.
: picture on which is shown the barrel of Diogenes (though it looks rather like very big jar with a cover), tilted a bit forward in a small pit in the sandy soil, in the front with shifted aside cover, where out of its opening is protruded one bearded head and a hand, from aside rises (part of) big olive tree and on the sandy ground around are seen fallen olives, the outstretched hand holds one olive, in the upper right corner is seen bright sun, and in the distance is shining the sea. All this is surrounded above and below by stylized Greek ornaments and this picture is placed in the bottom part of the front cover. Above it is written the title and the author on violet-red (or orange) background.
: nothing except the bright background of the front part (but, if this is so necessary, then may be put an advertisement of Coca-Cola, or the cigarettes Camel, or the American banner -- according to who pays more). ]
CONTENTS
FOREWORD
This is philosophical book, what means that it is serious reading, not for to fall asleep, though, surely, some of you may use it also for that purpose, because to many readers it may really have somnolent effect. But here you will find no citations and critiques of existing philosophical trends, no unknown to the general public terminology, what means that it is also popular book. It is maximally unprejudiced, in contrast to many philosophical books, which, in spite of their pretensions to be universal and all-embracing are at least tendentious, because their authors feel obliged to defend someone's interests. In addition to this, in their desire to be exact and non contradictory, they are forced, either to exclude the contradictions from the books starting with some basic assumptions, but in this way they unavoidably delimit the subject of investigation and show the things unilaterally, or else risk to be exposed to attacks for inexactness and metaphysics. In other words, the philosophy, more than the other sciences, suffers from the problem of decomposition of the infinitely complex and interrelated real world (and here the word "infinitely" can't be substituted with "very", because it is something more than "the most"), but if one natural process is not decomposed it can't be observed precisely enough, so that this is one unavoidable suffering (something like the birth pangs, without which, at least till the moment, the continuation of life is impossible).
Because of the partiality of philosophical currents it happens that they are very many and exclude one another, similarly to the religions, something that is not characteristic for the private sciences, because there are not many mathematics, or physics, or medicines, and so on. Though there are various subdivisions or branches of these sciences they, as a rule, don't dispute one with the other, for they have different spheres of activity or object areas, and even when their areas overlap, how is with the classical, eastern, and folk medicines, then neither of them questions basic principles, like this that the heart of the humans is in the left part of the chest, that he has two hands with five fingers, etc., but just give alternative approaches. In the same time in the philosophy they argue for centuries whether the matter comes before the idea about it, what for one cyclical process is meaningless, and is paraphrasing of the question about the egg and the hen, about which I doubt that even a child already attending school will begin to argue (but the philosophers do this).
Your author avoids these intricate situations in one obvious way, not building his whole philosophy but observing only some "spots" or topics of life, which are relatively non-contradictory, and how the reader will link them in his head is, as they say, his own business. Besides, in the title stays the word "essays", what means tries, experiments, so that when the author is pushed in the corner he can always use the phrase, which sometimes use circus clowns, after choosing one person (as if) from the public, take his tie, cut it with scissors in small pieces, put them in a hat-cylinder, stir them good with a "magic" wand, and promise to take out the tie intact, and when can't do this they say: "Well, there's nothing to do, the experiment is not always successful".
Now let us come to the cynicism, but let us first cite one assertion of the Englishmen about the difference between the optimist and the pessimist when they see before them a bottle (presumably with some pleasing the soul drink) filled to the half. Then the pessimist used to say: "Ah, but the bottle is already half empty!", while the optimist exclaimed: "Oh, the bottle is still full to the half!". In this case the cynic just establishes the fact, no matter whether there is seven-years old whiskey or potassium cyanide, because he is interested only about the truth, independently of the emotions which it can bring. The cynicism can be opposed also to the euphemism, which is the desire to say only nice things, and can be defined (according to the author) in this way: euphemism is to call somebody "person", when he is merely -- I beg to be excused -- an ass. The "ass" here is just antipode of the face signifying the person, and it isn't right to suppose that this book is full with "asses", this word even can't be found anywhere in the text (but this does not hinder some of the readers to read it till the end, in order to check the truthfulness of this statement).
In other words, the cynicism of the author consists in this, to pronounce various, even shocking, statements, not making any efforts for applying of the necessary anti-shock therapy, when these statement are true in many life situations, because of primary value for him is the truthfulness of the said, not its aesthetical, moral, ideological, and so on sides. By the way, according to the attitude of the people to the truth is useful to make the following classification in three groups, namely:
a) such, who look for the truth (exceptionally small minority, usually deprived of other pleasures in life, or forced to look for it because have chosen inappropriate area, in which to make career);
b) such, who look for the lie (greater group but also minority, who receive enough privileges from this work of them, although is not excluded the variant to be on sufficiently high intellectual level for to have understood that the lie is more attractive than the truth and, hence, more desired by the people); and
c) such, who search what they like, no matter is it truth or lie, i.e. they are
not at all
interested in the truth (the vast majority of the people, who are not worried to deny something if they don't like it, where, of course, what they like is not necessary to be something good according to the accepted in the moment belief, so that if someone likes, say, to stick a finger in his nose, then this is good for him, though not commonly accepted; or to watch sadistic films, when are speaking about tastes). In order to be cynic one must be intelligent, but the reverse statement is not necessary.
There is, however, one important moment with the cynicism: it may be shocking, but it is
interesting, because each society strives to establish some euphemistic norms and in this way it denies the cynical truths, and also the forbidden fruit is almost always sweeter. So that, maybe, these cynical essays would appeal to some of the readers? In any case, the cynicism is not contagious disease, neither leads to addiction, and is healed very easy with ... watching the media for three months or so, after which there are no recidives.
If you, still, have been misled to buy this book without reading the foreword (or have been deceived
because have read it), there is also nothing disastrous in this -- you just give the book as present to some
unpleasant your colleague or acquaintance, for whom you only think how to get rid of him. The book is the best and cheaper present, and the bad book is exactly the ideal present in such cases. So that: why not to buy it? I, personally, would have done this -- had I not written it myself.
February 1999, Sofia, Bulgaria, Chris MYRSKI
ABOUT THE CREATION AND THE CREATED
I. The Creation
The creation of our world states one of the eternal questions, to which the humans have tried to find the answer during all historical times, and which are impossible to be answered until they are properly formulated. The whole mess here comes because of our efforts to get sensible answer to such questions like: who, when, how, and why has created the Universe, where the mere presence of these particles
presupposes some kind of answer, which could have satisfied us, and refuses the right answer. When we ask "who", this supposes that such being exists, and when we ask "why" -- that the Creation has its reasons. But if there is "nobody", and if no special cause for this exists, and all has happened as a result of some processes? When the question begins with "when" or "how", this is more reasonable, but very difficult to be answered, because we are
finite beings, as in the time, so also in the space, and can't comprehend the whole truth about gone away times. Besides, the question "when" means that we expect to be some beginning (and, maybe, also an end), what leads us to the association for "the egg and the hen", but in one cyclical process is meaningless to ask ourselves where is its beginning, and the only thing that we can do then is
to choose some starting point, according to which to orient the time axis. Then the answer to the question "how" may be reduced to description of some regularities of the process, what might have been of importance for us if the Creation is not a single act but process continuing forever in the time, while by the single Creation (according to the Christianity) this should have only, as is said, "academical" meaning. So that instead of falling in such logical traps we shall start from the reality as end goal and will ask ourselves, which characteristics it has and what we may get as cause for these characteristics, i.e. will move deductively discovering the basic rules of our world, which produce the observed in it phenomena. This is more correct setting of the things, which avoids the above mentioned questions as meaningless, but may give satisfying explanation of the reality. Nobody hinders us, however, to suppose that there is
Somebody, who has made all this, if it is more comfortable for us so, wherein we shall try at least to make the things more interesting.
