by their assets, and, logically, the wealthy classes will emphasise the preservation of a business or financial empire.

Intelligent members of the wealthy classes realise, how important it is for their offspring to have a good education, to earn a University degree, or, to learn the business by working themselves through the hierachy of a business empire. Less intelligent, but still sensible heirs will do everything they can to make sure, that their offspring will hold-on to the inherited positions of privilege, but, sooner or later, a defectively raised generation will come into the monies and squander everything recklessly; either, by ill-advised business-ventures, by a lack of contact with reality, or, by being out-smarted. It ends with family scandals, gross misconduct and a degenerate way of life, and, finally, their financial base will have collapsed.

The very poor and ignorant are hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of society, and, we see, how difficult it is for their unfortunate offspring, growing-up with the paralysing influence of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined behaviour, to free themselves from a "ghetto-mentality". They do not have the stimulating example of successful and ambitious parents, and, it is difficult to develop the insight, that they should break-away from their environment in order to "make it" in the big "straight" world. Prejudice and discrimination holds them back, and, an ambivalent loyalty makes it difficult to stick it out in the competitive world of schools and colleges. Failure is paid for dearly. Then, a youngster becomes quickly dependent upon a way of life that cuts him off, rather completely, from the world of the larger social environment. Then we see a life-long social cripple emerge, who will always be a burden to society, in one way or another.

In the behaviour of a small social grouping, or, even, a larger social or political entity, we can see the same mechanisms at work. For a while, after recovery from a period of collective adversity, we see, that the easement of the living conditions, together with an increase in the surplus energy of the elan-vital, leads to socially harmonious and constructive behaviour-patterns. Soon, however, the memories and insights upon which these constructive energies rest, become blurred, and, we see a rapid rise in the level of confrontation and internal strife.

This leads, first, to a slow-down of the "positive momentum" of the phase of growth. Then, we see a prolonged period of stagnation, where the society "gets-by", but, slowly, the strength of the social unit is weakening, as institutions and vital chores and interests are being neglected. Slowly, the stage is set, and the circumstances are developing, for the occurrence of a catastrophe.

As the likelyhood of chaos and a complete collapse comes nearer, the level of anxiety rises, but, on a collective level, it seems rarely possible to effectively reverse the trend of social decay. Collectively, a heightened level of anxiety seems to lead to an even greater paralysis, and, such a reaction is more primitive and less effective than a similar adaptative response in a single individual. This difference in behaviour can be explained by the fact, that a social organisation is less well organised, with a much more primitive range of behaviour-patterns, compared to a single human being.

The impending catastrophe is anticipated and perceived by the social entity, but, only, in a dull and imprecise manner, and, because the society as a whole does not know, how to deal effectively with the threat, no effective measures are taken. The level of internal dissent and bickering increases steadily, but, it seems nearly impossible for any social organisation at the level of a country or a national entity, to avoid the catastrophe of a war, an armed rebellion, or the decay of a dying bureaucracy. All these symptoms of collective confusion are enhancing the slide towards chaos and collapse, and, these activities of confusion, or the mechanisms of decay, share, as their essential common denominator, the fact, that the flow of energy becomes erratic and haphazard.

A confused flow of surplus elan-vital has to be detrimental to any living organisation, because it can only destroy by interfering with the normal mechanisms that are operating within such an organisation, and, we know, that these normal metabolic mechanisms are, in essence, under the guidance and protection of the genetic code. Any force acting upon a system has to be disruptive, unless its flow of energy can be controled and led into clear-cut path-ways that are operating for the good of the unit as a whole.

Perhaps, it is justified to summarise the concept of "reckless dissent" as a stream of vital energies, which has escaped from its usual guidance-channels and follows a variety of haphazard and uncontroled path-ways. However, you may argue, that it is fairly easy to define "reckless dissent" in such an abstract and somewhat esoteric manner, but, how are we going to judge what reckless dissent means in practice?

Can we look around us and evaluate the many forms of dissent that are going-on? Can we judge, which forms of dissent are reckless and destructive, and, which are a sign of health and vigour? Can we decide, which forms of dissent lead to a social development that is strengthening rather than weakening? Or, do we have to resign ourselves to the notion, that such a judgment is only possible in retrospect; after the events have taken place and revealed their historical significance?

If the judgement of "recklessness", or destructive dissent, can only be made retrospectively, it loses a great deal of its usefulness as a "working hypothesis", but, does it have to be merely a retrospective judgement? In other words; what do we need to make a satisfactory, contemporary judgement of trends and developments possible, as they are taking place?

