A REVIEW OF WORK DONE







A Study in Thought

sa100



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

An initial look at my work.
The evaluation is your's.
I have been trying to describe the realities "as I see them".
A detailed account of the way my writings have come-about.
A curious, generalised approach, without references to other works or other people.
There is a great deal of repetition in my work.
What prompted me to write.
The idols and virtues of today may be the follies and shame of tomorrow.
How to match one's inclination to write with a chance for contemporary success.
Why are some artists from the past still relevant for us today?
The common denominators of all great works of art.
Being less than fully happy, or integrated, with the social environment.
Talent and dedication.
An intellectual articulation of chronic tensions.
The experience of stress and rejection is no guarantee for success.
I experienced chronic, but never severe tensions.
A tendency towards neurotic behaviour.
Why I failed as a pianist.
Am I on a gigantic ego-trip?
Is my work interesting enough to be read?
The responsibility I have towards my works.

When you look at my work for the first time, you, probably, ask yourself; "what is he trying to do?" Indeed, what is the purpose of my work? Ironically, my interpretation will just be my own. While it may serve as a guide for those, who want to form a judgement about my work, there is no guarantee, that their evaluation will correspond with my own. After all, a judgement about the value or purpose of someone's work, goes beyond the motivations or the expressed goals of the individual in question, because it depends, as much, if not more, on the person, who is going to make this judgement.

Every individual forms a sphere of reality perceptions around him- or herself, and, I form only a small part of the reality perceptions of someone, who knows my work. The way my work is interpreted is, therefore, always coloured somewhat differently. It will always reflect a different individual, with different experiences, and, therefore, my work, my significance, or insignificance, my contributions and mistakes, my dreams and motivations, will always be seen from a different perspective, and, this is the reason, why, I feel, that my particular evaluation is nothing more than my particular perception of the way I see myself. Certainly, there is some value in my evaluation, because it provides an opportunity to clarify my motives and objectives, in case the reader or student is puzzled, and would like to hear, what I have been trying to do in these writings.

Perhaps, the most concise answer would be to say, that I have simply been trying to describe the realities "as I see them", and, I feel, of course, that, the way I have come to see many realities, are worthwhile recording, because they are, on the one hand, perceptions that most of us could share, and, on the other hand, the scope, as well as the coherence of my reality perceptions is, I believe, unique.

I hope, of course, that the broadness of this scope of vision, as well as the way I have emphasised many correlations and analogies, will, eventually, be of interest and use to others. If not, my work will remain, at best, only a "curiosity". It will then remain, merely, an example how peculiar a reality perception could be for someone, who lived in the twentieth century.

I am going to refrain, therefore, from making any judgment or speculation about the question, whether or not I have succeeded, since this is not my task. I am going to give you a fairly detailed account of the way my writing has come-about, and, how I have approached the topics, which I have chosen to discuss. I will also discuss with you the methods of presentation, as well as the overall characteristics and peculiarities of these essays. I will explain the curious, generalised character of my writings, the absence of references to other works and other people, as well as the absence of details in the examples and specifics that have been brought to the fore.

This should give you a general introduction to the sort of work I have been engaged in, and, then, I will review, briefly, the hundred essays that have been written. Here again, I will not discuss them one by one. Such an approach would be repititious and boring. Let us not forget, that I try, again and again, to bring the same sort of thoughts, ideas, topics or concerns under words, and, there is, therefore, a great deal of repetition in my work. However, these essays are not meant to be read one after the other, in a chronological sequence. The numbering of the essays refers, indeed, to the chronology in which they have been sketched, but, the only essays, which are meant to be read in sequence, are those, which have been clearly designated as a unit.

What, then, prompted me to write? What prompts anyone to write? Why would people take-up the pen and start slugging away, trying to bring something under words? I am not thinking, here, about those, who discover during their years of schooling, that they have some sort of a "gift for words"; that they can tell a story in a way that is entertaining. These people will, naturally, turn their talents into a money-making activity, and, they become the professional journalists, writers and editors, who make a living with their pen.

Making a living is different from a genuine attempt to make a lasting contribution, because, if one is dependent upon an immediate sale of one's work, it requires a careful tailoring to the prevailing public taste, while an effort to write something "from the heart", will, often, affront the prevailing public taste, because it is, so often, a reaction to the follies of one's time. Certainly, such a reaction may become quickly popular, if the audience recognises the portrait that has been drawn, and, then, a writer may consider himself lucky, indeed.

There is a vast difference between the public of today and the peoples of tomorrow. There is a good chance, that the idols and the virtues of today will be the follies and the shame of tomorrow, but, the public of today pays well, and, the peoples of tomorrow are, at best, only a shadowy perception in the mind of an anxious philosopher. Yet, the true contributors to the world of today; those, we admire for what they did, said, invented or taught us, for the music and other forms of beauty and reflection they created, those contributors were, primarily, "peoples of the future". They were people, who preferred genuine artistry and conscientious craftsmanship over slick, easy, popular appeal.

Certainly, there is no guarantee, that, anyone, searching for new ways, will find recognition and acceptance in the future, if he is rejected by his contemporaries, nor, is there any reason why an artist, who is popular in his or her contemporary society, will, necessarily, be forgotten by future generations. However, we can be fairly sure, that, any work which has been produced with an eye on "sale-ability" and popularity, must remain somewhat shallow, and, it is likely to be irrelevant for a generation that has turned its back on slick commercialism and shallow appeals.

The peoples of the past, who are still relevant today, must have touched, somehow, on values, interpretations or concerns that change little, as the fashions and the fads come and go. Only, if the living generations find something of relevance in a work of art from the past, only, then, will this work survive, or be re-vived, and, only, if a work of art is relevant, will the personality of the artist be of interest to the living generations. Yet, looking towards the future, and, trying to anticipate the trends of development and the type of environment future generations will live under, is no guarantee, either, that an artist will succeed.

I believe, that the most important common denominator of all great art, is the fact, that it refers to the basics of human existence. These are the features and concerns that are shared by all generations, regardless of any particular cultural characteristics. These "basics" include concern for the fellow human being, an awareness of the common experiences of suffering and joy, of ambition and disappointment, of victory and defeat, and, above all, of the fragility and temporariness of our individual existence.

A sober evaluation of the ever-recurring experiences and emotions of human beings brings us closer to the generations of the past, as well as those of the future, and, a clear reflection of our basic, common human characteristics, coupled with an attitude of integrity and dedication to produce the best work possible, are common characteristics, shared by the all those, whose works we still love and admire.

One characteristic that seems shared by most people who have been given the opportunity, and, who possessed the ability, to produce works of art with a measure of relevance for many generations, is the fact, that such people were less than fully happy, or, less than fully integrated with the social environment in which they lived. This does not mean, that they were always "great romantics", and, that they lived a rebellious life-style, clashing with their social environment, but, it does mean, that they all had to struggle.

These less well integrated people had to struggle for recognition or financial security. They had to struggle against fickle public support or loyalty, and, they had to struggle with themselves, in order to remain integer and honest artists. They had to struggle against prejudice and jealousies. Undoubtedly, they were all highly talented, and, they were also fortunate to have had the opportunity to develop their talents fully, but, even so, they were acutely aware of the short period of time they had to do their work, and, many of them were cut-short by illness, accident or misfortune.

The tensions between an artist and his or her social environment, can take many forms. Certainly, in the philosophically inclined writers, this tension is articulated, primarily, in an intellectual manner, but, others, such as musicians and novelists, are also reacting to the many tensions that burden them and their social environments.

I am convinced, that no great artist ever became truly great and fully mature without a strong experience of tension or hardship. If an individual always receives encouragement and success, his talents and works are likely to remain somewhat shallow, as we see in people who were extremely gifted and fortunate in the circumstances under which they lived and worked.

Certainly, the mere fact of being under stress is no guarantee for success. If one seeks, deliberately, such tensions in a desperate attempt to cultivate, whatever talents one has, the results are nearly always unsatisfactory. No genuine artist ever sought tensions deliberately, because he or she was acutely aware of the fact, that a period of stress or tension was not conducive to good work.

Tensions are needed to learn and mature, but, the actual production of a work requires a measure of relaxation and freedom from tensions. The tensions an artist would find himself under, and, which would, in retrospect, be judged to have completed an artist's process of maturation, were always encountered and endured involuntarily, and, they were not sought-after in a romantic notion of suffering for the sake of art, or, as a result of a somewhat masochistic attitude.

Indeed, tensions between me and my environment played a role in the development of my philosophical inclinations, but, these tensions were never severe. As a child, I was shy, insecure and introvert, which made it somewhat difficult to make friends. I remember, that I always "saw myself" doing thing, or, just being there, and watch others play, etc. I have always been extremely reflective, and I always had the experience that I could, and would, "watch myself behave", but this reflectiveness never prevented me from having an apparently normal life. While never a "leader", I was always accepted, and, I found it easy to behave in such a way, that it was pleasing or acceptable to others.

I have never encountered great misfortunes, and I was blessed with the ability to learn quickly and without effort. Ironically, my heart's desire, for a long time, especially, during adolescence, was to become a classical musician, a pianist, but, here, I encountered great difficulties and frustrations. I never understood at the time, why I could not progress, and, why I did not seem to be able to reach a professional standard, because I wanted it so much, and I was willing to work hard for it. Later, I learned to understand, what sort of neurotic blocking was taking place, and I understand now, much better, what was happening at the time. Let us not analyse this, here, any further, because I have done so to some extent, and, I intend to give these experiences and retrospective conclusions, extensive coverage in an autobiographic sketch, which I hope to write at some time in the future.

Let me only say, that, I was, probably, too restless, and, that I approached the function of piano-playing too egocentrically and too much as a vehicle for success, to have been persuasive for others, and, some people may accuse me of writing with the same motivations! Too much with an eye on the immortality of an admiring posthumous audience.

Certainly, I can not deny, that I would appreciate it, if people would like my work. I would be very happy, if my existence would have some meaning for people who will live long after I have died, but, I do not believe, that I still have this strenuous, egocentric orientation that hindered my development as a pianist. Nevertheless, my writings so far, have been extra-ordinarily unsuccessful. I know of no-one, who likes my work, or, who can read through it. Even my family and friends can not read through my work. I have no-one I can discuss my work with, and, I live now quite isolated, without any feed-back from other people. I have to sustain my efforts, solely, on the basis, that I believe to have something to say and that it is worthwhile to write my thoughts down.

If people continue to interpret all my efforts as one gigantic ego-trip, then, there is only one defense; please, read it all, and, understand it all, and, if you still think, that these writings are useless to anyone else, then, forget about them and forget about me. At least, I am not forcing anyone to listen to me, or to believe in me. All that is left of me is the text that is in front of you, and, I have always deliberately avoided "to get power". I did not want, and still do not want, people to read my work for any other reason than that it means something to them; that they get "something out of it". All other criteria are essentially erroneous, and will not succeed in keeping an artist and his works alive, after he is not around anymore to "prop them up" with his personality; with the appeal of a position of authority; with his wit, or, some other attention-seeking device.

The only criterium I want people to apply to my work, is an answer to the question, whether or not my essays are interesting enough to read. The only criterium that matters is the question, whether or not you would like to know what I had to say. If I can not generate a measure of interest with the text I have written, then, my works should be forgotten. They should be put-away, in the realisation, that the reader's judgement may change, or, that another reader, at another period of human history, will judge differently, and may see something of value, after all.

Fortunately, I do not have to wait around to see what is happening to my work. After I have done whatever I could, my responsibilities are finished. I can relax and go-on to something else, in spite of the fact, that I have to make sure, that my work comes under the eyes of a few people who may "see something in it". Besides, I have the responsibility to preserve them as well as I can, in order to retain the possibility for other people to scrutinise my works, at some time in the future.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

Am I an artist, and, is philosophy a form of art?
Language is a tool for many different forms of art.
Philosophy and the synthetic forms of science.
The overall view within a scientific discipline.
A "populariser" of the sciences.
The general philosopher goes one step further.
Statements are not defended with specific references, but with an invitation to "shoot-down" a generalised statement with specific exceptions.
"Europe before Nuclear War"; a curious blend between a political manifesto and a philosophical over-view.
In an artistic evaluation, the criteria of beauty and usefulness have to be provided by the student of a work of art.
How "entertaining" can a philosopher be?
The attractiveness of a stern sermon.
It is not pleasant to read my work.
I refuse to consider my thoughts to be "exceptional", or irrelevant.
I am happy with my self-imposed task and frugal life-style.

Let us go back to this essential tension between an artist and his environment, because it is such a vital part in the development and maturation of every artist. Do I see myself as an artist, and, is philosophy then a form of art? I believe it is. Just as a composer of music records the music he hears within himself, (elaborated by his craftsmanship into something that shines by virtue of a harmonious blend between mastery and inspiration), so is the philosopher recording the realities as he sees them around and within himself, and, in particular, as he sees the realities of inter-actions between himself and the surrounding world. Here, too, craftsmanship plays a crucial role, because the mere recording of impressions would be boring, unless they become something special and appeal to a fair number of people, who can recognise their own experiences and sensations in such a description of realities and thoughts.