And now, imagine one omnipotent Being, living forever in the time and encompassing the whole space, Who just wonders what to do in order to spend more interesting His unending life. In other words, imagine that our "dear God" is engaged with the difficult task to invent
something interesting for Himself, having in mind that nothing usual would have satisfied Him, for He will always succeed to foresee it, but at the same time He has all the time in His disposition and does not know how to use it! What remains then to our God unless to invent some
game, which will never bore Him? This is not a trivial task even for a God, because this "thing" that He has to create must exist forever and change itself forever, but so that even He alone to be not in position to know exactly what will happen in the given time and the given place! Our Being has unlimited time (so that the difficulty of the project can't create any problems for Him), as well also materials for the creation of the "thing" (because He has at His disposition all possible, and even impossible, resources, needed for the creation of it), and also the possibility to inspire divine rules in it (which are to determine the interaction between the resources). Well then, let Him begin the work!
For the elaboration of actual project God must establish which resources from the unlimited number, that are at His disposal, to use, and also how to put them into effect. If He puts only by one resource in an established time and place in the space then this resource will dissipate around after some time and everything will stop or die (and if it does not dissipate at all then everything will be permanent, i.e. dead), and for such game He, surely, will not be game because if is very shallow, and He could always have imagined it in His vision. Hence, He must use simultaneously several resources, which
must interact with each other, though also not so elementary that one of them just devours the others, but to exist
incessant dynamics, where from one resource is going to another (then to some other, and so on), but sooner or later the situation to be able to return to some of the former states -- what means that there must be some
cyclical interaction. Now, this will enliven the things, but for one God there will be no problems, knowing the initial state, to compute the situation in each of the next moments, and this makes the game not very interesting. So that in addition to the decomposition of resources in mutually interacting cycles He will need
one more dimension of the game, different from the temporal and spatial coordinates, and this is the
complexity of building of the resources from simpler to more complex. But this is not the end of the postulates, for if the things could have only become more complex, then this also might have been predicted by some God, and, God forbid, everything becomes so complex that there emerges some other God, who will be infinitely complex! In other words, there must be some end of the complicatedness, in a similar way -- via a cycle.
Let us repeat, there are needed several elementary resources, which must interact between them so that the system to be in incessant
dynamical equilibrium, where by reaching of some critical concentration of some of the resources from them to be possible to build new resources, from the latter -- other more complex, and so on, until reaching of some definite rate of complexity for each of the resources, when they must be able to decompose themselves in their simpler components. This time this will be one interesting and dynamical game, but our God, still, could have succeeded to guess what goes on in each moment and in each part of the space, because the things are
determined, and then this is not interesting. For one God, Who does not stop before any difficulty, remains the only "goal in life" to invent something
undetermined, or
arbitrary, so that even
He alone not to be able to predict it exactly, but only in outlines. Only such game is worth the trouble to be created!
Till here everything is nice, with the exception of two moments from the point of view of the God about Whom we are speaking. The first one is that if the very God can't guess exactly the state of the "thing" then He isn't really so omnipotent (but there is nothing to do here, because only such solution will be really interesting to be watched during the everlasting time). The second moment is that our God applies, in fact, the
only possible solution of the set task, and for this some special "divine providence" is not needed -- He acts according to the requirements of the logic. It is true that the details of the operation remain, but with a good plan everybody can elaborate the details, and the plan turns out to be dictated by the stipulations of the task, and whatever other plan would not have satisfied the requirements.
So that our divine hypothesis about the origin of this "thing", which we usually name Universe, is not at all necessary, when this is the only possible ever changing and stable way of functioning of the matter. Nothing hinders us to think that during the endless time preceding our have been tried various methods of interaction and have been shaped different types of matter with their laws, and by the other methods not stable material bodies have disappeared in one or another way and only the stable ones have remained. There is one universal method for creation and it is called
trial and error method. This method works
always, under the condition that we have in our disposition
unlimited time and infinitely many resources! In this situation it is of no importance whether we shall accept that some Being has known in advance what will work and what not, or this has been established after many many attempts in the everlasting time.
More than this, the acceptance of hypothesis for a divine Creation of the world does
not at all solve our problem but just shifts it, because then, naturally, arise the questions: who, when, why, and how has created this very God (or gods)! If the Creation has a beginning, then why this eternal Being has chosen exactly this moment for beginning, when He has always known everything and for Him each point in the time should have been equally suitable? If the matter has not existed before God has created it, then out of what is made He alone, as also
who has made Him so everlasting and omnipotent? Even the assumptions that the very time and space were created by God, and as such have not existed before Him, helps us only for the questions "when" and "where", but there remains the "why", as also, mainly, "who" has created Him, in which case we are forced to allow the existence of some
hierarchy of Gods, what again leaves the question open! And also the theory for divine Creation is necessary only
after accepting the hypothesis of God, for to confirm His omnipotence, but it gives us no proofs for His existence, neither explains sufficiently good the real world at the level of our knowledge in current times. It is absolutely redundant and may exist only as one beautiful fable.
II. The Nature
The nature obeys some basic laws which determine its stability. They are well known, though may be formulated in other ways, and we can only remind them to you, evolving them to a better for understanding level.
1. In each area the
equilibrium is maintained based on at least two
opposite tendencies, which are in incessant struggle between them moving from the one to the other. These opposites are in incessant interaction, but they form something united (what, from some other view point, might be only one of another pair of tendencies). There is just no other way for establishing of dynamical equilibrium (otherwise would have been statical equilibrium)! And without dynamics, i.e. without movement, or, said more generally, without changing, nothing happens in our Universe, only that the processes of change may be so slow that to look as motionless for us (for example: the life of our Sun compared with one human life span). There is of no principal meaning whether the things are two or more -- the important thing is to be incessant change, or rather
cycle, which is not necessary to be with exactly set constant period. This cycle we may imagine as a circle, or as some closed line (the mathematicians have special term for homomorphism, or maintaining of the form by elastic deformations, by which each closed line is homomorphic with the circle, and, in this sense, indistinguishable from it). In particular, if we turn one circle across and look at it from the side but remaining in the plane of the circle, then it degenerates in line segment, what is analogue of reciprocating movement, so that if one point is moving on a circle then it, looked from the side, will move like a piston. And, of course, it is not needed always to have points, bodies and real spatial circles, if we speak about changing of some tendencies or interactions (say, hot -- cold, simple -- complex, alive -- dead, and so on).
Inasmuch, however, the next return in the same point (or condition) is not exactly the same but differs in some parameter, we may use also the more generalized notion for evolving spiral or snail (if the change happens in the same plane), or for coiled spring or solenoid (if we imagine the change also with another dimension) -- in Latin both things are called helix. From these generalizations we can easily return to the cyclical notion, were it by squeezing of the spiral, were it by pressing of the solenoid (or its observing in direction of the axes of the spring). This generalized model is better because our world, how you look at it, is immensely complex and the returning always happens in some slightly different state. Besides, no experiment can repeat
in exactly the same time (nobody can cross twice
the same river, as the ancient people have said), and we may regard this new dimension precisely as the time axis.
2. Accumulating of big quantities in one place
leads to emerging of new qualities of the object in question, or, said in other words: the complex structures are built on the basis of more simpler ones. These, naturally, are only qualitative laws and nowhere is defined exactly what means "big quantities", neither "complex structures", but this is unavoidable, because each exact definition sets some type of
restriction! The important thing is the multilayer building of the things in the Universe, and having in mind our (perpetually) restricted knowledge we can not know whether there are limits in our movement, as to the simpler, also to the more complex, so that it is accepted that it is unlimited (but in some cases it may be on the contrary). This hierarchy of complexity is not only manifestation of the organization in the nature (which can be attributed, by wish, to the divine origin of all that exists), but it is also the most important instrument for assistance of the human knowledge, because allows applying of different methods and building of various models of the real world at different
levels of inspection! If on a project for a house were pictured all distinct bricks (or grains of sand) it is hardly to believe that some builder would have found his way in it; as also if the human behavior was explained on atomic level, for example, we couldn't have said anything about the functioning of the organism as a whole.