Indeed, at the present, we have few ideas, how to judge the myriad of phenomena we see around us, or can notice within us. The numerous social and individual entities we can see are overwhelmingly complex, because we have still such a fragmentary and sketchy insight about the natural mechanisms taking place within a social entity. We know so little about the forces and mchanisms that play a role in the behaviour of these units, or, the goal-patterns and objectives that are shared by these units. As soon as we have a better and generally accepted concept about the essence of a life-form, and, as soon as we understand, why it is important to have a good grasp over these phenomena, we will, indeed, be in a position, where we can anticipate and interpret the phenomena of "living behaviour" with a far greater degree of accuracy. Now, we have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there, without the ability to come to a comprehensive over-view.

However, we can begin to orden our concepts and reality perceptions, by becoming clearly aware of some of the fundamental aspects we can all see, if we look around us, and, which we should be able to agree-upon. One of the most fundamental observations we can make, is the fact, that, we all, as individuals, or collectively, as a social unit, are subjected to the need to fulfill a number of basic, existential requirements. We all need food to live, and, we need a measure of shelter and protection to survive. We also need a measure of freedom in order to feel content and happy, and pursue a number of goals which we experience as essential. Everyone wants to "mean" something. We all need a measure of love and respect, and, we need a place to live and relax. We need the opportunity to take upon ourselves a measure of responsibility, and, we need a mechanism to gracefully relinquish this responsibility, if, and when, we feel, that the burdens are getting too severe.

In other words; we need to fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements in order to become a happy and well-integrated member of society, but, at the same time, we learn, that there always remains an element of tension between ourselves and the social environment. There are always people we consider to be rivals and competitors, or, to represent a threat of one sort or another. There are always situations in society, and in our dealings with other people, where we feel hurt, wronged, or ashamed. Sometimes we, even, feel a sense of hatred towards the society we belong to, or, towards ourselves.

This curiously ambivalent attitude is the essence of a healthy social relationship. It would not be healthy, if we can see the people and the society around us, only, as an obstacle to our individual ambitions and freedoms. If such attitudes are prevalent, we become a destructive force in society, and, we lack the insight, that we also need, at least, to some extent, this social environment in order to survive. Neither would society be healthy, if we would interpret all tensions and feelings of alienation and hostility, as an "evil", or, as an anti-social element that is wrong and has to be rooted-out at all costs. Such an attitude shows a lack of insight into the basic facts of life. It shows, that we do not really understand the nature of individual and social existence, and, such an attitude makes us into rigid and stark people, who become a menace rather than an inspiration to others.

Where, then, lies this elusive balance between feelings of loyalty and togetherness on the one hand, and, feelings of individuality and competitiveness on the other? Where is this balance that makes us into healthy, realistic and constructive members of our social environment? Before we can answer this question, we have to realise, that we can belong to, or talk about, many different social organisations and functions, which may overlap each other, at least, to some extent. Let us clearly visualise the various levels of social organisation that exist in our environment, regardless, where we find ourselves on earth. We have discussed this variety of social levels before, and, we will not repeat this discussion, here. Let us remind ourselves, that there are many different levels of social organisation and integration, and, we owe it to ourselves, as well as our social environment, to form a clear mental picture about these complexities.

Sometimes, we are justified to look, only, at the small family-grouping, and try to solve problems that are specific for this particular unit. At other times, even, an identification with our country may not be wide enough, because many existential requirements cross national boundaries. We realise, now, that pollution problems do not respect national boundaries, and, we know, that we have to adopt increasingly, an attitude of internationalism or globalism, if we want to create the requirements for a healthy, just and peaceful human existence.

These various levels of inter-dependence we are subjected to, are the reason for the fact, that, we all, throughout the social and political units of the world, tend to identify ourselves with different levels of social togetherness. If we are impressed by the possible dangers of global contamination and pollution, we tend to see our problems and solutions in a global context. If we are still narrowly patriotic, we tend to see, and solve, our problems and threats at the level of national sovereignty. If we are strongly ethnically oriented, we are looking for ways to strengthen this particular unit, and make it politically independent. If we identify, strongly, along religious, political, philosophical or professional lines, we may be inclined to look for the solution of the world's problems by the domination of a particular religious or philosophical outlook, etc.

The point we want to emphasise, here, is the fact, that we can only begin to judge, whether a particular effort is constructive or destructive, if we define, first of all, our overall objectives. If our overall goal is the political domination on a global scale of a particular way of life, or a specific philosophical view, then, we will see as "destructive" any effort or tendency to weaken our objective. However, if we are convinced, that such a rivalry for global dominance is suicidal, because it can so easily lead to all-out nuclear warfare, we will see any build-up of nuclear and military strength on either side of a political or ideological divide, as a dangerous and suicidal trend.