Language is a tool for many different forms of art, such as novelists, poets, dramatists, carricaturists, historians, scientists, and many others. Anyone, who works with concepts and ideas, feelings or facts, has to use language, and the methods of using language are so varied, that no single individual can be a master in all these forms of language communication. In the writing of philosophy, the accent shifts from a description of human and environmental tensions, as they occur and are recorded by our senses and emotions, to a description of realities as they appear to us, when we look at them with a wide-angled vision.

"Are we not entering, here, the synthetic fields of science?", you may ask. Yes, indeed, there is no essential difference between synthetic science and philosophy, and, this is one of the reasons why "general philosophy" has been neglected, and has become somewhat discredited. Yet, there are differences in approach. First of all, the sciences still emphasise the analytical aspects with their research projects and numerous experiments, and, their purpose is, generally, to add to a specific field of knowledge; to gain more detailed knowledge in a particular field, and, to prove the legitimacy of a hypothesis, by showing that a particular model or way of interpreting reality, will increase the mastery over a particular subject.

The analytical or research aspects, together with the discovery of a specific principle of operation for the events taking place in nature, are, indeed, the most dramatic and spectacular aspects of science, but, the more broadly synthetic aspects are there, too. These efforts are mostly left to the seasoned teachers, who try to write a text-book in their later years, spanning the knowledge of scientific expertise in their particular field. This synthetic view is authoritatively supported by numerous references and quotations, and, the competent, conscientious scientific professor can certainly put-together a highly valued and wide-ranging view of his particular field of knowledge.

The vastness of modern science is the main reason for its fragmentation into numerous specialties, and, this is the reason, why the scientific horizons of even the most intelligent and experienced workers have to end at, or near, the borders of their particular scientific field. Any broader scope of view must, necessarily, go at the expense of a detailed expertise and knowledge in anyone particular field, and, the status of the observer, or writer slides, then, from the professional to that of the interested and intelligent lay-person.

This is the reason, why synthetic reviews of fields that comprise more than one scientific specialty, are usually carried-out by interested lay-people or scientific journalists, who make a career of trying to understand the essence of a number of scientific fields. These people will synthesise this body of knowledge into a comprehensible, "popularised" review, which is of interest to educated lay-people as well as scientists working in different fields. The "populariser" relies, heavily, on the authority of his scientific contacts, and the criterium of authority for a popular synthesis, shifts from an impressive series of scientific references to the reference of known and living authorities in their field.

The general philosopher goes one step further than the populariser or synthesiser of a number of scientific fields. The general philosopher has to have a knowledge of the essential outlines of many scientific fields, but, because he is reviewing the entire scope of human existence and endeavour, almost in one sweeping over-view, he does not refer, anymore, to authorities, text-books or specific works of science, but, he refers the reader to the contents of a comprehensive and up-to-date encyclopedia.

Furthermore, the general philosopher is so busy synthesising in a pragmatic and intuitive manner the overall features of this large panorama of his reality perceptions, that he does not defend or support his statements with references, but, he invites the reader to "shoot-down", with specific counter-arguments from one's own sphere of reality perceptions, the general statements that have been formulated in an intuitive manner. At least, this is the technique I have adopted in my works, and, I have stated this principle of approach, most clearly, in the introduction to my work "Europe, before Nuclear War".

This work, incidently, does not fall within the hundred essays, which are the topic of review in this last essay, because, these short essays, twelve in total, have not been included in this numbered sequence. "Europe, before Nuclear War" is a somewhat curious work, because, on the one hand, it is centered around a contemporary political and social concern, (the deployment of medium-range nuclear missiles in Western Europe), but, on the other hand, it gives a summary of the many philosophical conclusions I have come to over the years. It is, therefore, a cross between a political manifesto and a succinct summary of many philosophical ideas, which have been described, more extensively, in the larger and numbered "hundred essays".

I have not received any feed-back to this work, in spite of the fact, that it deals with a highly current issue of political and social concern. Perhaps, the more philosophical parts of this work make it unsuitable as a vehicle for polarised political opinions, and, on the other hand, the recurrent exhortations against the deployment of new missiles, may deter those, who are looking for a quiet discussion about man and his society, away from the upheavals of contemporary, international and national politics.

However, just as we can not separate philosophy from the concerns of our daily existence, I believe, that it is not wise to discuss philosophical concerns apart from pressing political problems and concerns about social justice. Neither is it right to discuss political problems exclusively in a context of contemporary, current issues, without looking at the nature of man and his societies.

I do not hold out much hope for this work, at least, not at this time. The current political issues may change rapidly, making the manifesto features of this work, Europe, before Nuclear War, quickly outdated, while the more philosophical parts will remain unread, and un-explored. Because the generalised philosopher has to resort to an intuitive synthesis, as well as a pragmatic approach to the many generalised statements he is going to make, the activities of such a philosophising mind slide-away from the criteria that satisfy the scientific method, and, the activities become, then, "artistic", where the criteria of beauty and usefulness have to be supplied by the reader or student of a work of art.

Rather than supplying the tools and weapons of arguments and facts, with which a scientist impresses his colleagues and convinces them that a particular description or find can be accepted as a legitimate scientific observation, the artist and the general philosopher can only do their best to create their products the best way they know how, and, they will have to let the audience decide, whether or not they like it and find it useful. The criteria for judgeing music, the visual arts, or any other form of art, seem to be a rather simple like or dislike. The quality to be able to absorb the interest of an audience, may be called an "entertainment factor", but, how "entertaining" can a generalised philosophical essay be?

It is, indeed, difficult to write philosophical essays and believe, in all honesty, that they are "entertaining". How entertaining can a philosopher be, in particular, if he insists upon writing or saying things nobody wants to hear? How "pleasurable" can a philosophy be that brings, constantly, an imagery to the fore which most people find somewhat repulsive? How attractive can a stern sermon be to people, who expect to hear something different? At least, the preacher has the advantage, that he can explain the unpleasant message as a commandment from God, Who is trying, one last time, to save the sinners from their impending down-fall. How can the sermon of a philosopher ever be palatable to a contemporary generation, if it contrasts sharply, or collides head-on, with whatever people want and are used to hear? Yet, such is the nature of my work. The tensions I have always felt to exist between me and my social surroundings, have led to a thorough condemnation of the many "evils" of the affluent society, without invoking the Lord as the ultimate authority upon which these condemnations are based.

It is not pleasant to read my work, especially not for those, who still believe in the traditional wisdoms associated with the affluent Western Democracies. My work will shake, profoundly, the convictions of those, who have the courage and the patience to read my work closely, and, who are not afraid to be shaken and tossed around, as the apparent certainties of their convictions are eroded, one after the other.

No, I am not surprised, that nobody likes my "preaching", and, that the overall effect of my work, my approach to contemporary, affluent life, as well as my conclusions about the nature and destiny of man, are not very appealing to people. Therefore, I appear to be alone in the way I think and see things; and, yet, I refuse to believe, that I am that much of an exception. You see, even, if only one percent of the people in societies all over the world, would, eventually, appreciate, to some extent, what I have been trying to do, I would not feel to be a loner or to have failed completely. Even, if only a few individuals would make the effort to read my work, carefully, and give a balanced evaluation of what I have been trying to say, I would feel, that it has all been worthwhile. As it is, I can only wait and see what happens.

Let me not give the impression that I feel unhappy or frustrated. Far from it. I know, that I live under highly privileged circumstances. I have been able to retire early, financially independent; at least, we are financially independent for a frugal life-style in the country-site. However, as I have pointed-out before, this frugal life-style has a high "quality of life", and, I believe, that my family has not suffered in any way from the fact, that I withdrew, early, from my medical career. I planned for a number of years, together with my wife, this move towards the country-site, where we would embark upon a semi-self-sufficient life-style. We moved to much less expensive premises, yet, the view from our property, as well as the surroundings of this village are beautiful. We look out over the sea, which has many bays and islands in this area, and, yet, the village is not commercially exploited; at least, not as yet.

I have all the time to think and write, and, I believe that my output has been substantial, as you can see from the fact, that I am, hereby, completing my one-hundreth essay. Certainly, the loneliness and isolation is, at times, somewhat depressing. I mean, that I would prefer to have more contacts and feed-back regarding my work, but, it may well be, that my work would still be utterly inaccessible or completely rejected, even, if I had more contacts with people, who could, and would, make the effort to have a look at it.

I deliberately set-out on a road that is very lonely. I am not following any particular school or example, and, I do not read other people's philosophical musings, which means, that I am not familiar with the way other people have tried to grasp a philosophical over-view in our times. I am highly critical of the permissive, affluent societies with their reliance upon all sorts of economic and exploitative activities, and, the combination of all these factors, together with the curiously generalised, reference-less writings, can not be expected to find easily a measure of recognition or acceptance.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

The value of my work.
What is the purpose of recording my reality perceptions?
A "credo".
A summary of the goals I have been working for.
Writing for an audience that believes in an alternative to the nuclear holocaust.
I am probably part of a trend that has already started.
I have to avoid over-emphasising the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
The limits of my reality perceptions.
I am always looking for common denominators.
A review of the first eighteen essays.
A labyrinthine, beginner's work.
Essay 24; Oscillations.
A steady format from essay 29 onwards.
My writing habits.
Reading, correcting, typing and re-typing; with the word-processor, this work has been remarkably facilitated.
How the work; "Europe, before Nuclear War" came into being.
Working with the word-processor.
An ambitious project of 300 essays.

It is difficult, if not impossible, to know, whether or not this sort of writing is ever going to be of value to others. I have said in the beginning of this informal over-view and reflection upon my work, that it is not my task to ponder and wonder about the possible merits and failures of my work, because, all I would be doing, is guessing, how people will react to it. No, the criteria for deciding, what to do, how to write, what to record, and, how to approach a potential readership, have to be based on certain personal judgements that could be defined by the questions; what am I trying to do, and, whom do I have in mind, when I am writing?

What is the purpose of recording the reality perceptions I have? On the one hand, I have acknowledged, that they are unlikely to be of any interest to my contemporaries, and, I have to answer the question, why I believe, that future generations may be more interested in what I have to say. In short; the reasons are as follows. I believe, that a relativistic reality perception, based on a scientific and evolutionary imagery of our existence, will be a corner-stone in the exploration of mutual understanding and cooperation by future generations. I believe, that armed conflicts and the survival of the winner, is, not only, an outmoded, but, also, highly dangerous method for settling conflicts of interest, because it jeopardises our continued viability as a species. I believe, that a relativistic reality perception of the phenomena of natural evolution, will form the foundation for our efforts to overcome the apparently irreconcilable contrasts between the religious and scientific reality perceptions. It will also allow us to fit all the different cultural modes of perceiving reality into a coherent framework that will become the key to understanding the need for mutual respect and cooperation.

I believe, that the trend is going to be towards a more uniform code of behaviour; a universal code of human rights and obligations, as well as a more uniform way of organising our large and complex societies. The accent will shift towards a social contract of essential equality in dignity and living standards, a universal franchise to vote for the political leaders of our choice, as well as a democratically elected system of government with a multi-Party system. The latter will find its strength and form, not in the ideology of a specific political Party, but, in a commonly worked-out set of Constitutional Guidelines.

I believe, that this set of Constitutional Guidelines is going to be the key to a condition of global harmony and social integration. It is going to be the key to a world-wide contract of social justice, supported by generally accepted obligations, but, before we can agree upon such a set of Constitutional Guidelines, and, before we can even recognise the urgent need to design such a Constitution, we will have to develop a globally acceptable way of interpreting the realities of our individual and collective existence.

There, in a nut-shell, are the goals I have been working towards, and, these goals also become the criteria with which I have to decide, whether or not a particular piece of writing is any good. Only, if there is, indeed, a movement amongst the peoples of the world towards recognising the need for a globally acceptable reality perception, a global standard of justice, as well as a world-wide contract of social equality, (defusing the vicious cycle of mutually re-enforced fear and the ever-escalating arms-race); only, if there is going to be a movement into this direction, will it be possible for my work to be recognised.

In a way, I am writing for an audience that has come to the conclusion, that, yes, indeed, there is an alternative to mutual destruction caused by the holocaust of a nuclear war, and, of course, these trends are already emerging during my time. It may well be, that I have subconsciously responded to this trend, and, it may well be, that my own development is a result of the beginnings of a trend, which may, hopefully, become powerful enough to transform mankind into a stable and healthy social environment with global dimensions.

Probably, I am much less alone than I think, but, the trend is still vague and scattered, looking for a firm voice, and, it may well take some time, before people who are part of this trend, will recognise, what I have been trying to do, and, that I am a valid proponent of this trend towards global harmony and social integration.

Indeed, I believe, that the social aspects of my relativistic reality perceptions are, at the present time, the most important, as well as the most urgent to develop, because our survival as a species may depend on the question, whether or not we can generate a sufficient stability for this life-giving atmosphere of mutual trust and cooperation, before the inexorably destructive sequences of a nuclear war and its retaliatory measures are being put into motion. Here, you see, why I combined the political manifesto, or pamphlet, with a summary of globalistic and relativistic reality perceptions.