And one more important moment, which is consequence of the previous law: the necessity not only for the simple to go to the complex, but also vice versa -- the complex to be in condition to decompose to the simpler in order to close the cycle also in relation of the complexity. The correct view is to observe the complexity as one
additional dimension of material world, in which also is established the needed dynamical equilibrium between the creative and destructive forces. It is impossible to exist incessant creation without destruction, as it is impossible to exist life without death! Any negligence of one side leads to inevitable collisions, and as far as the human being finds as his principal task the creation, then the destruction most often happens in chaotic and cruel way. If our creation is only reaction of the unavoidable in the nature destruction then the human approach is, more or less, good, but with the increasing of our abilities, especially in the last centuries, is observed total helplessness worldwide before the destructive side of the pair of tendencies. It is up to us to balance it intelligently.
3. The complex systems are /must_be built simply! At a first sight this is the same about which we just talked, but here we are interested not in the changing of one quality into another, but in the way of escalating of the
same quality. And the words "must be" we have added because if this principle is not observed then the things go not rightly, for the reason that the complexity begins to grow like avalanche and the system becomes confused, i.e. it would have got confused if this was artificial system, but in the nature confusion does not occur exactly because the complex is build in a simple way! Good, but what, after all, have we in mind here?
Well, it goes about how are built the rocks, for example, or the trees, or the galaxies, or our muscles, at cetera, at cetera. And they are built in such way that the complex system just
copies some simpler system and so on until is reached one simplest variant, which is the lowest level of the going to the new quality. In the example with the rocks then they are built from various boulders, which are built of smaller stones, and so on; the trees consist of branches, which ramify in smaller boughs, and so on till we come to the leaves; the muscles are built from tiny groups of fibers, and also by various fruits we have similar aggregating of the cells or the seeds (by the pomegranate, the fig, the melon, and others), or by the caviar of the fishes, which is enveloped in thin skins, or by the kidney, or by the brain of the mammals, and many more examples; and the same is the situation with the galaxies.
This question has been good enough investigated in the 20th century (not that earlier the people had not have similar ideas) by the modeling of artificial images -- coastlines, landscapes, galaxies, trees, etc., and there is the important term called
recursion, or also recurrence (what may be also something slightly different if we define it exactly). The tree is typical two-dimensional recursive structure widely used in computer science, but every mathematical expression is also something similar, because on the place of each letter can stay similar expression (here the recurrence by some formulas means expressing of a term of given series with previous terms of the same series). Similar meaning has the notion
fractals, or fractal (i.e. partial) structure, what means such bodies (in the general case, but they may be also some curves), which consist of
themselves, so to say, i.e. depending on the degree of
magnification we can see one or another level of the bodies, where each level is made in one and the same way. In this situation it turns out that, for example, the coastal line can
never be
exactly measured, because all depends on the "stick" with which we measure, and the more we diminish the measuring unit the longer this line becomes, until we reach the atomic level.
As far as the fractality is new notion we may add also that it is related with a kind of
non-integer dimension (!), by which we may have such curve (one-dimensional object) that so turns around the plane that covers it entirely, and then our line has dimension two! Well, on a conceptual level the things can't be explained exactly but similar lines we have, e.g., in the economics when follow the prices of a given product or currency for differently long periods (months, weeks, days). On this example can be seen that nothing hinders the fractals to be also probabilistic or random (the next principle below), neither is restricted the level of their application, where can exist fractal lines of the movement of elementary particles, as also to speak about fractality of whole galaxies. So that the
fractality is basic characteristic of the Universe and it allows to easily build complex structures using recursive representation of simpler ones. If we approach algorithmically the question then this recursive algorithm will be simpler than some other one (say, cyclical). But the important thing here is that the fractality of our world is just the only maximally
economical decision that does not allow the complexity to become excessively high, and in the same time the very structures can be very complex. What has to say that also from this point of view our "god" has done nothing more than what he was
bound to do, if he has wanted to have easy coding of complex structures, for otherwise our world would not have been so stable, i.e. it wouldn't have existed till now.
4. Our world is not entirely determinate, and it
can not exist without involving
the randomness! This has to say that all our knowledge is limited, not only by the current level of evolution of the sciences, but also by natural laws, which make it not enough defined in each concrete case, but only in more general statistical aspect. In the atomic physics has become necessary to make the assumption that for one material particle we can't know both, its exact position and its velocity (the Heisenberg principle), and if we know the one thing, then we can't find the other one. In the mathematical probability theory is stated something, at a first sight, pretty Jesuitical for the uninitiated reader, namely that
the arbitrariness is necessary and the necessity -- arbitrary! This, however, is fully justified from the point of view of diversity in the Universe, where exactly this uncertainty allows easy and unpredictable changes, gives one more dimension of the dynamism. At the level of organized matter this is expressed via inaccuracy in copying of the genetic code, as also in various defects of this matter, but similar defects are observed also by the unorganized matter, and if some of them are not entirely indeterminate then it becomes necessary for the arbitrariness to manifest itself at atomic and subatomic level -- in the Brownian motion, for example. For this reason in each repetition of some process in the time it has all chances to differ a little from the previous period; we may try to study it as much as possible but the Nature (or God, if this suits you better) has taken measures always to remain something undefined. Without the randomness the things would have been easier for us, but at the same moment also much more boring and identical.
The random world gives variety in the concrete case, combined with exact regularities in the general one. Is this good or bad doesn't matter -- just this is our world.
Inasmuch, though, as well the randomness so also the inaccurate knowledge have the same effect for us, which reduces to some degree of ignorance, there is not big difference to what we shall attribute this lack of knowledge -- it is important to have it in mind in our models and scientific theories. So for example, when we toss a coin we know that there is probability of 1/2 for it to fall on a given side, and if we could have absolutely faultlessly take into account all factors that determine its position, then we maybe could have computed exactly on which side it will fall? Yeah, but we can't do this! And whether we will think, that we can't take all these factors in consideration because our knowledge is still pretty powerless (i.e. we can't know the behaviour of each single atom -- and why not also electron? -- from the surrounding the coin air in every moment), or will assume that the Brownian motion of the particles of air does not allow us to know exactly which is the place and the velocity (as vector, including the direction of movement) of each single particle, for us this makes practically no difference. Similar is the situation also by the research of the market, by the demography, the heredity, and where else not. However much we expand our knowledge of the general case, the particular case will always remain for us one "magic", but as far as we are interesting in the results, the causes are not so important.
III. The Organized Matter
The organized matter provides a higher level of complexity, because here are united in one piece various simpler elements (molecules, groups of cells, organs), which have common life goals, and the different elements have some degree of specialization in functioning of the whole organism. There arise at least two different stages of existence, namely: adult organism and seed (i.e. some information about the building and functioning of the developed organism), what gives bigger endurance of the organism (at the stage of the seed), as also more elaborate idea for changing of life with death of the organism. In other words, while the unorganized matter may only grow old and decay, and its new origination depends on
other interactions, then the organized matter may
reproduce itself. In this way the cycle life -- death for a given organism may be directed by the very species, and the reproduction of the species becomes main goal of the organism. Within the boundaries of the known part of the Universe so far is not found other way of existence of organized matter (because there was not discovered another such matter) except based on long organic molecules, where to be coded the genetic code, but this does not mean that there can't exist organization on some other basis. The computer viruses, for example, have the fundamental property for reproduction, which is written on non-organic material medium, and they are example for
non-material "organism" that can exist in a medium of elementary memory cells (regardless of their basis). It isn't insuperable problem the creation of mechanical devices which can reproduce itself (together with the reproductive unit), where in this way the stage of the seed may become unnecessary, so that it is not excluded in near future to become witnesses also of artificial life.
The organized matter on Earth includes the plants and the animals, but we will discuss mainly some common characteristics of the
animals, so that saying "life" we shall understand specifically the animals, though some of the mentioned below laws exist in certain (embryonic) form also by the plants. So far as in this review we are moving from lower to higher degree of complexity (in order to reach in the next section to the humans), we may also understand higher animals, though this is not obligatory. Here we shall formulate some basic principles, which do not pretend for completeness, but are of big importance because are useful for explanation of various phenomena of life, and which are answered more precisely (and thus more restricted) in the corresponding specialized sciences.