Throughout the realm of the living organisation, we see the emergence, time and again, of this most fundamental question of all; is survival sought in the road towards mutual inter-dependence, such as the social organisation of the multi-cellular organism, or, is security sought in the defense of the individual organism. Once we have an agreement about this basic dilemma, we will find it much easier to judge the prevailing attitudes and trends we see around us in our social environments, because we will have to be able to agree about the existence of a problem, or the reality of a threat, before it is possible to overcome this threat by an effective action of our collective "will".

.......

Summary

1. A sad commentary on the outlook on life.
   How can it be punishment to be alive and well, and a thinking human being?
   When we prefer a state of "near-nothingness".
   An adaptation to chronic stress.
   Exorcising normal human drives in order to resign ourselves to an immutable status-quo.
   An alien philosophy, especially, when we are able to indulge our whims and satisfy desires at the drop of a hat.
   The road between a rigid straight-jacket of unhealthy emotional controls, and a life-stye of senseless indulgence.
   The controls that are needed for a life of health and vitality.
   The need to agree about our reality experiences, and, the need to agree about a code of generally acceptable conduct.
   Cultural cross-fertilisation.
   Generalising reality perceptions and principles of conduct.
   Reality perceptions with a potential to spread far beyond existing political boundaries.
   The spread of Christianity throughout Barbaric Europe.
   The relative judgement that a certain situation represents a "sad commentary".
   We are not going to get high marks from future generations for the profoundness of our wisdoms, nor for the quality of our insights.
   Perhaps, a "Blissful Nothingness" will become the destination, as well as a justified objective of human existence, after the nuclear holocaust.
   Let us have a close look at clashing reality perceptions.
   How to prevent dissent from sliding into an acrimonious confrontation.
   
   
   
2. Dissent and disagreement are everywhere.
   There is so much to clean-up and organise.
   A deep chill in super-power relations.
   The struggle for dominance.
   The ideological conflict.
   What we consider to be true or false, determines, what we find right or wrong, and, whom we believe or mistrust.
   The lines of authority and communication are shaped by our beliefs.
   A stark contrast between the worlds of the righteous and the sinners.
   We all construct a sphere of reality perceptions around our own existence.
   The reality perception arises through a "dialogue" between the members of a small, tightly-knit social unit, prior to a sense of "individual differentiation".
   When the political unit began to include a number of different communities and reality perceptions.
   Communicating, constructively and meaningfully, between culturally different groupings is not an easy task.
   Mechanisms of "emotional synchrony", or the harmonisation of moods.
   An aggressive mood of revenge and violence spreads easily throughout a mob.
   Cultural and genetic factors in sexual behaviour.
   The "orientation" of an outlook or attitude.
   Establishing or re-enforcing a hierarchical position.
   Verbal and sub-verbal communications.
   Verbal tools are rarely sufficient to change the direction of an attitude or outlook.
   Gullible people are easily taken-in by showmanship and "smooth talk".
   An attitude of trust is quickly eroded by false rumors.
   The risk of giving one's trust in a deliberate act of good-will.
   
   
   
3. A difficult dilemma.
   Has man already outstripped his ability to adapt to long-term existential needs?
   The essence of a "cultural transmission".
   The rising importance of the "collective will".
   The collective will can be seen to work effectively in small and coherent social groupings.
   The qualities of competence and openness.
   Disagreement and dissent are muted by the insight that social cohesion takes priority.
   An endless stream of practical problems and challenges to the chores of survival.
   The focus of a debate or an inquiry.
   Spontaneous, natural leadership.
   The direction we have to move into.
   We still try to solve large-scale problems in an essentially primitive and competitive manner.
   Laying the foundation for a shared perception of the realities of human existence.
   Agreement about the channels of authority and legitimacy.
   When we can only agree about the need to go to war.
   A search for common grounds that are already in existence.
   Our biological heritage.
   Shared existential needs, and the mechanisms of territoriality and competitive strife.
   The poor and the powerless are locked-up in the most barren areas of the globe.
   Cultivating an agreement about democratic ideals.
   Human rights, and the social ideal of essential equality.
   Many people pay only lip-service to these commonly shared ideals.
   A pre-occupation with super-power rivalry.
   An obsession with national self-interests.
   
   
   
4. The fragile and transient persuasiveness of a reasoned argument.
   We are faced with an "essential choice".
   The faculty of rational evaluation, and the mechanisms of natural selection.
   Continuing the search for a scaffold of rational agreements.
   A constructive federation of socially integrated entities.
   A universal social contract of essential equality.
   What constitutes a rational and honest discussion?
   The willingness to listen, seriously, to an opposing point of view.
   Avoiding the arousal of aggressive or defensive instincts.
   Conditions of good-will and trust.
   The need for mediation, whenever the conditions for a fruitful discussion are lacking.
   A genuine willingness to compromise.
   Practical psychological mechanisms lie at the foundation of the possibility to communicate fruitfully.
   Do we have the right to question each other's points of view closely?
   A careful and honest debater will always avoid exploiting someone's vulnerability.
   A good discussion respects the limits of tolerance.
   Avoiding the unnecessary break-down of psychological defenses.
   When reality is exclusively interpreted in terms of good and evil.
   The need for an agreement about human nature, including commonly shared psychological mechanisms.
   The sobering effects of a period of warfare and devastation.
   The swing between "builders" and "destroyers".
   Conscious faculties are a behavioural tool.
   Stress, and the slow movement of "tectonic plates".
   A series of less destructive, but still painful and humiliating "adjustments".
   