I have to be careful, however, not to put too much emphasis on the threat of nuclear war and the urgent need to come to a broader sphere of perceiving reality. There is a danger, that this becomes repetitive and less effective, in particular, if the threat of nuclear warfare recedes again, to some extent, in the near future. I will, therefore, concentrate, primarily, on the description of a way of looking at the realities around and within us. This should provide us with ample opportunities to broaden the sphere of our concerns, and, let us concentrate on the common humanity and the esentially similar drives of our enemies and ourselves.

However, I realise, that my sphere of reality perceptions is also limited. After all, I am only one particular individual, and, there are many fields of experience, which I have not been exposed to. It will always be possible to find questions and concerns, which I have not addressed, while other questions and concerns may have been addressed a number of times, giving the impression of being somewhat repetitive.

If there are questions and concerns, which you, the reader, can not find in my discussions, I would like to ask you to look for a discussion of this particular question in a more generalised form. Do not forget, that I am, first and foremost, a generalising philosopher, and, I always try to see the common denominators, or, the basic, underlying mechanism, behind a particular phenomenon, and, it may be, that, I did not discuss a specific question, because I already dealt with it in more general terms.

The first eighteen essays were intended to be a unit, and, I have called them; "In Search of Reality". However, the attempt has largely failed. The work is labyrinthine and very much a beginner's work. It is not very coherent, but, I believe, that it is genuine, and it contains in a rudimentary or embryonic form, many of the thoughts and ideas which I have started to discuss in a more leisurely manner in the essays that arose after no 28.

I have tried to improve the unity of these first eighteen essays by constructing an elaborate sequential and alfabetical index, but, I believe that it has not really made much difference. I am afraid, that the work will remain a "curiosity"; at the most, it will remain a guide post for those, who are interested to trace the evolution of my ideas, back to their earliest beginnings. Volumes 19 and 20 constitute an attempt to fashion some sort of cohesion with those two indices, but these attempts have been abandoned and explain the gap in the numbering of my essays. The short essays of 21, 22 and 23, are "left-overs" from the sketches, which I used to put the Search of Reality together, and, I believe that they are, indeed, only left-overs, without much intrinsic value.

Number 24 is the longest of my essays; Oscillations. I sketched this during a very cold, first winter in the country-home we had moved to, about a year after my retirement. It is an attempt by a lay-man without any specific training in nuclear physics, mathematics or cosmology, to visualise this fascinating world, where matter and energy touch each other. It is purely an attempt to visualise these matters, and, to bring them under words. In addition, I have tried a "tongue in cheek" synthesis of the natural force-fields. While the fusion between the weak nuclear forces and the electro-magnetic forces has already been widely accepted, the attempt to bring the strong nuclear force and the force of gravitation also under the same heading of electro-magnetic force-fields, is, of course, far more speculative. However, I am sort of pleased with this essay, in spite of its highly speculative and unusual nature. It stands out as a "complete loner" amongst the other essays, and, perhaps, this is one of the reasons I feel sympathetic towards it.

I felt, that this essay on Oscillations came-out rather well, and, it was the first "successful" long essay, at least, in my judgement. I still recommend its reading, even, if I do not know, whether or not I should feel embarrassed about this speculative play with the force of gravity. Essays 25 to 28 are also "fairly good", at least, I feel less defensive about them, and, they are much more coherent and tightly woven than the essays that make-up the Search of Reality.

From then on, I have used a steady format in producing essays. I begin by giving myself 65 pages of lined paper in which to bring my ideas to the fore about a topic that has been chosen. As a rule, the topic has been chosen long before I start working on it. If I "see" a title, which, I believe, is broad enough to allow me a discussion of about 65 pages, and yet, coherent enough to function as a "leitmotive", or recurrent theme, then, I write such a title down. I then select a number of previously chosen and written-down titles for a "project" of "working-out".

I usually write for a few months at a stretch, and, I try to complete a series of 5 to 10 essays. I begin by thinking for a few days, what I can do with the title that is before me. After a few days of intensive thought, I begin to write in long-hand, with an old fashioned fountain-pen. If I have a good day, I can complete between fifteen and twenty hand-written pages, but, after a good day, my pace of writing, invariably, "slows", as I feel the need to do more mental composing, before I start to write again. I never write, unless I feel, that I have something to say, and, if I feel "empty" or not "inspired", I do not write. This saves an enormous amount of work, because, if I try to write without it really going well, it will take a lot of time and effort to weed-out the weak parts.

I try to write in such a way, that I only have to correct style and spelling later, and to divide the text into chapters. I rarely delete or add large parts, because I try to put something down that is coherent and well-paced. Certainly, often, my thoughts flow much faster than my pen can follow, and, I tend to get a somewhat cramped arm while writing. Besides, the construction of my sentences may be wrong in this first draft. I concentrate, entirely, on getting the stream of thoughts on paper, and, I stop writing, as soon as this stream has stopped, or, if I have become distracted by one thing or another.

If an essay goes extremely well, it may be finished in 4 or 5 days of actual writing, but, often, it takes a week or more to complete the first draft. However, as a rule, I can "compose" and write an essay in about two weeks, and, if I write a number of them in a row, you can see, that I may have a "writing-spell" lasting 4 or 5 months. During this time, I am not working on anything else, because I find, that I need complete concentration on my work during such a writing-spell.

I interrupt the periods of writing with equally long periods, where I will read, correct, type and re-type my work. However, I have no fixed routine, here. Earlier this year, I interrupted this sequence of essay writing with the special project; Europe, before Nuclear War. I started in mid-January and worked on it more or less non-stop till the beginning of September, when I had completed the final draft. These twelve essays were sketched in about 6 weeks time, and the rest of the time was spent correcting and re-typing. The final draft was typed on a rented memory type-writer, which allowed a neat and compact manuscript, but, since then, I have invested in a word-processor, which has facilitated the working-out of these essays, enormously. However, I still write the first draft in long-hand.

After I have completed the first draft of this informal essay "A Review of Work Done", I will spend, probably, about a year and a half in re-working the essays from 29 to 100 incl. I do not believe, that I will work them into a final draft, because there is litle prospect that anyone would want to look at them, but, I will work on them, until I am satisfied with the text, and, it would, then, only require one more "neat copy", before they could be presented. The word-processor, as well as the ability to store the text on a "floppy disk", makes it much easier to "crank-out" this final draft, when needed, since the type-written text can be "fed", chapter by chapter into the computer. Only a few last-minute changes have to be made before printing a final draft.

The next block of one hundred essays has already been selected; at least, I have titles for them. I give myself about 10 years to do this next series of 100 essays, including a work-up until the text can be finalised. In total, I plan about 300 essays, which would mean, roughly, 30 years of work. If I have not been able to say in those 300 essays what I want to say, then, the prospects are slim, that more essays will make any difference. I plan, therefore, to stop writing after I have completed these 300 essays, unless I feel, of course, that I still have a contribution to make.

.......

Chapter 4

Content

My weaknesses.
I am not entertaining.
The need for a healthy vitality and ego-drive.
I do not want to force my opinions upon anyone.
Why I do not use references, and, why I ignore the works of other people.
Comparisons with a musician.
The scholar and the artist have essentially different functions.
My discussions are not suitable for a detailed system of reference.
A characteristic "repertoir" of ideas and concepts.
I believe to have avoided pseudo-scientific speculations or facile science-fiction.
The need to preserve a strong "inner logic".
A discussion of essay 25.
The un-intentional bias in the interpretation of observations, and the design of experiments.
An audacious speculation with the unified-field theory.
I rely, completely, on the facts and observations of scientifically schooled people.
"New insights", obtained through extra-polations and correlations.
A vast gallery of "paintings without names".
We tend to rely on a "critic's choice".
When mankind will go "the other way".
The final flourish of "tribalism".
The same ideas and concepts may have been described, much better, and, more clearly, by other people.
I like to make a contribution to the long-term viability of mankind.
I am not afraid to show, how I had to learn the art of thinking and writing.

Let me discuss, now, the inherent weaknesses in my talents as a philosopher and a writer, as well as in my personality. Perhaps, my greatest weakness is the fact, that I am not an entertainer. I am not funny or engrossing, nor, am I a good story-teller, and, I have no talent or inclination to use dramatic effects. I write as I am, and my somewhat dull personality comes through, loud and clear. Yet, I believe, that I am honest, thorough, and, perhaps, even, fascinating in the originality of my reality perceptions.

Because of these weaknesses and lack of entertaining qualities, I should stick to the sort of writing I have developed. These essays may not become "best sellers", but, I know, that any attempt in a genre I have no feeling for, will be a collossal "flop", which can not even be supported by the hope that future generations may see something in it, after all.

Am I on one big "ego-trip", and, is my orientation too egocentric? Probably, there are many features in my personality, and the way I live, which will give some people this impression, and, they are probably right, at least, in part. Almost any opinion and judgement contains a kernel of truth with which we should be able to agree, even, if this opinion or judgement is negative. Any form of accomplishment, regardless, whether or not it will be judged to have been successful, depends on a healthy vitality and ego-drive, but, is it not far better to spend one's energies trying to make a contribution to the survival of mankind, than to add to the burdens of strife, pollution or ignorance?

I do not want to force my opinions upon anyone, and, this is the reason, why I have often said that I do not want any power, because I want people to have the freedom to close my books and forget about them. I want to be read, because people like to read me. The only thing that matters to a future audience, is the question, whether or not my "visions" are appealing and useful; whether or not they are a help in getting people to work together and to design a harmonious and viable large-scale social environment. The relevance and merit of my work will be the deciding factor, whether or not people will take note of what I had to say, and, not what sort of personality I had.

Are my essays too generalised, too vague, too much a collection of platitudes, and, not enough supported with references to back-up my arguments? I hope not, but, let us examine the possibility, that some people may come to this conclusion. Indeed, why do I not use references? Why do I ignore the works and contributions of countless other people? Is this not a sign of an extremely egocentric orientation?

Partly, this is, again, correct. I have never been guided, to any significant extent, by the views of other philosophically inclined people, and, as I mentioned, I have always had a strong inclination to reflect and think things through, on my own. This has led to the experience, that I do not enjoy reading about other people's opinions, because I rarely could agree with them. I believe, that this situation is quite similar to the professional musician, in particular, the composer, who will also be absorbed, for a large part of each day, by the musical ideas that come to his mind, stimulated by the sights and sounds of his existence and his surroundings. An active composer is too involved with himself and his own musical ideas, to become a good judge or appreciator of the musical works of others.

Such an evaluation and appreciation of the works of a number of artists is a task for the "scholar", who is an intense lover of a wide range of musical expressions, and, who has been studying these works of art for a long time. He can discuss and analyse them. He can put them into a perspective within the entire output of a composer, as well as amongst the works of his contemporaries and colleagues. This ability to give a valuable, scholarly review of an artist and his work, precludes, as a rule, this same intensity of creative activities, which the artist has to have. Therefore, the artist, and the scholar of art, are two totally different functions, that preclude each other, at least, to some extent. I am definitely a philosopher, a thinker, a writer, but, I am not a scholar of art, nor a scholar of philosophy or writing philosophical essays. This is one of the reasons, why I tend not to refer to other people and their works.

However, there are other reasons. For example, each observation, or "fact", which we accept and work with as a foregone conclusion, has a long history of discovery and development, and, I find it always somewhat arbitrary to use the name or the work which I happen to be familiar with, or, which is generally known and accepted. Look at such a monumental contribution as Einstein's theories of special and general relativity. Einstein is the person, who summarised and finalised many ideas in a most succinct form, and yet, these ideas have their history, and many other names could be mentioned in connection with these theories

However, the most important reason, why I refrain from using references, is the fact, that my discussions are not suitable for a detailed system of references. My writings are not specific and detailed enough to require a connection with a specific number of publications by other people, who have written on subjects that are related to my discussion. The requirement to follow my discussions, is, simply, a keen eye for observing what is happening around and within us, as well as some knowledge about the basic facts and images of a variety of scientific disciplines, which can be found in a comprehensive and up-dated encyclopedia. In addition, there are a large number of correlations and speculative images that can not be found anywhere, and, they constitute, together, this repertoir of ideas which could be called "characteristic" for the way I see reality.

I have always been careful to let these speculative images come to the fore as "extra-polations" of well known and well accepted trends. On the other hand, many of the broad-view correlations and ideas are, primarily, specific ways of emphasising a reality that is not subjected to doubt or questioning. For example, nobody will argue with the observation, or the fact, that our body is a large conglomerate of billions of cells, organised into a variety of organ-systems, but, I have used this imagery as a central theme in the emphasis of the various levels of social integration, which we can see troughout the realm of the living, or, even, pre-cellular worlds of existence.

I honestly believe, that my speculative images are never "pseudo-scientific" or facile science-fiction, because I am strongly aware of the need to preserve a measure of "inner logic". This sense of inner logic is, for example, a strong feature in this relatively short essay, "Perceptions and Perspectives" (25), where I question the interpretation of para-psychological phenomena. The reason for questioning these phenomena is based upon the fact, that, an acceptance of a para-psychological "fact" creates so many difficulties with this framework of inner logic, which links the sciences into an intuitively perceived unit of existence.