1. The perceptions of the life are characterized with centered modal scale! We shall explain this starting from the ability of life to mirror in some way the real world in itself and to measure quantitative differences in a given parameter, which it uses in forming of its behaviour in various situations. By this reflection the corresponding organs for perception must take into account the above mentioned natural laws and, in particular, by reaching of one of the pair opposite tendencies to be able to go in the contrary tendency but moving
in the same direction, for to close the cycle. If we use the analogy with some measuring device, then its scale (we mean analog one) cam be: either some line segment, and in this case when reaching of one of the extreme positions the device ceases (temporarily or permanently) to measure; or else some closed line (circle), in which case when reaching of a given conditional end position we begin new turn on the device from the other end position (which is the same one). The linear scale is imperfect at the ends, and as far as the tendency which we measure can significantly exceed the boundaries of the measuring device (perceptual organ) it becomes often necessary to work exactly at the ends. The cyclical scale, on the other hand, is universal, only that by it the measurement (i.e. the perception, here) may be highly imprecise, in sense to be
diametrically opposite, but this is the most often chosen by the Nature decision, because
it preserves the device! Such cyclical scale in the mathematics is called modal, by modulus of the highest number (like the days of the week are computed by modulus 7, and all digital counters work by modulus some power of the ten), and if the zero is in the middle of the scale (as it is with the thermometer, only that it's not modal) then it is also centered.
The simplest analogy is to imagine some flexible thermometer that measures from -50
oC to +50
oC, and which we have bent so in circle, that both end positions are glued (and the device works!). In this situation, when the temperature becomes +51
oC we will read -49
oC. The examples for this law are very many and vary from the most elementary sensitive perceptions to the most complicated (and inherent only to the humans) feelings, say: by contact to a frozen object with naked hand we feel and experience burns (of different degrees); by too loud noise -- deafen; by strong light -- go blind; the sweetness, when becomes too much, begins to taste bitter; the love borders with the hatred (this is the most primitive, but also most usual reaction to excessive strengthening of this emotion); the strength -- with the weakness, and vice versa; the bravery turns to cowardice, and the latter may turn to the biggest bravery; the laughter often changes to weeping and vice versa (especially by the children, but also by the women); the geniality borders with the stupidity (and sometimes conversely); and so on. But these perceptions
don't correspond to the reality, because there is nothing in common between +50
o and -50
o, for example, neither between the wavelengths of violet and red colours, but we naturally pour out the one thing into the other, as if they are adjacent. These are not paradoxes but
rules for our sensitive organs and emotional reactions -- if our knowledge comprises also the law of the modal scale of perceptions. So that if someone succeeds, say, to prevent his love from turning to hatred (or at least to jealousy), changing it to indifference (the zero-point of the scale, which is diametrically opposed to the strong love or hatred), then exactly
he behaves paradoxically, although reasonably (because the manifestation of reason in the human reactions is only an exception).
2. The reflection in the life is conditional and distorted, where "conditional" here means that the reality is accepted depending on the internal state of the organism, i.e. of its memory, instincts and reflexes, but also on the environment and situation; and "distorted" means that, for one thing, the scale of the perception differs from that of the reflected phenomenon, and, for another thing, the reflection is inaccurate and deformed. In short, the life "measuring devices" are of poor quality and biased, but exactly this is the purpose of life reflection, because it in some extent prepares the taking of decision. By the higher animals exist specialized organs for perception, storing, processing of the information, and acting according with the conditions, which are missing by the lower species, but the higher also use the conditional perception, because it allows more effective usage of the information since in this way it is somewhat processed. The point is that, if some image symbolizes danger, on the basis of previous experience, then the animal is ready to react without much "thinking" and detailed analyses, and if some other situation symbolizes food it prepares for its accepting. In this aspect can exist difference by some artificial intelligence, for example, where we would have put exactly specialized organs, which are first to register the situation and later to analyze it, where by the life these two processes are united (even with the needed answer to the situation); it may be taken that this is one evolutionary forced method of functioning of the higher animals as taken from the lower ones, but for the moment it proves to be more suitable when fast reaction is necessary, and that is why the human beings very often rely on their instincts and reflexes, not on their intellect, which would have given more precise, but also more slowly made decision (see "About the intellect", too). In any case, some conditionality very often is necessary. Approximately the same meaning has the term
selective perception of the life, where this, what is not interesting for the organism, is rejected and is accepted only the necessary, to what is reacted. And surely this, that the reflection by the life
at present is better then the modeled artificial intelligence does not mean that it will remain so also in the future.
As to the distorted reflection is minded that the majority of sensitive scales are logarithmic (i.e. they measure in "times"), but this is good in order of widening of the range of perceptions (at the expense of the accuracy, which usually is of not big importance). This, what isn't very good, are the different defects of the corresponding sensitive organs, but if the nature has rejected the defects at all then this would have significantly lessened the adaptability of the life, because exactly the various defects are these, that allow for an easy applying of the trial and error method, with the subsequent fixing of the appropriate changes or mutations in the genetic code, so that: every cloud has a silver lining!
3. The reactions of the life are inadequate to the irritants. This is natural consequence of the organization of the matter, for which the Newton's law is not valid. This, however, does not mean that the reactions are unpredictable or random (though this also happens sometimes), but that they are rather
reverted, or counteracting so the irritant that it to become: either eliminated, if this is possible; or obediently accepted, if this is unavoidable! More precisely this means that
to stronger irritants the corresponding reaction is weak, and to weaker ones -- stronger, where only as an exception is possible adequate reaction to irritant of medium strength! Such is the situation from the most primitive animals and up to the most highest and the humans (what is treated more profoundly in the essay "About the violence"). Here we will permit ourselves only to mention that this inadequate reaction is
quite reasonable, from the point of view of the interaction in the nature, but it isn't very reasonable to be massively applied by the humans, when there are more reasonable reactions.
IV. The Human Being
The human being is considered as crown of the Creation, but this statement is prompted by an ordinary egocentrism. If the worm, for example, was able to think then it most probably would have also contemplated itself as the most perfect being, because it lives almost everywhere, and has simplified structure, what means more reliable, and reproduces easily by mere division, and its feeding is not related with special difficulties, and it does not know the killing, and does not suffer from mental illnesses, of drug addiction, or sexual perversions, et cetera. (We must treat, generally said, the lower animals and the plants with certain understanding and gratitude, because they not only are evolutionary precursors of the higher animals, but without them the life of the latter would have been impossible.) This, what can be said about the human being, is that he: belongs to the class of higher mammals, leads gregarious lifestyle, is considered omnivores, characterizes with year-round sexual activity, and has more developed mental abilities (although he doesn't use them so far especially good) than various other animals. Only we, naturally, don't intend to perform here more profound physiological, anatomical, psychological, or whatever other description of the human, but only to stress on some mass delusions due to his unreasonable
homocentrism, which are useful to have in mind by everyone. They are the following:
1. The nature is completely indifferent to the human, no matter whether we like this or not! Nobody makes a thing in order to please the human -- neither the inanimate matter, nor a plant, nor some other animal. But exactly for this reason almost every human being drives into his head that everything turns around him, and even has devised since deep antiquity some imaginary immaterial gods, who have no other work but just to think about the humans and how to make them better, or how to punish them when they misbehave. From the viewpoint of nature the human being is only a kind of biological matter and there are no reasons to think that even the whole mankind is with something more valuable from whichever of the billions and billions of stars dispersed within the space. Even compared with the size of our globe the human being is not more than a microbe in a bucket of water. This, what we imagine about ourselves, is irrelevant to the life in the Universe; even if we decide to blow up the whole Earth this will show no influence over the cosmic existence. The contrived by us notions about good or evil
have nothing in common with the nature, only with us alone, so that it is high time to substitute them with something more environmental, because otherwise the nature will "avenge" for our ignorance as it only suits it (or "her",
la natura). It is high time to cease, or at least to restrict, our ambitions to rebuild the world according to our wishes, and to beat the breasts and laugh self-contented when we occasionally succeed in this. The nature is indifferent to us and
we are those, who must be interested in it, because it not at all is irrelevant to the human, as far as he lives within it.