   
   
5. The lure of "talking tough".
   The price of "feeling good".
   Why the memories of warfare and devastation fade quickly.
   Prosperity, and the inevitable resurgence of strife and dissent.
   When the need for social cohesion diminishes.
   The decay of the attitude of cooperation, as soon as a measure of security has been reached.
   Dispersion and dissent represent the mechanisms of "social entropy".
   The advantages of possessing a clear conceptual grasp.
   Experiencing a "flash of recognition".
   A remarkable resemblance with the hated enemy.
   Security, dignity and essential equality.
   Why it is so difficult to create the conditions that are necessary for a social contract of essential equality in a much larger society.
   A "social contract" does not imply a specific conceptual model.
   Many diverging reality perceptions should still be able to agree about the basic outlines of a social contract of essential equality.
   Beneficial and harmful forms of disagreement.
   Retrospective judgements.
   When the response of a socially integrated entity becomes more flexible and appropriate.
   Finding an alternative to a state of "paralysis".
   Viability is the ultimate criterium for the forces of natural selection.
   
   
   
6. Specific examples of the criteria of viability "at work".
   The disastrous effects of loss of employment for the bread-winner.
   Everyone makes intuitive decisions about the size, nature, location and type of social unit one feels dependent upon.
   Identifying, simultaneously, with partly overlapping social units.
   Different classes, different responses.
   Leaders always try to make us identify with a social entity they have assumed jurisdiction over.
   Enslavement and loyalty.
   When we are tired of social upheaval.
   There are many different forms of dependence.
   Different spheres of identification.
   When a political entity has "died".
   When a viable and properous political entity has led to a large number of inter-dependencies between its members.
   The struggle for liberation from oppression by an exploitative elite.
   Nobody likes to lose a position of power and privilege.
   When people fight desperately for their "Cause".
   The clamor for social reform still takes, so often, the route of ruthless violence.
   The element of "reckless restlessness", or "reckless dissent".
   A "break-down" of relationships, caused by ignorance.
   
   
   
7. The problems of an extra-ordinarily successful life-form.
   An inevitable rise in competitive strife.
   A large amount of "locked-up" energies.
   The break-through of intelligence and manipulability.
   A gradual enlargement of habitable and inhabited territories.
   An expansion into harsher climates and more difficult environments.
   Existing under "easy conditions".
   The problem of "growing soft".
   The rise of a more sophisticated and larger social unit.
   When it is "hard work", just to survive.
   An increase in "surplus energies".
   When an "easement" of living conditions is expressed in a profound sense of relief and gratitude.
   Elements for a constructive build-up.
   An adequate reservoir of collective memories and insights.
   The inter-twining of memories and anticipations.
   The difficulties of transferring insights to the younger generations through the mechanisms of secondary learning.
   During "easy circumstances", the awareness of the need for social cohesion diminishes rapidly.
   An upsurge in strife, bickering and reckless dissent.
   The "ease of existence" is quickly eroded, and a "balance of forces" is quickly restored.
   
   
   
8. The trend of consumerism.
   Social success becomes a powerful lure, in spite of the religious imagery that life is a transient affair.
   The possession of a skill lessens the necessary "maintenance-energy", later in life.
   Learning to shelter ourselves from serious stress.
   The decay of wealthy families.
   Poor and ignorant members are hanging-on to life in a forgotten corner of their social environment.
   A paralysing confluence of poverty, ignorance, despair and undisciplined behaviour.
   The life-cycle of a social entity.
   When we do not know, how to deal with a threat.
   When the flow of energy becomes undisciplined and haphazard.
   Reckless dissent; a stream of energy that has escaped from its customary constraints.
   Adequate contemporary judgements are still very difficult to make.
   We have to be satisfied with a fragmentary moment of insight, here and there.
   We all need to fulfill a number of physical and psychological requirements.
   A curiously ambivalent attitude may be the essence of a healthy social relationship.
   Learning to look at social and individual realities from many different perspectives.
   We have to define, first, our overall objectives.
   Learning to distinguish between constructive and destructive rivalries.
   The fundamental dilemma.

......