If we accept the idea, that nature has developed the possibility to "perceive", or communicate, outside the normal sense-organs, why, then, was it necessary to evolve, over many hundreds of millions of years, the capabilities of the special sense-organs? The whole thrust of this essay has been based on a search to maintain this inner logic of the sciences, as well as the concepts of natural evolution.

I believe, that a much more careful look at the mechanisms of perception and intepretation will, indeed, lead to the acceptance of many of the observations of the para-psychologists, but, we will not have to come to the implied conclusions of "something beyond the range of normality", which is now clouding this field, and, which is the main reason for the intuitive aversion many scientificially schooled people feel towards the observations of a para-psychological nature. What is more, in the future, we will be able to understand, much better, to what extent the acceptance of foregone conclusions leads to an unintentional bias in the design and interpretation of experiments throughout all the fields of science, and, not only, those, which concern themselves with para-psychological phenomena.

On the other hand, the audacious effort to bring the force of gravitation, as well as the force-field of the strong nuclear forces, under a common denominator with the electro-magnetic force-fields, is, indeed, speculative, and, it is a reflection of an inherent tendency to streamline the facts of observation into ever more coherent schemes of comprehension.

Let us come back to the generalised nature of my discussions. I like to emphasise, once more, that these discussions always try to see the realities in a very large framework, and, that they are not attempts to "dig-out" facts, or provide tid-bits of information. I rely, completely, on the facts and observations of other people, and, I use their findings to build-up a wide-angled perspective of my reality perceptions. The only way I may appear to be arriving at "new" insights, facts or ideas, is through the process of extra-polation, as well as the correlation of apparent similarities between a variety of features in widely diverging fields. Normally, these fields are so far removed from each other, that we do not concern ourselves with the question, whether or not it is useful to compare them.

The absence of specific references to other people, and, especially, other "authorities", (which could lend an aura of respectibility and credibility to my writings), is deliberate, and, I have chosen to rely upon the abilities of the reader to decide for himself, whether or not a particular imagery is useful, attractive or valid. It is like being introduced to a vast gallery of paintings without any names on the various canvasses, and, the visitor is asked to evaluate and appreciate them purely on the basis of his or her personal inter-actions.

Most people will find this a very uncomfortable experience, since they are used to read the "critic's choice", and, they find it easier to "know", how to judge or respond to a work of art, if they have read someone else's evaluation. Certainly, I am well aware of these factors, and, therefore, my work will have to be "discovered" and appreciated, at least, to some extent, by those, who are leaders and trend-setters for the public taste, before there is any chance, that the public at large will make an effort to study my work.

I know, that I am not making it easy for my work to be heard or read, but, then, I believe, that, eventually, this evaluation will come, regardless of the fact, whether or not it will be considered a success. As I mentioned, the level of significance my work will have, will be a reflection of the relevance of these ideas and concepts for the peoples of the future. If they can relate to them, and, if these ideas can help to structure their societies and regulate relationships between people, including the relationships between the members of mankind and their natural environment, then, I believe, that my work could have a significant influence.

If the evolution of society, and the fate of mankind, take a course that hampers the integration of humanity into a social organism with global dimensions, then, my works will be even more incomprehensible than they are now. If, heaven forbid, a nuclear holocaust would ever break-out, the miserable remnants of mankind would end their final decades in a primitive, tribal attitude of scavenging off the remnants of what once was. Probably, most of the insights of science and technology will have been lost, and, whatever scientific knowledge survived, may well be actively suppressed, because it will be blamed for the holocaust.

Man will, then, revert to beliefs and attitudes that are comparable to those of the primitive, nomadic tribes, before the larger socal units emerged; but, then, no large social units will ever be able to emerge again. The miserable, diseased remnants of mankind will lack the insight to cooperate with each other in order to overcome the chaos of pollution and contamination. In stead, the remaining energies of the survivors will largely be spent in a primitive state of competitive warfare, as each group tries desperately to hold-on to the few resources that survived the holocaust.

In this tribal, competitive atmosphere, where mankind will become totally extinct within a few short generations because of the disruption of the genetic code, the health of the survivors will be too fragile to allow them to procreate normally. In such a gloomy scenario of post-nuclear survival, my writing, as well as the works of art of almost everyone else, will remain totally meaningless, but, if the course of the future is able to avoid a nuclear conflagration, and, if a few disasters and accidents bring home, ever more clearly, the need to control weapons of mass-destruction and highly dangerous levels of pollution, then, my work will gradually increase in relevance.

Certainly, other writers and thinkers may have anticipated the development into a world-wide social unit much better than I, and, they may have described essentially similar ideas far more clearly and eloquently than I have done. Then, I will be much less relevant, and, I will receive, perhaps, only a few compliments for the sustained efforts of trying so persistently. This, would not matter. I genuinely do not care at all, whether future sanity and viability will be accomplished through the sort of ideas which I have been describing, or, through other ideas, which turned-out to be more practical and useful.

My only concern is to achieve an enhanced level of long-term viability, and, I can only do my best to make a contribution, as honestly and as succinctly as I can. My ego-drive does not go so far, that I want to be remembered by name as a philosopher or writer. If I can contribute to the spread of healthy ideas and useful insights, I will be happy and content, even, if no-one in the future will ever know me by name. I am perfectly willing to become "anonymous" and recede completely into the background, as long as the idea gains ground that we have to seek long-term viability in the solution of socialisation, and not by warfare.

I will try, therefore, to correct any short-comings that may hamper the usefulness of these writings, but, I am not afraid to show a few peculiar and personal characteristics. I am not afraid to be repetitive or boring, because future editors can always make a selection of what they think is worthwhile to read. I am not afraid to show, how I had to learn the art of writing and expressing my thoughts. This is the reason, why I do not apologize for my repetitiveness, nor, for the fact, that I kept all the various drafts of my works. I do not expect anyone to read it all, but, I do not want to deny anyone the opportunity to study, how I developed my thoughts and ideas.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

The various ideas I have worked on.
Most essays share a number of ideas between them.
A short sketch of my background.
Learning to present an "acceptable front".
A strong inclination to "see myself behave".
A somewhat neurotic personality.
A fortunate drift into a medical career.
The immigration to Canada.
How, and why, I abandoned a career in neuro-surgery in favour of an isolated and frugal life-style in the country.
When I began to write.
I was considered a "puzzling personality".
When I retired, a lot of eye-brows were raised.
I have learned a lot of practical skills.
I never reveled in "doing surgery".
I always liked to delve into the basic sciences of medicine.
Medical diagnosis was never difficult for me.
I realised, that the greatest problems of our times were philosophical, social and psychological in nature, and, this prompted me to venture, audaciously, away from the field of specialised knowledge.
"In Search of Reality".

Perhaps, the time has come to enumerate, briefly, the various ideas I have worked-out, on so many occasions, and in so many attempts. The actual number of ideas is quite small, and a summary or survey of these ideas is, probably, more useful, than a specific discussion of each essay. Each essay contains a large number of ideas, but, most essays overlap and share many ideas between them. However, let me begin with a short sketch of my background.

As long as I can remember, I have been reflective, and, as I mentioned, I always saw myself behave in relation to others, and, I observed, how others behaved and believed. During adolescence, I was absorbed with the dream of becoming a musician, but, in spite of my intense desire to work hard and accomplish something, I was caught in a neurotic block, which I understood only later. Yet, this chronic frustration became an important part of my life and sharpened the desire to ask questions.

I never felt particularly accepted by any social grouping, and, yet, I had little trouble associating with people in a superficial way. In part, this was due to my neurotic pre-occupation and failure, which was, in turn, based on a lack of discipline, guidance, as well as a lack of the ability to be guided and accept advise. However, to some extent, the feeling of strain between me and others, was due to the tendency to question things nobody else would question.

Certainly, I realised, soon enough, what I could say or not say, and, I learned how to present an "acceptable front", but, again, this became somewhat of a hindrance to become fully integrated with a group. In spite of my ability to behave politely, or, even, "smoothly", I never was relaxed enough to be myself, and I learned, that, "being myself" often led to a disappointment in relationships. Probably, most people felt somewhat puzzled by me, because I always remained somewhat of a "closed book". In addition, I felt ill at ease, and, often, restless, or, even rebellious. My piano-playing remained fragmented, and, while it may have showed great promise, here and there, my own pre-occupation with my failures made me abandon, time and again, the piano all-together. I have not touched a piano for many years, now, and, I will probably never play again, in spite of the fact, that I admire greatly good piano-playing and I listen, almost daily, to some of my records, which include a great deal of the classical piano-literature, as well as other classical musical compositions.

In short; there have always been chronic tensions and frustrations in my life, primarily, because of my neurotic personality, but, these tensions and frustrations also led to a life-long fascination with such questions as "why"; why did I behave the way I did? What was the origin of my personality and beliefs? Why did I believe, what I believed? What really did I believe? What did others believe? Do we believe, entirely, on the basis of authority, be it the authority of our parents and teachers, or, the authority of the cultural environment in which we happen to be growing-up? How much of our belief structures is based, solidly, on reasoned argument and verifiable experiences? What is the origin of our fears and short-comings, our doubts and desires, our ambitions and frustrations?

I was fortunate to be drifting into a medical career, after it became clear, that a professional career in music was out of reach. Besides, I had noticed by the time I finished high-school, that I was easily bored with the piano, in spite of my desire to excel. Indeed, I was not a true musician, and, it remained very difficult for me to remember a piece of music and "play by heart".

My early years in medicine were spent in a rather undisciplined manner. Not that I drank or dallied around; that was not my style, but, I was bored with most lectures and labs, and, because of the lax requirements about attendance, I attended less than ten percent of them. The results were, therefore, not great, but I managed to scrape through and I managed to learn by myself. I had picked up the art of mastering a subject by reading a text-book, and, this ability came in handy, when I had to prepare for university exams without the help of lectures or labs, after my immigration to Canada.

However, I only learned to study and think reasonably well, when I got the opportunity to follow a post-graduate course in neurology and neurosurgery at the Montreal Neurological Institute. Here, I was one of the most junior members, but, I learned a lot, and, I learned quickly, because it was never difficult for me to grasp the essence of a subject. I developed enough self-discipline to study consistently, and, eventually, after about six years of clinial and laboratory training, I was a neuro-surgeon and I obtained the highest diploma of the land; a Fellowship of the Royal College of Surgeons of Canada.

I had a family, and there was a great need to earn some money. I went into practice, first in Newfoundland and then in New Brunswick, and, I should have settled into a comfortable routine, being a respected surgeon and clinician, making money and bringing-up a family; the latter task was mostly left to my wife, however. Nevertheless, tensions remained. I became somewhat bored with this comfortable routine, and I developed the uneasy feeling, that I was locked up in a small-town environment, with a regional hospital, where everthing, including myself, was "average", but, comfortable.

I began to resent, increasingly, the senseless, affluent life-style of most "well to do " people, and, yet, my colleagues, at least, many of them, still never had enough money, as their spending habits kept exceeding their income. Escapism was not far-away, but, in contrast with others, who escaped into a comfortable routine of making and spending money, of parties, as well as endless social rounds of the same platitudes and attitudes, I escaped, first, into the life and art of sailing a relatively small sail-boat.

While enjoying, immensely, the opportunity to familiarise myself with a broad range of practical skills, (which had never been developed because of my pre-occupation with the piano, and, later, with a specialised but cloistered life in hospital), I found, eventually, the mentality of the "yachting public" just as boring as the complacent smugness of the well-to-do, which I met socially as a physician. After all, they all were "high income earners", who could afford a boat and used it, often, as a way to demonstrate their ostentatious life-style and social success. I soon shied-away from yacht-clubs. I did all the work on the boat myself, and, I learned to sail it single-handed along the coast. Eventually, I decided, that I was going to "buy time" with the affluence I earned as a neuro-surgeon.

Fortunately, all these years in training, the first decade in Canada, had prepared us well for a frugal life-style, and, once the money came flowing-in, after I finished my training, it did not take us long to redeem the mortgage on our home and to start building-up assets. We, my wife and I, never adopted this wasteful life-style that went as "the norm" in the circles we met socially, and, quietly, we laid the foundation for an early retirement. I did not want to give-up my practice for a sabbatical break of a year, until I had the financial means to extend this sabbatical into a permanent retirement, in a sober, frugal, but healthy life-style.

This is exactly what happened. I enjoyed the freedom from worries and stress so much, that I decided to stay out for good, and, fortunately, my wife never acquired an expensive taste, nor, did she become dependent on the "prestige" of being a doctor's wife. We both, as well as our children, adapted well to a sober life in the country, but, our children must have wondered, sometimes, whether or not they would have had an easier, more spend-free youth, if my wife and I had not decided to abandon this professional life, together with its professional income, at an early age.