2. The human being is not a perfect creation of the nature, at least not in the sense of complete, last, unrivaled! He is not perfect because he does not adapt well to the environment, does
not fit into it, but tries to adjust the environment according to himself. It is clear that each animal tries, a little or more, to change the environment preparing for itself at least some lair, or making supplies of food, etc., but only the human being does not balance well his purposes with the maintaining of environment and, for example: destroys more resources than he needs; kills not to feed himself but for the pleasure (or the kick) of it; builds enormous human anthills not because of necessity but because it is easier so and out of unreasonable pride; and so on. Perfect in his way is the lizard, because when it tears the tail then later grows itself a new one, but we can't do so; or the other mammals, who bear in most primitive but natural conditions, while the humans (i.e. the women) have already unlearned this; or the bear, because it sleeps for 3-4 months, when the living conditions are unfavorable for it, but we can't sleep through, say, one economical crisis; or the ants, because they have such social organization to which we can be only envious, or carry loads about ten times heavier than their own weight, build skyscrapers bigger than ours (compared with their size) and this from very nondurable materials or with things at hand; the monkey, which can hang on its own tail and climb the trees, while we, since have come down from them, now never climb again; the squirrel, which although has no wings but can very successfully glide down; the fly, if you want, which is so resistant that nothing can obliterate it, because have existed in the time of dinosaurs and will, most probably, exist after the humans vanish from the surface of the planet; and so on, and so on. In other words,
the humans have no particular perfection, except their universality, but this is double-edged sword and it is far from clear whether this is for good or for bad!
For those who might have objected that the humans have achieved great success in society, have created arts and sciences, etc., can be mentioned that almost in every area of human knowledge we are
tragically back from the end goals in the given domain, for example: the medicine still largely cuts and substitutes, instead of to heal the ailing organ or to grow it from a pair of cells; the stomatology also has still not invented a method for growing anew the teeth of a person (and when once in life they fall out and new ones grow again, then it must be entirely possible to make this as much times as we want, only that we don't know how); the jurisprudence is a "pail of grief" because has still not found a way for objective justice (as long as a human being takes part in the system of judgement, works for payment and exists direct contact between judge and defendant, there will unavoidably be present the corruption and partiality); the art suffers from lack of objective and timely assessment of its works; the society as a whole still has not established specialization of the individuals from the moment of their birth, while each non-unicellular organism has such one for its cells; the politics is based on mere outwitting between politicians and popular masses, as also on partial meanings, and there can't, still, be found a way for prediction of behaviour of the individuals in various situations, or for developing of some new abilities like telepathy (which, obviously, is possible for some individuals in particular moments), telekinesis and other similar things; there are still not discovered some time waves or other ways for evident presence in other times (at least for monitoring of the past, if by the future might have arisen some paradoxes); there are no initiations for reaching to the secrets of gravity, and without it the space flights remain just a beautiful dream; and so on. And there is no sense to excuse ourselves with this, that the other animals have also not (yet) reached to such heights, because we have already noted that in many concrete areas the animals are more specialized and better suited than the humans. It is true that the mere notion of perfection supposes the
inability to reach it (for having reached this stage there is no sense in any further movement ahead), but in this respect we may be absolutely sure, because there is simply no such danger for the human beings.
3. The human being practically
lacks free will to act according to his wishes, and even these wishes are wide away from free but dictated by various necessities related with his organization and functioning! Put it otherwise: the human is result of
actions of causes unsuspecting the goals, to which they are directed; or the humans only for this reason think that they are free because they are
conscious of their wishes but not of the causes, that force them! The freedom, of course, is a relative notion, because in our infinitely interconnected world the freedom of one of its elements is expressed in some restriction of the other one, so that it is a question of equilibrium, especially in individual aspect. But we are not speaking about some abstract freedoms, like: dominance over
all the others, or the freedom to choose one's parents, or whether to be born or not, and the meaning of our statement is that in many cases when we think that we are free we just
deceive ourselves; or, respectively, we do something best of all when we don't know why we do it! Well, nobody hinders us to fall in self delusion, when we like this so much, and it also helps (and there is even always somebody to spare us the work to delude ourselves alone) but the truth is that our behaviour is, anyhow,
programmed, something what, after the contemporary achievements of the genetics, must be obvious. We have some freedoms, especially the freedom to
make errors, but even this freedom for errors can be (and it is) programmed, because the errors are manifestation of the randomness of our world. If we use one word from the jargon of computer scientists we can say that the people are a kind of "intelligent terminals", what means that they are end devices which can work in autonomous mode, but are connected in one common network (the network of the society and nature). But surely the other animals are also not much autonomous, if this gives us any comfort.
4. The human being is just another natural experiment, in the process of its incessant evolution, and even this, will it turn our to be successful or not, does not depend much on us alone. Well, we have some right to choose, as for example: to create appropriate artificial life, serving as necessary step to it (and will we by this disappear entirely, or will retain some reasonable population of, say, 50-100 millions of people on the world globe, this isn't essential); or to eradicate the life on Earth, and the latter together with the life, returning it to the condition of primary chaos, and in this way to close the cycle of complication of life (something what, anyway, will happen sooner or later); or to succeed to mutate up to such degree that to become
really thinking animals (i.e. first to think and than to act, and this from the point of view of the entire nature, not according to our wishes), i.e. not as we are now -- beings
capable to think (only that we do this after having spent all
unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal); or to flood the galaxy with our expansive and socially primitive civilization, until beings from another galaxies, or primeval natural forces, will be necessary to intervene to moderate us; or some other possibility which is attainable for us. What option we will choose depends on us and the nature, but the bad thing is that even this is of no big importance for the nature (only that this matters for us), because for the nature
nothing matters! The nature (or our dear God) makes experiments, for to pass the time, only that all this falls on our backs. But there is nothing to be done here -- this is the essence of Creation and we are just one link in it.
And now this is all, that can be said about the Creation and created, if we don't want to enter into great details, because if we begin to look more profound then there will be no end in this. It is better to live our lives, till we can do this, and, if possible, without hindering especially the others and without speeding up the coming of the chaos. In other words, let us leave the
game named life to continue according to its rules and not to invent new ones.
ABOUT THE WOMAN AND THE MAN
I. The Woman
The woman is the best friend of the man, better, obviously, than the pet animals! This does not mean that the reverse statement is not true, but in the beginning we will speak about the woman, so that let us be content for the moment with this partial truth, and as far as in our review we shall resort to analogies with animals we may call her also female, and let us try to find some common characteristics of the female individual by the people (i.e. of the ancient Yin or
Ing etc. -- it depends on the language). The typical features are collective and this does not hinder the existence of many exceptions from the rules in various concrete cases, but, how it is known, the exceptions only confirm the rules (with their exceptionality), and, if you want, we may speak about masculine features by the women and vice versa (something what is mass phenomenon), but the piquant moment here is that these exceptions manifest itself most often by the homosexuals, where they are just
compelled to show (although the sexual orientation is not necessary for their manifestation). Each of the two sexes in its individual developing is built on the basis of a kind of neutral or "children" sex, and after certain age comes again to it, so that it is reasonable to retain in itself features from the other sex; in this sense is useful to think that the neutral sex is such in which features
from both sexes are present but there is no clear predominance of one of them, and not that it has neither masculine, nor feminine features. We will not only list these moments but will also motivate them going from the primary goal for prolongation and development of the kind (what, in fact, are two different things, to which we shall dwell later on), trying to show their unavoidable necessity (i.e. the life could not have existed otherwise when there are two extremely different types of individuals). The features which we will formulate are valid mainly in the sphere of continuation of the gender or in the sex and family, while in other activities they may not show themselves, as also be modified to their opposites, what, however, does not mean that they are not true; these characteristics make the bottom line in the actions of the man and the woman, or motivate them, though their manifestation may be suppressed by the influence of other factors. Many of the statements may sound shocking, but then this is the main "charm" of the cynicism, that in the search of truth it reveals many widespread delusions and thus unavoidably shocks the masses.