Already, during the last few years of my practice, (I retired in August 1976 at the age of 42), I had begun to write, and, these very first attempts show, clearly, that the main motivation was a rebellion against the "affluent society". I never was fully integrated anywhere, but I became convinced during the later years of my professional career as a neuro-surgeon, that the society of the affluent West was on a steady down-hill course of decay and shameful indulgence. I hated this smug complacency and, yet, I did not quite know, what I was rebelling against. I needed time to think, because I felt unhappy and under a cloud of chronic tension and frustration. I wanted time to think, to sit-back and reflect, to look-out over the water from the cockpit of my boat. I wanted to think and reflect, and, I wanted to get-away from the decaying hubbub of our contemporary social environment.

Perhaps, my feelings were more an indication of my own immaturity, rather than the decaying aspects of society. Why, then, did I feel, so strongly, that our contemporary, affluent societies were "dead", decaying, corrupt and immoral? Probably, because I felt, that the smug complacency of an affluent life-style, together with the unwillingness of people to look beyond their routine worries, was an evolutionary dead-end. If we had lost the ability to appreciate the well-being that was possible with a life of affluence, I felt, strongly, that our societies were rapidly losing their viability.

Here I was, a specialist in my field, a perfect example of the luxury of affluent medicine, neuro-surgery, while I did not know anything about the reasons or causes of social and individual decay; of wasteful and detrimental life-styles; of superficial and deplorable attitudes, of ostentatious spending habits; yet, if, I dared to question all these "values" of life and social standing, I felt, again, immedately, that I was a total outsider; a stranger; a highly puzzling personality. Here, I was "on top of the world", with a successful and prestigious career, and, I was making my life, and, probably, that of my family, miserable by foolish questions about society, money, affluence, waste, injustice, pollution, etc., etc. Why not enjoy it, while the going was good?, they asked me. What is wrong with a life of affluence? Next year we should earn more, and, we should be able to afford a bigger boat, a larger house, or, a more extensive vacation overseas, etc.

When I retired, a lot of eyebrows were raised. Why would he do it? Was he not happy in his job? What about his family? He is dragging them into a life of poverty. How can he afford to stay-out with the problems of inflation, and, the erosion of savings and earnings from an investment income? Yet, very few people had the courage, or, the inclination, to come and see for themselves, how we lived. Now, they had a chance to ask a few questions themselves and find-out what sort of quality of life we had; whether my wife and family were, indeed, "deprived" and poor; whether or not my daughters, I have no sons, were growing-up to be independent, self-sufficient and sensible, hard-working people; with a great deal more discipline in their up-briging than I received from my parents.

I have, indeed, been quite happy since my retirement, and, I have wondered, on occasion, whether my wife and I have been too strict and too "stingy" with our money, when bringing-up our children. At least, they know the value of money. They know, what it means to have to work for money. We lead a happy and healthy, but uneventful life. We have everything we need, and, compared to most people in Canada, and, certainly, in the rest of the world, we live a very good quality life-style, while we do not have to spend a lot of money for it. We own our own home; a roomy property with three acres of land around it. We also own other pieces of land, we have two vehicles, and, I still have my sailboat.

Was my work too heavy, or, too stressful? I can not deny, that I do not perform well under stress. I worked hard, and, I learned a lot during my training-years, and, the final years before I obtained my F.R.C.S.(C) were a struggle. The early years of my practice were great, but, once I settled into some sort of a routine, I felt often tied-down. Certainly, the work of neuro-surgery was often stressful, but, I had been trained well, and I think I did a good job, and my work was highly respected. I was a very "clean" surgeon, with few complications or unforeseen events. If, I erred, I erred on the conservative side, by being, sometimes, too cautious.

I did what had to be done, but, I never reveled in it. I always considered surgery a rather un-physiological way of trying to help people, and, I was just as proud of my abilities as a clinician and a diagnostician, as I was proud of my surgical competence. Yet, life was ebbing by quickly, and, since money was coming-in fast, and, since we needed only a fraction to live a happy and healthy life, I decided, in conjunction with my wife, that we should retire early, and "do something different." This we did, and, I am still doing "something different". So different, as a matter of fact, that I have not found anyone, so far, able, or willing, to give me a thorough evaluation of what I am doing.

This is a brief biographical aside, which, I hope, will provide some background for the pre-occupation I have always had with the question, how we perceive reality. After the pe-occupation with becoming a pianist had subsided, the philosophical questions and the tendency to see large correlated fields, remained a feature of my existence, and, they became more important as time went by. For example, when studying medicine, I always liked to delve into the theoretical backgrounds and the "basic sciences" of medical knowledge, and, I never had any difficulty constructing a mental picture, how the body, the central nervous system, or the human mind, "works", and, what could or would go wrong, or has gone wrong, on the basis of a clinical examination and evaluation of the medical history of a particular human being.

Medical diagnosis was never difficult for me, nor, was it difficult to visualise normal and abnormal processes that were taking place at various levels of existence. I could as easily visualise the pathology of a cell, an organ, the brain, the psychological or mental functions of the mind, as I could visualise the mechanics of other happenings. In a way, there is a continuity of interests between my medical studies, my training and affinity for diagnosing problems, my inclinations to think and reflect, and, to see the "physiology", as well as the "pathology", (that, which is going wrong), in the fabric of social or inter-personal relationships.

So often, when I listened to people and their complaints about headaches, backaches and other aches and pains, I realised, that the real problem was a neurotic tension, a frustration, an illness due to psychosomatic mechanisms of the individual, or, as a result of disease mechanisms of the society itself. Perhaps, it was the awareness, that the greatest problems of our times were philosophical, social and psychological in nature, which prompted me to venture, audaciously, away from the fields of specialised knowledge into those of the generalising philosopher.

I realise, that I go, hereby, completely against contemporary wisdom. As a matter of fact, our societies, or, rather, the peoples of my time, see no value, whatsoever, in the art of "generalising". They still believe, that all the answers will come from more detailed studies in one field of another. The art of seeing many realities at the same time, (which was such a helpful ability during my medical training and practice in the art of diagnosing disease processes), does not seem to have a counter-part in the world of social and psychological existence. At least, it is my impression, that there is little appreciation for the art of broad correlations and philosophical generalisations, and, this is one more reason, why I have plunged into this challenge of writing generalising essays.

The central theme of fascination seems, indeed, the fact, that we all form spheres of realities and belief-structures around ourselves, but. at the same time, we seem to have such a small conscious input on this sphere of awarenesses. By and large, we can not answer the question, why we believe the way we do, and, this is the reason, why the earlier essays were given the overall title; "In Search of Reality". How do we form reality, and, what does this reality represent; either, as the bearer or creator of a particular sphere of reality, or, as an observer of someone else's sphere of reality?

.......

Chapter 6

Content

What I learned from my neurological studies.
A "feel" for the central nervous system.
My philosophical ideas are solidly based on the neurological foundation I acquired during my training in neurology and neuro-surgery.
A profound result, as well as a significant effect for the perception and interpretation of our realities.
A relativity of truth.
Slowly, I formulated a more coherent imagery of the way we perceive the realities around us.
Should I summarise my ideas with a series of essays; "In Search for Reality, II"?
An emphasis on the biological heritage.
The scientific agreement about the perception of reality is, in essence, not really different from the cultural-religious agreement.
The relativity of truth.
The unknowability of a non-human reality.
The concept of relativity does not absolve us from dicriminating, carefully, between what is valid and what is nonsense.
I always show, strongly, my medical background.
I believe, that my "diagnosis and treatment" of the human being and his social organisations will become more appealing in the future, and, that it will have an increasing practical significance.
A bold project.
A reaction to the ever-increasing fragmentation of the medical sciences.
A wide scope of knowledge and concern for the successful clinician.

It became increasingly apparent to me, during my neurological studies, that the brain and the central nervous system were "organs", just as the liver, the kidneys, or the heart. The function of the central nervous system, which includes the brain, is the coordination of the organism with its external, as well as internal "environment". It is the task of this central nervous system to ensure the ability of the animal to hunt its prey, defend itself against attack, and, to behave in such a way, that the foundation is laid for the next generation.

The central nervous system processes all the information that is registered by the general and special sense-organs, because, only then is the animal able to "know" its position in relation to the positive and negative features of its environment. The central nervous system is an essential "processing module", coordinating the many systems of the body and harmonising their functions. At the same time, it also connects the sensory faculties of an organism, represented by the general and special sense-organs or systems, with the "motoric" or behavioural response mechanisms, such as the musculo-skeletal system, as well as many other mechanisms that support the activities of an organism in relation to its environment; such as heart and blood-vessels, a variety of glandular structures, as well as other functions.

It also became obvious to me, that, "alertness" in the highly developed mammals, including the pre-human anthropoids, was, in essence, a general state of readiness to receive sensory impulses from the environment, and, to react to them in an appropriate manner. In the human being, this state of alertness, or, "being in contact with the environment", is always characterised by the ability to "name" our environment. This ability of putting a verbal label on the objects or peoples of our environment, and, later, on many abstract awarenesses, such as feelings, moods, attitudes or principles of operation or existence, is the foundation for the ability to be "consciously aware" of our surroundings.

I have elaborated, extensively, in many of the previous essays, why we have to distinguish between a non-verbal consciousness, or state of alertness, and, this specifically human ability to re-stimulate sense-impressions or, rather, the memory-traces of past experiences and sense impressions into a focus of awareness. These awarenesses evolved, later, into a large number of symbolically representable mental images, or, ideas and concepts. We have discussed, how this ability of symbolic representation requires an extensive classification system mirroring, closely, the physiological or cerebral classification systems, which are at the foundation of the physiological ability to classify a recognised experience, as "familiar" or "known".

I do not want to recapitulate these ideas, here, because I merely want to recall, how they formulated themselves, slowly, during my years of study. It became clear, that the entire sphere of behaviour, including the human faculties of speech, thought and conscious awareness, were products of a central nervous system, in particular, the brain, and, it became clear, that this central nervous system developed as a result of the evolutionary pressures of natural selection, just as the rest of the body-structure and basic behaviour-patterns were the result of a long line of natural evolutionary developments.

However, the conclusion, that all human abilities of thought and reflection, of speech and mental imagery, of science and religion, were, ultimately, the result of our individual existence as a human being, as well as the inter-actions with our human and non-human environments, had profound results for the interpretation of reality. It meant, first of all, that all knowledge, all certainties and beliefs, all concepts and ideas, were, in essence, a series of mental images we have come to rely upon for one reason or another. However, the fact, that we may be absolutely convinced about "the truth" of a certain concept, idea or image, was no guarantee at all, that such a truth would, indeed, exist, apart and in isolation from our existence as a human being, nor, was there any guarantee, that all human beings would see this "absolute truth" in the same way.

It became clear to me, that "truth" and certainty were, largely, a function of agreement between a number of people. As we have seen, the conscious, verbalisable or symbolically representable imagery of our "mental truths" developed as a result of communications between people, and, this slow emergence of a system of reality perceptions, gave a particular "cultural coloration" to a group of people. This cultural coloration emerged as a result of the fact, that a number of people began to share a particular way of seeing the realities around them, and, such a shared reality perception led to the experience of possessing, or knowing, "the truth".

In this way, the religious reality perceptions emerged, as well as the many behavioural manifestations that colour these reality perceptions, such as taboos and codes of conduct, as well as notions and fears. All experiences and attitudes were experienced more or less in the same manner by a group of socially integrated people sharing a cultural pool of notions, attitudes and awarenesses. Whenever these cultural images were convincing, clear-cut and endowed with a great deal of authority, we see, that the mental imagery acquired the status of an "absolute truth".

The clash of cultural and religious imageries has undermined the feeling, that such images are representative of an absolute truth, but, the need for certainty was always so great, that man, invariably, started to search for another absolute truth or certainty, whenever his comfortable notions were shattered during such a clash of beliefs. Therefore, the clash of beliefs and cultures always led to a strong "fermentation process", as long as people were forced to intermingle closely and were not allowed to settle their differences violently, and, these fermentation processes led, quickly, to a greater degree of sophistication in the way reality was perceived.

A great deal of human history, (by far, the most important part), concerns itself with these diverging, clashing and evolving perceptions of reality. After all, it was the perception of reality that dictated, how a community saw itself; how it reacted to the contacts and the pressures of existence, how these clashes led to armed conflict, and, how the sequence of events, after a decisive battle, depended, again, on the way people perceived and interpreted their realities.

Slowly, I formulated a more coherent imagery of the way we perceive the realities around us, but, the eighteen essays that tried to formulate these ideas, were only a first attempt, and, they were certainly not a very well-ordened exposition of the search for reality. Perhaps, I should end, or summarise, the projected three hundred essays with another summary; "In Search of Reality II", where I would look back upon my career as a writer of philosohical essays. Perhaps, this time, I would be able to formulate, more clearly and logically, the principles that lie behind the perception of our realities. (Later, I decided to revise these eighteen essays extensively, rather than re-write them completely, and I believe that it was possible to make them readable and reasonably coherent.)

I became convinced, that this biological and evolutionary point of view was such an important way of looking at man, that it should also become possible to trace a plausible and comprehensive imagery of man's behaviour, motivations and ambitions on the basis of a natural, evolutionary interpretation of human existence. This too, I have tried to accomplish, on many occasions, but, I like to emphasise, here, that the ultimate conclusions of a biological, evolutionary interpretaton of man, also show, that such a biological, evolutionary, philosophic-scientific imagery about man, has the same relative value as man's cultural-religious imagery.

The main difference between the philosophic-scientific and the cultural-religious imagery, is the fact, that, the former emphasises, to a much larger extent, the common biological heritage of human existence. Because we are all built the same way, and, because we have, essentially, the same general and special sensory systems, as well as the same "computer module", or neurological system, we share the ability to build-up a reality perception that is based on observation, verification, deduction and experiment.

This ability allows us to cut-across the limits or boundaries of cultural and religious belief-patterns, but, at the same time, such a philosophic-scientific reality perception tends to remain difficult to grasp, and, it has a tendency to remain incomplete, because the realm of man's feelings and emotions, his psychological existence, has remained largely refractory to scientific analysis and the synthesis of a comprehensive scientific imagery. Yet, the fact, that a biological, philosophic-scientific mode of perceiving reality is possible, explains, why people with very differing cultural or religious back-grounds can still communicate with each other, provided, that they share a certain familiarity with a particular scientific field.

Nevertheless, the main point we want to make, here, is the fact, that scientific agreement about the perception of a specific reality is not essentially different from the cultural-religious agreement that can take place between people, who share a cultural up-bringing. The scientific imagery is still a mental product, and, the agreement that is possible between people about a particular scientific observation, is based, entirely, upon the fact, that these scientific reality perceptions are processed by very similar organisms, with very similar sense-organs and central nervous systems.

The scientific imagery is not anymore "absolute" than the religious reality perceptions, and, the strong emphasis upon the fact, that all conscious imagery is a result of our inter-actions with each other and our natural environment, is the basis for the concept of a "relativistic reality perception."

On several occasions, I have elaborated these ideas, and, I have tried to show, why the scientific reality perception is not anymore "absolute" than any other way of "imagining" what the truth really is. I will not repeat these arguments, here, and, I have fully ackowledged, that the relativity of truth, does not mean, that we can arbitrarily give equal validity to all sorts of possible ways of seeing the truth. A sense of the relativity of truth applies, only, to the concept, that we are totally wrong in assuming, that a particular mental imagery would correspond with an external, eternal, non-human "truth".

We have argued the essential unknowability of any external, eternal, non-human truth, and, we have tried to explain, why it is philosophically very difficult to accept the idea, that man could have received a specific "Revelation" of this Eternal Truth, by any sort of Scripture or Message, regardless of the fact, that such a belief may be very appealing, and may be shared by a vast majority of the living members of mankind.

Also, the concept of relativity does not absolve us from the duty to discriminate, carefully, between what is valid and what is nonsense. However, the criteria of what is true or false, are not based upon any judgement against an absolute standard or yardstick, but, they are based on a pragmatic judgement of "common-sense"; of commonly shared interests, such as the will to live, and the desire to live in decent conditions of justice and equality. Truth, then, becomes what it has always been; a measure of acceptability by other people, and, not a measure of imagined acceptance by, or obligation to, a Divine Power or Force.

The concept of a relativity of truth, as well as the concept that all mental imagery and possibilities of agreement are based on shared, biological and cultural characteristics, is a fascinating and fruitful field of thought, because it allows us, not only, to bring a coherent synthesis between the apparently irreconcilable interpretations of science and religion, but, it allows us, also, at least, in theory, to formulate an image of man, and a code of conduct, which could be acceptable world-wide.

Here, I show strongly my medical background and my long training in the sequence of diagnosis and treatment. Why do we go through all the trouble of forming a complex and detailed mental image about normal and diseased processes that may be taking place within the body and mind of a particular individual? Purely for the practical reason, that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms of "normal nature", together with its pathological deviations, may show us, also, a way, and a means, to bring-about a change for the better. Therefore, you can not fault me for showing a strong natural inclination to couple philosophical insights about the nature of man with a desire to show, how the behaviour of man, as well as the structure of his social organisation, can be changed for the better.

Certainly, in many ways, my suggestions for changes in life-style and outlook, the organisation of social units and communal goal-patterns, may appear radical and sweeping to those, who have been caught in their affluent societies, but, as the short-comings and limitations of our modern, affluent societies are becoming clearer, I believe, that, my "diagnosis and treatment" of the human being and his social organisations will become more appealing, and will have an increasing practical significance.

Certainly, I realise, that I am undertaking a bold project, and, it may well be, that, in many ways, my perceptions of the way mankind is developing, and, in particular, the way our affluent societies are deteriorating, will be somewhat out-dated in the future. It would be unusual, if my reality perceptions would not require modification and refinement, as time goes by. This is one of the reasons, why I try to concern myself, as much as possible, with fundamental issues and questions, and, it is one of the main reasons, why I try not to speculate in detail about the immediate future of social events.

I think, that it is useful to keep my medical background in mind, if you want to understand, what I have been trying to do. In a way, this type of personal, philosophical synthesis is also a reaction to the ever greater fragmentation of the medical sciences. I know, that it is necessary, from a technical point of view, to become ever more specialised in the expertise required to carry-out sophisticated medical and biological investigations and experiments, but, I regretted, all through my training, that there was so little emphasis placed on the ability to see a large number of scientific fields in a coherent manner.

Scientific researchers do not have to know this large, coherent over-view, because they are wrapped-up in their own world, and their concerns are, primarily, directed to the question, how to get their scientific papers written and published, and, how to get their grants renewed. Yet, clinicians need to acquire this ability to correlate large fields of knowledge, which they often use in an intuitive, pragmatic manner, because a clinician, who thinks and works too much as a scientist, becomes narrow and fragmented in his outlook and approach, and, he loses the ability to diagnose and treat a number of patients with widely divergent problems.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

How am I succeeding as a "philosophical doctor"?
In contrast to the physician, the philosopher tries to talk to people, who think they are doing perfectly all-right.
No wonder, he is not being listened to.
A central theme of concern is the solution of the tensions of competitive strife.
Combat, and the social contract of essential equality.
The principles of social integration are an essential part of evolutionary history.
The "regulatory principle".
Various levels of social integration.
A brief review of the nature of "learning".
The nature, function and evolution of the genetic code.
The route of "behavioural flexibility".
It has been a fascinating experience to see a portrait of human existence evolve with the help of evolutionary and relativistic insights.
Understanding the problems of living-together in large and complex social environments.
The evolution of leadership.
The function of the hierarchical order.
The criteria of viability.
A stable population density, and the mechanisms of natural selection.

How am I succeeding as a "philosophical doctor", trying to tell people and their leaders to become more sensible and more viable in their way of life? If I would not realise the totally different nature of being a recognised physician, on the one hand, and an odd-ball philosopher with weird and fanciful ideas, on the other, I would be totally frustrated. However, I realise, that patients come to a doctor for help, and, they are, by and large, inclined to listen to his diagnosis, suggestions for treatment, and general advice. However, the philosopher tries to talk to people, who think they are doing perfectly allright. He tries to talk to leaders, who will not take any notice, and, he comes with a number of ideas, that are difficult to grasp, and, which contradict many accepted and traditional beliefs. No wonder, that he is not being listened to. No wonder, very few people are in a position to recognise, what he is trying to do, and, fewer still, would be able to give a thorough evaluation of his efforts.

The philosopher has to sustain himself with the hope and the expectation that his time will come, and, that people will become more receptive to his work. He will have to be satisfied with the knowledge, that, if, and when, his works do find a response, his influence may be far beyond anything he could accomplish as a medical doctor, applying his insights and expertise to a few patients.

I promised, that I would discuss, briefly, a number of ideas and concepts, which have concerned me over the years, and, which I have treated extensively in these essays. I have discussed the importance of becoming aware of our sphere of reality perceptions, and, I have given you an insight into the reasons for adopting a relativistic view about the interpretation of our realities. I have mentioned, that the relativistic interpretation of reality may provide a bridge between the religions and the sciences. These ideas have been mentioned throughout these essays, but, I am not sure, how successful I have been in showing, that, indeed, a relativistic reality perception can accomodate religious, as well as scientific interpretations of reality.

Another central theme in my writings has been the way we solve the tensions of competitive strife. The most primitive and genetically the strongest encoded solution is, of course, the "combat"; the defensive reaction or the aggressive attack; the struggle for life, and the survival of the fittest. The other approach is the equally successful solution of the "social contract". Time and again, I have emphasised the possibilities, the difficulties, as well as the urgency of the "social solution" to our situations of conflict, in particular, since mankind seems to be sliding, so rapidly, into a situation, where the unbridled use of the solution of combat is becoming suicidal.

Unfortunately, the emergence of the concepts of natural evolution have emphasised, far too strongly, the competitive struggle of life and death. We have failed to give an equal amount of attention to the solution of socialisation, and, for this reason, the still new and unfamiliar concepts of natural evolution seem to be, for most people, rather unattractive, or, even, fear-inspring ideas, and, they are certainly not recognised, as yet, as a powerful tool with which we can understand our own behaviour, the behaviour of people around us, the social grouping we belong to, as well as those we consider to be our enemies.

I have emphasised the principles of socialisation or social integration on many occasions, but, perhaps, never as radical and as clear-cut as in the fourth essay of the work; "Europe, before Nuclear War". Here, the essay titled, "The Nature of a Social Unit", is perhaps, the clearest description of my ideas about the importance and universality of the principles of socialisation. I have traced in this essay, the pre-cellular biological evolution of the protoplasmic primordium, and, I have made a strong case, I believe, to see the principle of socalisation as a cardinal feature in the evolution of the protoplasmic primordium and the eventual emergence of a single, metabolising and reproducing, cellular unit.

The point I try to make, time and again, is the fact, that the principle of socialisation is a solution to the problem of the destructive effects of antagonistic forces within a unit of existence. We see, how blocks of locked-in and mutually contradictory forces become incorporated into a much larger unit, where the locked-in unit becomes a "manoeuverable" force by virtue of a "regulator principle". Here, the balance of forces is cautiously manipulated to allow an overall, net-movement into a particular direction, while the regulator will abolish this predominance and activate the other side of this antagonistic block of locked-in forces, if it becomes necessary to exert a force into the opposite direction.

We have also traced the various levels of social integration, which we can see taking place in nature. We see them emerge in the cellular unit, but, we should not forget, that, locked-in, antagonistic forces also play a role in large, inert, inorganic compounds or substances. Here, they are just locked-in, forming a stable substance, without being manipulated by regulator mechanisms; e.g., the antagonistic force-fields of locked-in matter-antimatter complexes within atomic nuclei.

The next level of social integration takes place, when single cells start to form a multi-cellular organism. We have often discussed the epochal significance of this development, and, we all can get a "feel" for the different existence possibilities that opened-up with multi-cellular existence, when we compare the microscopic, uni-cellular organisms with the large, multi-cellular life-forms we are familiar with, such as the mammals. We are all familiar with the growth in size, as well as the expansion of the range of behavioural capabilities, which are a direct result of the processes of cellular socialisation; whenever cells "learned" to live and work together, and rely upon each other's functions for their survival in the form of a multi-cellular organism.

We have also pointed-out that this "learning", is, in essence, due to the slow evolutionary molding, or modification, of a complex genetic code. The genetic code of a species is "exposed" to the conditions of existence in each living generation of this species, and, if there are strong existential pressures upon a particular population, then, only a small fragment of this spectrum of genetic variability which has been presented to the circumstances of existence, will participate in the reproductive processes. In this way, desirable features and traits can be enhanced, because organisms with such desirable features will produce offspring, while organisms that lack such desirable traits, do not.

The nature, function and evolution of the genetic code and its role in the emergence of different species', have often been discussed, and, I have also pointed-out, on many occasions, the similarities, as well as the differences, between the genetic code and the cultural code. The emergence of the "cultural code", or, a code of parental example, is linked to the evolution of the quality of behavioural flexibility. Here, too, I should not try to recapitulate the nature or essence of behavioural flexibility. I presume, that you are familiar enough with my writings to know what I mean, and, I want to go-on to the concept of man's "biological heritage".

The biological heritage represents the various trends and developments in the evolution of life, which man has become heir to, and, which have been encoded into the genetic code. Our biological heritage includes the instructions for being a multi-cellular organism, for being a mammal, and, it includes, therefore, all the instructions for the formation of our body, all the organ-systems, the instinctive drives, as well as many potentials for development and unfolding, such as learning, flexibility in the choice of a behavioural response, and, in the members of mankind, the faculties of speech, thought and discussion.

In short, the route of behavioural flexibility was an inevitable avenue for the forces of natural selection, when animals became large, slow in maturation and development, and, able to sustain only a low population density. These factors combined to make the processes of natural selection in encoding precise behavioural and organic instructions for large-scale social behaviour and organisation, nearly impossible.