1. As far as the main purpose of the woman is to continue the human race then
she, inevitably,
is the conservative element in this process, because to "conserve" is synonymous with preserve, or prolong the existence. A short linguistic consultation with the English leads us to the spread for the woman designation "birth box", and even the very name "woman" there must be simplified writing of the combination womb + man, and you know that the "b" in the first word is not read, so that it should have been written as "womman" but the second "m" has disappeared
*. Similar is also the origin of the Russian word
zhenshchina (or Bulgarian
zhena), which comes from the Greek
gyneka (γιναικα), what is related with the root
gen (gene, or
jin, written
cin, in Arabic -- well, in Turkish, but the word is Arabic) and means "spirit, idea for something", i.e. for the life. So, and conservative individual will say that the woman wants just the same worldly things -- food, shelter, satisfaction from life -- and this in the interest of posterity (what means
for herself, because in her view she is the posterity), and should not be considered in sense that she wants for them to be
exactly the same in their kind, because the principal quality of life is its diversity and changing. In other words, the woman is conservative
in her goal for continuation of the gender, but not in the ways in which she performs this! So happens that the conservative female is
not at all conservative in relation to the tranquility of the others around, but is directly revolutionary in her wishes -- as quantitative (mainly), so also qualitative -- and in this way is cause for the majority of induced by the humans disasters and cataclysms in the society. From here stems the well known phrase:
cherchez la femme, or "search for the woman" (then, when there are no other reasonable causes for a given event). Similar meaning is hidden in the Biblical fable about the apple of the knowledge, where the woman is who turns to be the cause for all subsequent disasters for the humanity. Not only the Trojan war in ancient times, which according to the legends was fought for certain Helene, but also most of the wars, due to their economical causes, arise from the care for the offspring, or the birthing appliance. All aspirations for easy and wealthy life come again from the conservative woman's understanding that exactly this is the purpose of life (not that this is not so also for many men, but they have other stimuli and quickly become bored by the easiness, while the woman may be bored only by the insufficient degree of her desires). But the most conservative quality of the women is so important that we assign to it the next point.
2. From both sexes the feminine is the most egoistic one, because life is based on fight for supremacy of each individual over the others and against the others. The continuation of individual gender stays above the continuation of the kind, as far as this depends on the female; no such one will prefer the life of other's children before those of her own, for example, or will admit (without battle, as it's said) that the children of the others are better than hers, when they are really better (with the stipulation about the exceptions). If the woman had given life to thousands of children (as the queen bee, as an example), then she would not have been so egoistic and would have looked at all other's children as at her own, i.e. she would have cared first of all about the kind, but with a pair of children she just has no other choice. Along with the egoism goes also the
partiality and the
lack of objectivity of the female, and this non-objectivity is raised on such height, that for it exists special term named "mother's love". And this love is exactly so much
unfair as the life which we live! As far as our life is a series of coincidences, or play of the genes, for which one should not be held responsible, it is also utterly unjust to the people, because they are praised and punished for things depending, not so much on themselves, as on genetically placed in them, so that if the females were not as much unjust to the foreign and biased to the own offspring, for
to compensate for the hardships of life, then at least 90% of the children in the families would have lived as in asylums for homeless, because at least so much of them are ordinary middle (and even retarded and inapt) children and, hence, there are no reasons for showing of some special love to them. Surely that the men, too, are partial to their children, though this usually does not extent to injustice to the other ones and does not border with hatred to them, neither lessens the need for punishment of their children, but is based on the logic (that if they can't teach all other's children to something useful, then they can teach at least their own breed).
All thoughts of the woman, looking objectively, come from coarse egoism and the conviction that she is better and more beautiful than the other women, that her children are the best, that her husband is the: cleverest, wealthiest, strongest, and so on (or at least he is obliged to be such), where this reaches to the extremity of envy and hatred to everything foreign. It may be definitely stated that one genuine woman is motivated in her actions
first of all by the envy to the others and the hatred to them! If she wants something, then this is because some other one already has it and is with nothing better than her (in her own view). Even the owning of some man is for her a matter of personal pride, that she has succeeded to attract him and has not left him to some other one; the well known jealousy is mainly feminine feature (although it can be found also by men), because two men much easier would have shared one woman between them, if needed, than two women one man (it also from physiological point of view the latter is more difficult). The egoism of the woman is unequalled and this is very conservative feature, which might have had negative effect by one reasonable form of organization in the society (inasmuch as such form can exist), but it is necessary for the continuation of the kind! The only way to overcome this (if at all necessary) is the artificial extrauterine conception, which would have given opportunity for equalizing in the partiality to the children from the side of the man and the woman. Nothing surprising if this happens after a century or two, but till that moment the woman will remain the most egoistic, most malicious, most unjust, and most anarchical social individual, what is consequence of her conservatism in the life goals (as also of the absence of one very important masculine characteristic, to which we shall come by the analysis of the man). This is
neither good, nor bad -- it is just natural (or due to God, if you like it better so) ability of the bisexual way of life and is easily observed also by the animals, where, say: the bitch barks most of all (and bites, too), and this maliciousness is true also for the other mammals; the female of the praying mantis (an insect) devours the masculine exemplar after the fertilization in order to ensure the needed for her and posterity hormones; the feminine lasciviousness by the humans and the animals exceeds the masculine (and the sexual drive is an egoistic manifestation), et cetera.
3. Another important feminine characteristic is her
maximal nearness to the source of life, or
to the ... animal, i.e. her animalistic nature. The man, too, as thinking animal, appears to be some animal, but in him, still, exists something intellectual, something from God, which is not present by the animals, while the woman is the most beastly variety of the humans, and this isn't some quibble but long ago remarked (and fixed in all religions) singularity. This explains also why the woman is more brutal, more unscrupulous, more lustful, wilder, and more primitive part of the humanity, what also is neither bad nor good, but just a necessity! If the woman does not eat up the man after copulation, like this mantis insect, for example, or does not put him in the pot after having been impregnated by him in order to secure later breast milk for the child, then this does not mean that she can not let him down and leave him when he grows old, or poor, of falls in disgrace, or after she ceases to love him, i.e. after he has fulfilled his purpose (and in the majority of cases the divorces and suites for child support nowadays are initiated by the part of the woman, not the man, and this in the era of emancipation, when the women win not less than the men). This in most cases is a normal reaction, because of the care for the posterity, but sometimes is come to the so called "instinct of the brooding hen", which in her efforts to warm the chickens under her squashes once in a while some of them. It is true that the man, too, can occasionally behave like a female, but by him this not only rarely happens, by him the very reaction has more civilized character and goes, as a rule, to some degree of
indifference, where by the woman the rule is: from love -- to hatred, what is the most primitive animal reaction to increasing emotional irritant (see "About the Creation"), so that the conclusions remain valid for a typical or average woman.
4. Another feminine quality, which also is consequence of her conservatism in the continuation of the gender is her
mediocrity and imperfection. The continuation of life is the most important goal in nature and it
can't be entrusted to an extraordinary individual, because nobody (even the mere God) can't predict to what this could lead when some time passes, but then it will be too late to better the things! The mediocrity is
obligatory requirement for the birth box and this is unavoidable consequence of one well organized reproductive system. By the humans this characteristic is quite disguised (because of the intellect of the men, supposedly, who had preferred to spread some pleasing for the women fabrications and compliments), but between the animals is obvious that the male exemplar is who
must be (and he is) more beautiful and attractive with something, for example: by the deer -- with the antlers, by the canaries -- with the song, by the peacock -- with the tail, by the bulls (and the men, too) -- with the strength, and so on. And now compare the woman for a longer period, say, from 15 to 75 years, with the masculine exemplar for each age -- only somewhere between 15 and 25 years might be said that the woman is the more beautiful one, but this is mainly for erotic reasons, and the point is questionable, while a man looks attractive at 40, and at 50, and at 70, simply as a perfect natural creation.