We have seen, how the possibility arose to adapt behaviour on the basis of past experiences, as well as by imitating parental examples. We have also discussed, on many occasions, how this quality of behavioural flexibility is the key to understanding the elaborate central nervous system, which is needed to make these flexible behaviour-patterns possible. It also necessitated a remarkable sharpening and elaboration of the instincts of parental care and protection, and, we have seen, how these enlarged and prolonged instincts of parental or maternal care provided the basis of viability for the small social grouping.

It has been a fascinating experience for me to see a portrait of human existence evolve with the help of evolutionary and relativistic insights. This portrait is remarkably complete and coherent, and, we can now trace a plausible picture of the human personality. We have also been able to understand the enormous differences between the natural, small, nomadic groupings of the anthropoids, and, the much larger social groupings man was forced to live in at the beginning of recorded history; when population pressures and fierce competitive strife led to the need to seek security in much larger numbers.

We understand, now, why it has always been so difficult for man to forge large social units with a measure of durability and cohesion. We know, now, why it was necessary for the cultural code to begin a spectacular period of rapid evolution and increasing significance, before it was even possible for these larger social units to exist for short periods of time. In short, we have, now, a flowing, essentially uninterrupted imagery, that lets us see the evolution of the single cell, the multi-cellular organism, the mammals and the anthropoids, primitive man, as well as modern man, with his large, unstable, but, sometimes, spectacularly successful social units, or "civilisations".

I have paid attention to the differences between the small, nomadic social grouping and the larger societies, and, we have seen, that the small nomadic grouping has a well-coded, genetic basis for its existence. The concept of the hierarchical positioning and overlapping territories has been discussed on many occasions, because it is such a crucial mechanism in understanding the processes that lie behind the social integration of human beings.

On the other hand, we have seen, how the jockeying for position in a natural hierarchical order, as well as the frequent test-fights that are such an important part of this search for one's position within a social entity, form the basis for a natural "sense of justice", where the position of relative strength and weakness can be verified, at any time, by such a test-fight. The hierarchical order is also a crucial concept in the understanding of the evolution of the capabilities of natural leadership, as well as the ability to become a "good follower"; to become capable of working under someone else; to follow orders, to be persuaded by a dominant personality, and, thereby, open the possibility for a leadership to "organise" an, as yet, unstructured, small community.

Hierarchical ordening is the key to the forces of socialisation for the anthropoid life-forms, including man, and, it is the failure of the principles of hierarchical ordening in the larger social organisations, which introduced the possibility, and the need, of the social contract of a generally agreed-upon essential equality in living conditions. This is an important corner-stone for the evolution of the larger society, as we have argued on many occasions, but, at the same time, we have seen, that the evolution of the larger human societies, acquired, increasingly, characteristics of a concious, deliberate design.

In other words; we see in the history and evolution of human societies, a clear example, where the essentially blind forces of natural evolution are beginning to blend with the condition of a "creative order", which is made possible by an act of the conscious will and a deliberate design.

We see, not only, a fascinating example, where the principles of natural evolution and conscious creativity are touching each other, but, we see, also, that there is a rapidly developing trend, outside the control of our conscious will, so far, where our viability, individuality and social organisation are beginning to depend, heavily, on the ability to create this social design, effectively and deliberately.

This brings us to another series of important but related concepts; the posibility to exist; viability; existential pressures and demands, which are, in essence, representatives of the forces of natural evolution. We have seen that armed combat, competitive strife, as well as the solution of socialisation, are all prompted by the pressures of existence, where a number of organisms are competing with each other, in close proximity, for the same sources of energy and building-blocks. If an organism can adapt, properly, to the circumstances of its existence, it means, that it can find a sufficient source of energy and building-blocks to maintain its existence, and is able to grow and prosper, and participate, eventually, in the processes of procreation. Then, it is viable, and, it has found a good possibility of existence. Then, it exists in a state of health, and, it has a good flow of vital energies.

However, life-forms, as individuals, populations, or, even, entire species', always come-up against forces that counter-act the conditions of optimum existence, and a balance ensues, then, between the needs of the organism on the one hand, and the possibilities given by the circumstances of its existence, on the other. If the balance shifts in favour of the organism, its existence becomes easier, and it grows and multiplies, until its population has become so dense, that growth and reproduction are off-set by the death and dissolution of an equal number of life-forms.

The population is, then, stable, until the occurrence of further adverse conditions, (such as the exhaustion of the food-supply, the build-up of toxic or noxious waste-products, the appearance of predators, or, a change in temperature), make life more difficult. The population shrinks, but, at the same time, these continuous pressures form a "filter", or funnel, for the forces of natural selection, allowing the genetic code to become modified and shape a better adapted organism.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

A vulnerable ecological niche.
The cultural code, and the factor of collective insight and decision-making.
Stream-lining the reality perceptions of human beings.
Larger and more over-lapping spheres of concern.
Good citizenship, and the attitude of patriotism.
The problems associated with the concept of "sovereign nations".
Extra-polating the processes of socialisation to our national leaderships.
The crux of avoiding a violent confrontation.
Almost never, do we have to go to war in order to survive.
I am, primarily, a philosopher-physician.
An inexorable sequence of killings and revenge-killings.
It takes time to teach insights.
The obstacle of cynical and indifferent attitudes.
I am exceedingly fortunate to have the opportunity to think and write.
I am a sounding board for a vague and generalised atmosphere of concern.
My ideas about the future.
A comprehensive and globally applicable set of Constitutional Guidelines.
The transformation and future congruence of contemporary Capitalist Democracies and Dogmatic Socialist societies.
The important ability to abdicate a leadership position gracefully.
Learning to live with differences in political view-points.
Buying votes with irresponsible promises.
The role of Constitutional Guidelines.
An unhealthy dependence on a process of continuous economic expansion.
Is it realistic to adhere to an essentially egalitarian society?
Recognising our strong, collective instincts of territoriality.
We can not rest, until we have, at least, the beginnings of a globally acceptable set of Constitutional Guidelines in place.
How promising would the future of mankind be, if we all would be guided by universal standards of conduct, judged by the same laws and be subjected to a uniform application of these laws.

In essence, the same principles of natural selection apply to a population of human beings, but, the existential pressures are, primarily, due to competitive strife and the solution of armed combat. This means, that the pressures are extremely variable and short-lasting, if devastating, and, therefore, these pressures of competitive strife are not able to modify the make-up of the human genetic code into any one particular direction. Even so, we are beginning to appreciate the fact, that, we too, can outgrow or damage our environment by sheer numbers, if we are not careful to preserve our environment and clean-up after ourselves.

However, because of our heritage of behavioural flexibility, the relatively small number of social groupings that are presented to the forces of natural selection, together with the modifying influence of manipulative techniques and evolving insights, we see, that the mechanisms of natural selection and modification of the genetic code, have ceased to be a significant factor in determining overall viability for the species of mankind.

What decides, now, our individual and collective viability, is the ability to analyse the events going-on around us, between us, and, within us, together with the ability to draw valid and viable conclusions from these observations. Then, we enhance our ability to predict or foresee what is likely to happen, and, we can place ourselves in the most advantageous position. A truly intelligent analysis of on-going events and a viable anticipation of future happenings, takes into account, not only, the events as they apply to us, but, also, as they apply to other people and other societies.

Certainly, the larger our sphere of concern, the more difficult it becomes to persuade a social grouping to share our anticipations, to heed our warnings, and to agree with our insights and forecasts, yet, just such qualities are the hall-mark of a good leader, because the ultimate criterium of good leadership is the ability to steer the behaviour of the social grouping under its jurisdiction into a direction of enhanced viability.

Let us not repeat, here, the many discussions we have carried-out about beneficial and harmful leadership; about fore-sight and viability, about stupidity and the temptation to be side-tracked by narrow, egocentric or short-sighted concerns. Certainly, leadership has become one of my main concerns and primary topics for disucssion, as good leadership, even, if it is just leadership over our own personality, has an immediate bearing on the question viability.

A good insight into the mechanisms of human behaviour clarifies, what is healthy and beneficial, and, what is abnormal, detrimental and a dead-end road of development, and, these insights allow us to formulate, to a remarkable extent, the criteria of "good and bad" on a large social scale, without invoking divine commandments.

While patriotism was seen as the ultimately beneficial attitude of the concerned, altruistic citizen, who would be willing to lay-down his life on the battle-fields for the sake and safety of his country, better insights have shown us, that communal strife between large social groupings can almost always be avoided, if the narrow, egocentric attitudes of leaders and their followers can be curbed, and, if the conflict can be submitted to arbitration.

When extending the parallels of good citizenship and productive social integration from the members to their leaders, we see, that it is a fundamental error to advocate a "social" solution for disputes between the members of a social unit, while the leaders of such social units permit themselves the "luxury" of armed combat between "sovereign nations". This is a hypocritical, or, even, a criminally ignorant attitude, because the ordinary, socially integrated, law-abiding citizens of the large national entities have to fight each other on the battle-fields, while their belligerent leaders are sitting back and study the progress of the battle from the safety of their bunkers.

These considerations have brought me, time and again, to call for a fundamental review of the psychological make-up, as well as the role of our social leaders, and, I have strongly advocated an attitude of critical awareness amongst the citizens of the large social units. This awareness emphasises, in essence, the following conclusions. If we, ordinary, law-abiding citizens are required to submit our disputes to a legally binding form of arbitration, for the sake of avoiding violence and weakening the unity of our society, then, our leaders should do the same, and, they should avoid, at all costs, to let their belligerent and hostile attitudes come to the fore, whenever they run into a serious dispute or conflict of interest between themselves.

In other words; let us extrapolate the process of socialisation to our national leaderships, and, let us make sure, that our national entities solve their conflicts of interest by the mechanisms of the juridical settlement and "socialisation". Let us make sure, that our leaders make use of a process of genuine, supervised negotiations and compromises, where the ultimate criteria of fairness and balance are given back to the peoples involved; in the form of a referendum, and, if necessary, supplemented with the mediation services of a competent, impartial observer.

This, I believe, is the crux to avoiding war, and, we all should know, how closely the avoidance of warfare is linked to the enhancement of viability. Very rarely, do we, literally, have to go to war in order to survive, yet, almost always, are people on both sides of a conflict-situation persuaded by their leaderships to believe just that; to see the slide into a violent confrontation as an unavoidable necessity. Such a conclusion is, nearly always, completely untrue, and, it is an inevitable result of this pernicious, polarising war of half-truths and slanted information.

I am sure, that you understand, now, why my interests in the political events of my time, are not merely "diagnostic", in the manner of an objective, analysing observer, who can summarise in a persuasively coherent way, the web of forces that is playing a role in these events of confrontation and upheaval. I am, primarily, a philosopher-physician, who is concerned with demonstrating the fact, that there is a way of looking at ourselves, as well as the world we live in, whereby we can avoid nearly all violent conflicts and detrimental confrontations or incidences of unfair advantage-taking or pressure-tactics.

I believe, that my ideas and interpretations of reality can serve as a model for a more harmonious way of living together, and, I believe, that it is becoming more urgent, all the time, to master such a useful, guiding view of reality, because, as we have seen, there is an increasing need to create and shape a large, stable, just and transparent society on a world-wide scale.

If we fail to move into this direction, reasonably quickly, we will be over-taken by this inexorable sequence of killings and revenge-killings. Let us not underestimate the power of our most primitive instincts, and, I have argued, on several occasions, that man's extinction may come-about as a result of our collective failure to master and control our most powerful and violent instincts. What was, at one time in the past, a life-giving attitude of ferocious courage, may well become the source of a head-long rush into an act of mutual suicide, as we lose control and throw all our weaponry at each other in a mad, uncontrollable rush of killing and killing again.

However, it takes time to teach insights, and, it does take even more time to wait for an opportunity to make one's views known, and, if the gap between writer and reader remains too large, the urgent lessons and insights which the writer is so anxious to teach, will fall on deaf ears; but, then, fortunately, we do not always know, what is in store. Just as our zeal about bringing a valuable message or insight may be quickly dampened by cynical or indifferent attitudes, so may our fears, that all the work is done for nothing, also turn-out to be groundless.

Therefore, it is not useful to speculate what may happen to one's philosophical work of a life-time. It is far more useful to keep perfecting one's ideas and abilities of expression, because, the clearer and more precisely ideas have been written-down, the greater the chances are, that a future reader can "hook into" a train of thought, and can be swept-along with the ideas and imagination of a persuasive writer.

I am exceedingly fortunate to have the opportunity to think and write. I have all the time I want and need to do my best, and produce my essays, but, I do not forget, for one moment, that I am only one voice amongst thousands or millions of people, who are clamoring for change, and, who are also concerned with the trends of today. In a way, I am a "reflection", or a "sounding board", of this vague and generalised atmosphere of concern which is beginning to pervade many parts of the world. If my little voice happens to be useful, fine; if not, I have only wasted my own time, and, I will have done little harm in doing so.

Perhaps I should conclude the last pages of this review of my work with a short discussion of some ideas about the future. In what direction should society develop in order to reach this elusive goal of long-term viability? In spite of many ideas and ideals that seem to reflect the view-points of Marxism, or, "Dogmatic Socialism", as I prefer to call it, I have come-out strongly in favour of the practice, where every member of society is given an equal say in the selection of the political candidates of his or her choice from a spectrum of political alternatives.

However, I have also voiced strong reservations about the viability of the democratic system, as it is in use in our Western Democracies. The main thrust of my arguments has been, that the principles of the social contract of essential equality require, not only, an essential equality in voting rights, but, also, a comprehensive and detailed set of Constitutional Guidelines, to make sure, that, all leadership functions, bureaucratic institutions and political activities, are geared towards maintaning this essential contract of social equality.

I have alo pointed-out my hopes, that such a stringent and explicit set of Constitutional Guidelines will make it possible for the strict Socialist Countries to abandon the principle of One-Party Rule, in favour of a true and full democracy, where the guarantees of the social organisation are transferred from a ruling political Party to the Constitution. This would allow a negotiated settlement between the ideals of the Western Democracies and those of the Dogmatic Socialist countries.

Certainly, the Western Democracies would have to make significant changes and concessions to the ideals of Socialism, but the Communist Party would have to relinquish its exclusive role as the guarantor of the Socialist Ideal. Each and every social leadership must have the ability to be voted-out of office, and abdicate power gracefully. The main flaw of the Communist Party is its belief that it can formulate an absolute truth of social health and wisdom, and, that it alone can lead a society to a condition of happiness and long-term viability.

The ability to abdicate leadership gracefully is such an important feature of flexibility, that, every healthy, adaptable society with a long-term future, must have this faculty. Without the ability to step-down after the leadership has lost the confidence of the people, (regardless, whether or not this loss of confidence is deserved), the society will inevitably polarise between a restless majority of the population that feels disappointed, (or, even, excluded from the decision-making processes), and a Party-elite that becomes increasingly alienated from the "grass roots" of the people. Such a Party-elite is slowly, but inexorably, pressured into attitudes of repression and has to maintain law and order and the supremacy of the ruling Party through a show of force, a suppression of dissent, or, even, acts of outright intimidation.

On the other hand, a society that applies the principles of the multi-Party system and the universal franchise to vote for a candidate from a genuine political spectrum, (but, without a clear-cut system Constitutional Guidelines to maintain a set of social guarantees), will experience a paralysing see-saw of contradictory trends and impulses. There is the trend towards a pseudo-Socialistic "give-away" approach by political leaders, who have to attract the popular vote by promises. This becomes, invariably, a "contest of Santa Claus", and, if people are not realistic and are easily misled by facile promises, they quickly favour those, who promise them the most.

This trend is especially noticeable, if the population is small. Then, the forces of scrutiny and the challenge by a real and well-informed political opposition, can all too easily be smothered by the practices of nepotism and corruption. Therefore, a system of multiple political Parties without a clear outline by Constitutional Guidelines of the way society should be organised, is doomed to failure. It may maintain itself for a while, as long as a rapid expansion of economic growth and rising living standards sooth the increasing frustrations of the people, but, as soon as this period of economic expansion comes to an end, the survival of these lumbering democracies is in doubt.

We have discussed, on several occasions, the rapidly developing dependence of such affluent democracies on the phenomenon of economic growth and expansion, with all the disadvantages and tensions that are associated with such an unfortunate state of economic bondage. I have discussed, on various occasions, this most crucial question; how can we stimulate the faculties of personal initiative and freedom of action within a social environment, when we want to maintain, at the same time, a status of essential equality between the members? Is it realistic to adhere to an essentially egalitarian society, if we know, that the individual genetic endowment, the personal history, as well as the forces of amibition and motivation, conspire to drive us far apart?

These questions have been examined and answered, in detail, on many occasions, and, I have come to the conclusion, that it is possible to harnass the varying levels of talent and ambition for the good of society, without necessarily running into a process of polarisation between the rich and the poor, or the Party-elite and the masses. Indeed, I believe, that these questions will play an important role in the dialogue between East and West, if we can ever get such a dialogue going between the Western Democracies and The Socialist Societies.

First, we will have to master this strong, territorial instinct of "national sovereignty", which is breaking through on both sides of the ideological divide. We see Communist, as well as Western democracies fall, again and again, into a state of serious conflict on the basis of nationalistic instincts, even, if these nationalistic instincts are given an intellectual veneer of differences in ideological interpretation. Once we have learned to recognise these strongly instinctive drives to defend "our territory", and, in particular, our "authority and jurisdiction", then, I believe, we can address, seriously, the question of designing a Constitution that could be applied to all regions of the globe.

We can not rest, until we have, at least, the beginnings of a globally acceptable set of Constitutional Guidelines in place, because, until we have such a set of Guidelines for individual and collective behaviour-patterns, we will not have this all-important set of references from where we can begin to analyse, examine and judge a dispute or a conflict of interests in objective and rational terms.

Indeed, the ultimate goals and requirements of long-term viability are dependent upon the success of our efforts to extend the sphere of social integration to mankind as a whole, because, if we begin by constructing of a globally acceptable set of Constitutonal Guidelines, we can, then, transform the solution of armed combat to the solution of the Judicial Settlement.

It should be clear, to all of us, how great an advance in viability such a transformation would be. We would guarantee, not only, a measure of viability to our contemporary and future societies, but, we could also, ensure the dignity of individual existence. How promising would the future of mankind be, when we would all be guided by universal standards of conduct and judged by a universal procedure of law.

.......

Summary

1. An initial look at my work.
   The evaluation is your's.
   I have been trying to describe the realities "as I see them".
   A detailed account of the way my writings have come-about.
   A curious, generalised approach, without references to other works or other people.
   There is a great deal of repetition in my work.
   What prompted me to write.
   The idols and virtues of today may be the follies and shame of tomorrow.
   How to match one's inclination to write with a chance for contemporary success.
   Why are some artists from the past still relevant for us today?
   The common denominators of all great works of art.
   Being less than fully happy, or integrated, with the social environment.
   Talent and dedication.
   An intellectual articulation of chronic tensions.
   The experience of stress and rejection is no guarantee for success.
   I experienced chronic, but never severe tensions.
   A tendency towards neurotic behaviour.
   Why I failed as a pianist.
   Am I on a gigantic ego-trip?
   Is my work interesting enough to be read?
   The responsibility I have towards my works.
   
   
   
2. Am I an artist, and, is philosophy a form of art?
   Language is a tool for many different forms of art.
   Philosophy and the synthetic forms of science.
   The overall view within a scientific discipline.
   A "populariser" of the sciences.
   The general philosopher goes one step further.
   Statements are not defended with specific references, but with an invitation to "shoot-down" a generalised statement with specific exceptions.
   "Europe before Nuclear War"; a curious blend between a political manifesto and a philosophical over-view.
   In an artistic evaluation, the criteria of beauty and usefulness have to be provided by the student of a work of art.
   How "entertaining" can a philosopher be?
   The attractiveness of a stern sermon.
   It is not pleasant to read my work.
   I refuse to consider my thoughts to be "exceptional", or irrelevant.
   I am happy with my self-imposed task and frugal life-style.
   
   
   
3. The value of my work.
   What is the purpose of recording my reality perceptions?
   A "credo".
   A summary of the goals I have been working for.
   Writing for an audience that believes in an alternative to the nuclear holocaust.
   I am probably part of a trend that has already started.
   I have to avoid over-emphasising the threat of a nuclear holocaust.
   The limits of my reality perceptions.
   I am always looking for common denominators.
   A review of the first eighteen essays.
   A labyrinthine, beginner's work.
   Essay 24; Oscillations.
   A steady format from essay 29 onwards.
   My writing habits.
   Reading, correcting, typing and re-typing; with the word-processor, this work has been remarkably facilitated.
   How the work; "Europe, before Nuclear War" came into being.
   Working with the word-processor.
   An ambitious project of 300 essays.
   
   
   
4. My weaknesses.
   I am not entertaining.
   The need for a healthy vitality and ego-drive.
   I do not want to force my opinions upon anyone.
   Why I do not use references, and, why I ignore the works of other people.
   Comparisons with a musician.
   The scholar and the artist have essentially different functions.
   My discussions are not suitable for a detailed system of reference.
   A characteristic "repertoir" of ideas and concepts.
   I believe to have avoided pseudo-scientific speculations or facile science-fiction.
   The need to preserve a strong "inner logic".
   A discussion of essay 25.
   The un-intentional bias in the interpretation of observations, and the design of experiments.
   An audacious speculation with the unified-field theory.
   I rely, completely, on the facts and observations of scientifically schooled people.
   "New insights", obtained through extra-polations and correlations.
   A vast gallery of "paintings without names".
   We tend to rely on a "critic's choice".
   When mankind will go "the other way".
   The final flourish of "tribalism".
   The same ideas and concepts may have been described, much better, and, more clearly, by other people.
   I like to make a contribution to the long-term viability of mankind.
   I am not afraid to show, how I had to learn the art of thinking and writing.
   
   
   
5. The various ideas I have worked on.
   Most essays share a number of ideas between them.
   A short sketch of my background.
   Learning to present an "acceptable front".
   A strong inclination to "see myself behave".
   A somewhat neurotic personality.
   A fortunate drift into a medical career.
   The immigration to Canada.
   How, and why, I abandoned a career in neuro-surgery in favour of an isolated and frugal life-style in the country.
   When I began to write.
   I was considered a "puzzling personality".
   When I retired, a lot of eye-brows were raised.
   I have learned a lot of practical skills.
   I never reveled in "doing surgery".
   I always liked to delve into the basic sciences of medicine.
   Medical diagnosis was never difficult for me.
   I realised, that the greatest problems of our times were philosophical, social and psychological in nature, and, this prompted me to venture, audaciously, away from the field of specialised knowledge.
   "In Search of Reality".
   
   
   
6. What I learned from my neurological studies.
   A "feel" for the central nervous system.
   My philosophical ideas are solidly based on the neurological foundation I acquired during my training in neurology and neuro-surgery.
   A profound result, as well as a significant effect for the perception and interpretation of our realities.
   A relativity of truth.
   Slowly, I formulated a more coherent imagery of the way we perceive the realities around us.
   Should I summarise my ideas with a series of essays; "In Search for Reality, II"?
   An emphasis on the biological heritage.
   The scientific agreement about the perception of reality is, in essence, not really different from the cultural-religious agreement.
   The relativity of truth.
   The unknowability of a non-human reality.
   The concept of relativity does not absolve us from dicriminating, carefully, between what is valid and what is nonsense.
   I always show, strongly, my medical background.
   I believe, that my "diagnosis and treatment" of the human being and his social organisations will become more appealing in the future, and, that it will have an increasing practical significance.
   A bold project.
   A reaction to the ever-increasing fragmentation of the medical sciences.
   A wide scope of knowledge and concern for the successful clinician.
   
   
   
7. How am I succeeding as a "philosophical doctor"?
   In contrast to the physician, the philosopher tries to talk to people, who think they are doing perfectly all-right.
   No wonder, he is not being listened to.
   A central theme of concern is the solution of the tensions of competitive strife.
   Combat, and the social contract of essential equality.
   The principles of social integration are an essential part of evolutionary history.
   The "regulatory principle".
   Various levels of social integration.
   A brief review of the nature of "learning".
   The nature, function and evolution of the genetic code.
   The route of "behavioural flexibility".
   It has been a fascinating experience to see a portrait of human existence evolve with the help of evolutionary and relativistic insights.
   Understanding the problems of living-together in large and complex social environments.
   The evolution of leadership.
   The function of the hierarchical order.
   The criteria of viability.
   A stable population density, and the mechanisms of natural selection.
   
   
   
8. A vulnerable ecological niche.
   The cultural code, and the factor of collective insight and decision-making.
   Stream-lining the reality perceptions of human beings.
   Larger and more over-lapping spheres of concern.
   Good citizenship, and the attitude of patriotism.
   The problems associated with the concept of "sovereign nations".
   Extra-polating the processes of socialisation to our national leaderships.
   The crux of avoiding a violent confrontation.
   Almost never, do we have to go to war in order to survive.
   I am, primarily, a philosopher-physician.
   An inexorable sequence of killings and revenge-killings.
   It takes time to teach insights.
   The obstacle of cynical and indifferent attitudes.
   I am exceedingly fortunate to have the opportunity to think and write.
   I am a sounding board for a vague and generalised atmosphere of concern.
   My ideas about the future.
   A comprehensive and globally applicable set of Constitutional Guidelines.
   The transformation and future congruence of contemporary Capitalist Democracies and Dogmatic Socialist societies.
   The important ability to abdicate a leadership position gracefully.
   Learning to live with differences in political view-points.
   Buying votes with irresponsible promises.
   The role of Constitutional Guidelines.
   An unhealthy dependence on a process of continuous economic expansion.
   Is it realistic to adhere to an essentially egalitarian society?
   Recognising our strong, collective instincts of territoriality.
   We can not rest, until we have, at least, the beginnings of a globally acceptable set of Constitutional Guidelines in place.
   How promising would the future of mankind be, if we all would be guided by universal standards of conduct, judged by the same laws and be subjected to a uniform application of these laws.

.......