The female is usually plain and mediocre: in her appearance, and in her intellect, and in her strength, and in what else not, but this mediocrity, at the other hand, because it means "
in the middle", is exactly this, what she needs for to withstand easy normal living conditions (and some extreme, too), in order to succeed to fix in the posterity the essential characteristics of those males who happen to survive, because, as by the animals, so also by the humans,
the females are the most enduring exemplars. These are experimentally and statistically confirmed facts. If someone prefers to remain in delusion about the question then this is one's own right, but this phenomenon has easy explanation based on the fact that the female is who makes the choice, i.e. she plays the
active role in the continuation of gender, while the male does this, what the female wants him to do! Cynically or not but the male is the obedient (and silly, if you want) figure in the continuation of gender, while the female is the mediocre exemplar, which chooses for herself the exceptional individual (as she chooses a beautiful flower to decorate herself), and this is entirely justified requirement.
The mediocrity of the woman expresses itself first of all in the fact that she is one imperfect or
not yet
finished individual (what linguistically is from the same root), meaning her physical, psychical, and intellectual features. Even the very woman feels this, when for millenniums she resorts to various means to beautify or "make up" herself (at least this is what says this English word, which is, in fact, French, to enhance, heave, add something), and this that some men, too, use makeup -- well, it is explainable with their feminine qualities (especially in adolescence when the individual is not finally formed), what we touched in the beginning. The woman can't exist without a man, because she will lack the purpose of her existence, while the man can quietly do without woman, by the procurement of vital products, as also by the filling of his time with some creative or playing activities. As far as the woman is the birth box of the man she is also his appendage and has
no independent existence, i.e. she is incomplete and imperfect! But then, on the other hand, she is entirely perfect birth box, what might been paraphrased so, that:
the woman is perfect in her imperfection as independent individual! And here we may not touch the man's intellect, in order not to diminish the validity of our review also for the animals, but likewise because the human being is of those who don't like much to use their intellect, if can do fine without it.
Well, but to avoid the possibility the author to be accused of saying only compromising the woman things, let us say also something good (at least according to him) -- one nice definition, better than this about the birth box, namely that: "the woman is the
post box of the man to his posterity". In spite of the fact that the feminine anatomy has some hole (only that it is more elastic than that of the real post boxes), and her "box" is initially good sealed (for to protect it from meteorological and other conditions before use), the meaning of this sentence isn't in the geometrical analogy, but first of all in the
go-between role of the woman, because the man can't alone send his "letter" (although he has a special "pen" to write it), as well also in her
intermediate place between him and the children -- intermediate in sense of intellect, but also of other abilities. Exactly this intermediate position of the woman is important for raising of the offspring, at least till the children are young, what is something that neither satisfies the searching personality of the man, nor is in accordance with his abilities. And also, genetically looked at, the man is who establishes the most important feature of the offspring -- its sex -- and who, most often, has dominant genes (though here, too, can be exceptions). So that the role of intermediary is necessary (when we do not multiply by budding and cloning) and certain amount of specialization is also needed, because if every human individual was bisexual then the most often intercourse would have had self-reflexive character, and this would have greatly diminished the so needful in nature diversity.
II. The Man
In our continuation of viewing the describing of characteristics of the masculine individual (old Yang or
Jang) is reduced essentially to negation of those of the feminine, but, still, these conceptions need some elaboration.
1. In contrast to the female,
the male is first of all
searching personality,
which, with many risky moments,
aims to ensure, not the continuation, but
the evolution of the kind, i.e. its modification according to the changing of outside conditions. Taking into account that the productivity of the man is such, that even by the "conventional" way of reproduction one male exemplar can beget hundreds and thousands of children, and with artificial insemination we reach now to millions, it turns out that the necessity of men is at least hundred
times less. By the animals the latter is entirely valid and there one male attends to tens or so females, where the hunters and ecologists find justified to diminish the number of males even more. In the ancient times of human history the situation might have been the same also by various savage tribes, because of the hard living conditions and the numerous battles between them, but in contemporary times in the civilized countries the polygamy is prohibited (most probably by initiative of the men, to justify the need of as much men as women), but this isn't quite fitting for the posterity. However it may be, we shall return to this in the next section, and now let us continue with the male individual.
The most characteristic expression of the searching male principle is his
passion for game and this, in fact, is the goal in life of the man, due to what is performed not trivial continuation of gender, but
evolvement. For the man everything is game or play, including the life itself! You know that in English "game" is hunting but also play, amusement, because the hunting is the game of the man, or at least it was so during many centuries of human history, until the playing machines, and later on the computer games, have been devised; in the Czech language exist the word
herna, which does not mean ... male toilet, as some of you might have thought (from German
Herr), but playing hall, though this is again some place for men; and in Russian the word
ohota means hunting, but also strong wish, from the point of view of the man (because you have hardly seen women to go hunting). And then what is the war for the man, if not one dangerous game (or at least it was a game to the end of 18th century, more or less, when there began to disappear the difference between front and rear, due to the unrealized population density -- something about what we shell speak in the essay "About the population")? And what is the career for the man, if not one interesting social game? And the share market? And how many are the women (in reproductive age, not when nobody counts them for women), who you will see to play backgammon, bridge,
belote, or chess -- well, exactly as many as to emphasize the exceptionality of these activities for them! And isn't the science also a game with the secrets of nature? And other examples.
2. Contrary to the egoism of the female here is present the evident
collectivism of masculine individual, especially by the humans, where the males are those who like to gather in big groups, were it in fighting units, were on sporting events, were in clubs and cafes. The man, most often, is the one, who is more capable of
unselfish acts, of gentlemanly deeds, of
justice (or fair play, how it is known almost everywhere), and for whom is invented the term honour (because you very well know that for the women this word has entirely different meaning). Even on wars he kills out of necessity, not out of malice and hatred (or at least it is so in the majority of cases). This isn't hard to be explained with the motivation for his actions, which is to reveal himself with something good
before the others, with something that is valued by the others, or, at least, what is interesting for him,
regardless of the needs for continuation of the kind (or for personal gain). Even when the man shows himself as egoist he does this out of collectivistic motives, in the name of the family or group to which he belongs, while the woman, even when she shows collectivism, she does this out of egoistical motives, to preserve her children. This is not an apotheosis of the man but realism. And it may be formulated even stronger sentence, namely:
the woman creates love going out from hatred, while the man -- hatred out of love! But there is nothing to be done -- inexplicable are the ways of God, or the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, or one wants one thing, does another, and it comes out something third, because neither he has known himself, as the ancient Greek wise men have wanted, nor can change something in the genetically given to him, unless to submit to the dictate of sex, which requires that the woman preserves the kind, while the man supplements and improves it (if remains alive). This is a requirement of
minimal necessary mutation in the gender, which works with the slowness of millenniums, but it, still, works.
3. While the woman is near to the animal then
the man is near to God, or the reason (if we do not use the hypothesis of God). This is direct consequence of other characteristics of the man and especially of his intellect, this underdeveloped human instinct (which is treated in the essay "About the intellect"), while by one average woman is hardly to expect a notable intellect (at least higher than the average one), because
she does not need intellect in the continuation of the gender (the sex may be whatever, but not an intellectual activity!). The very manifestation of intellect, in fact, is something extraordinary and perfect (to what we shall come after a while), and it is naturally to expect for it to be owned mainly by the men; the fact that there are many bright women does not mean that this is frequent phenomenon but on the contrary, and it is explainable in the majority of cases with some
other shortcomings of the given woman (most often physically), which make her to search
compensation in the intellectual sphere, because clever and beautiful woman is one, hmm, colossal contradiction (at least until she is still woman in the sexual meaning of the word), and this is the reason why such women are hugely honoured (because the demand is determined by the supply)! At the same time the clever men have
never been especially demanded, while the strong ones, or wealthy, or beautiful (at least till they are such) are much demanded, what has to say that the intellect between the men is an usual thing (although the situation is not entirely hopeless for the clever men, too, if they are
in addition to this also, for example, wealthy). This state of things, however, is wholly justified from the point of view of the dividing of activities between the man and the woman, where the woman remains nearer to the animal, where from we have come, and the man tries to be nearer to the divine intellect, where to we, by the by, are moving.
4. The man, not only because of the put in him features, but also because of his incessant ambition for self expression over the others,
is the most perfect and exceptional of both sexes. This is, maybe, the main reason why in Christian religion (but also in the others) the image of God (or of the superior god) is always image of man, although it is more natural this to be a woman, because she creates life or gives birth (like Gea, in Greek mythology). It is true that everyone is convinced that the woman gives birth, but no religion will win supporters if its principal god is not with the image of the perfect, extraordinary and omnipotent masculine individual. This, obviously, is related with the notorious cult to the phallus, which goes back thousands of years, but could you imagine if instead of this there was one to the corresponding (it is said homological) feminine organ? Well, your author has not so gleaming fantasy and can't envision such cult. So that, as strange as it may seem, but the people, still,
have a sense of beauty and harmony! Though this, that the man is the perfect individual, does not mean that the men are perfect in
every single respect, nor that this perfection is always something good (for there are perfect alcoholics, for example). Still, the rule is that the man reaches some perfection in a given area (in order to try, though unconsciously, to pass it to his posterity), while the one and only perfection of the woman is her mediocrity, as we have marked this earlier.
But this perfection carries in itself also its consequences, because the male individuals, being more various in the set of their qualities, are also more susceptible to external factors like: unfavorable weather conditions, greater vulnerability to various diseases, including psychical, more intensive metabolism, aggravated by their bigger sizes, more risky nature of their work, in relation with that of the women, et cetera. In two words, this means that exactly
the men are the weaker sex, in contrast with the widely spread delusions (again due to the men, for to flatter the women once more time), where "weak" has to be understood as an averaged characteristic of the men. At the same time the record achievements, say, in sports, sciences, arts, etc., belong all to men, i.e. to
some men, while for non extremal activities the women are, definitely, the better sex, and that is why they are those who are engaged with various monotonous, unpleasing, or not requiring special mastery activities. Put it otherwise, the men are the
more specialized individuals, which could bring something new in the genetic code of the kind, and that is why there are enough a few men (but many "post boxes").
5. But there is one more substantial element by the men, which, surely, is not present by the women (and that is why we have not mentioned it there), and this is
the sense of proportion! It is related with the reason, or even with the wisdom, because in our contradictory world the most important thing is to find the needed
point of equilibrium, something what has been known already in Ancient Greece (and even earlier) -- the slogan "Nothing excessive!". This is a kind of instinct, which has some analogue by the women -- the so called "woman's intuition", which is again on instinctive basis (but this is only similar thing, without to correspond in full with the sense of proportion, because the women, as a rule, don't have it) -- and this instinct is very important for achieving of correct, i.e. well balanced, actions (for to reach to extremes can also an imbecile). Maybe it will be interesting to explain here
why the man (as a rule) has sense of proportion, and the woman has not (and that is why she is the most: lustful, cruel, and so on "most" being)? Well, the answer is directly related with the roles of both partners in the sex, where is known that the woman ...
always can (say, 15-20 coituses daily, I beg your pardon, would not have caused any special difficulties), while the man -- sometimes can, but sometimes can not! This, that the man may not always be in position to do it, willy-nilly, forces him (from an early age) to become used to search the right measure also in entirely different things; this does not happen consciously, but it becomes a habit, instinct, where the woman has no such internal urge and that is why she knows only to want (were this men, were it clothes, were it to be discontented by everything). And if after all stated here turns out that for the man were said chiefly good things, while for the woman -- only unpleasant things -- well, and what have you expected from a cynic to tell you?
III. The Parents
The last section is dedicated to the union between these two diametrically opposed types of individuals by the bisexual animals, or to the pair of genitors, to their mutual relations in establishing of the dynamic equilibrium between them in the interest of continuation and evolvement of the kind. In the essay "About the mankind" we explain that the society still has no nervous system, and the only strong natural link between the individuals in it is the pair of genitors (we may say matrimonial couple, but existence of religious or legal marriage is not necessary). Such pairs exist by all bisexual animals (and also there, where is some kind of organization, like by the bees, for example), but it is not necessary to understand exactly by one individual of both sexes -- just that the sex cells which become inseminated (if it comes to this, of course, but this is what is supposed) are always two different, though how this situation has happened is not important. This pair, however, is the most stable unit in the human society, and this that the very word "individual" (
individuum) in Latin means "indivisible" should not mislead us to think that the smallest indivisible unit is also the smallest stable one. The questions that arise here are generally the following.
1. Establishing of the superiority of one of the sexes, or: who "runs the show"? Let us leave aside the insects and other mammals and take the humans in focus. Most generally looked there exist two variants of ruling: of one of the sexes, or else some, as it's said, vertical division of functions, i.e. of spheres of ruling of each of them. If there one rules, it remains also the question who exactly, and if there is vertical division then again some supervisory control over this division is necessary, so that this variant is also the more difficult for realization, requiring deciding of the question who will be the supervisor. By the classical variant of one man and one woman
is excluded each other possibility for voting, or building of ruling body. Besides, the very governing is rightly to be divided in two types, namely in:
strategy, or establishing of the general line, and
tactics, or immediate ruling of the actions, just as in one democratic government exists body for strategic planning or determining of the requirements (the Parliament), and ruling authorities (the Government). But it, the contemporary democracy, is one absolute mess (see "About the democracy"), because the Parliament is not only strategic body but also legislative, what means that it performs tactical activities, too (the making of laws requires higher professionalism), as also the Ministries may in principle be tactical bodies, but this without the elected Ministers (which normally don't know anything about the specific domain), so that it will be better to take as example one big company, where one group keeps the money and consequently determines its strategy, and another one executes the actual production (commerce, etc.). In this sense may be said that there is one hidden or offstage manager, as well as one who does the very ruling -- and such is the case also with the matrimonial couples. The strategy here, obviously, is determined by the continuation of the gender or the kind, and the tactics -- by its developing! This unambiguously makes
the woman the strategist of the family, and the man -- the tactician!
Historically looked at the things, in the earlier stages of human society has existed matriarchy, but later on everywhere has been established patriarchy, what ties well with out conclusions, because at the dawn of human existence was more important to fulfill the strategy for continuation of the gender, while in later ages this was relatively easy, but to the fore has come the necessity of performing of correct tactics for improving of the human race (or gender, nation). Put it otherwise:
the matriarchy has existed when the life was very
difficult, while later on, when it became easier, the patriarchy has been established! As far as it is absurdity to insist that life in current times is harder than it was in primitive communal system, it is clear that now and in the near future
the patriarchy will be the best way for governing of the families, but this does not mean that the woman ceases to be the strategist or the hidden ruler, or the "neck", as some say -- just the tactics nowadays is more important and that is why the tactician-man comes to power. This also does not hinder the man, fulfilling in addition the role of supervisor, to select some sphere of activity in which the woman to be the ruler, say, in bringing up the offspring in young age (or the household work). And it isn't obligatory for the governing to be unavoidably hierarchical, it is possibly that each level modifies the functions of the other level (heterarchy). The governing, anyway, is not an easy thing, so that whoever is afraid of this then he or she may not contract marriage, eventually.
2. The next moment is the
quantitative proportion between both sexes: either to be one to one, or one to many (and who is to be the one), or many to many -- realistically all variants are possible (and are applied time and again), so that we shall explore them in succession.
a) Let us begin with the classical and approved throughout the civilized world variant "
one to one". This, that something is widely spread, of course, should not be criterion for its rightness and expediency (just as for many centuries in the medicine was widely applied bloodletting, were it prophylactically -- with a kind of worms named leeches, were it healingly -- through cutting of blood vessels, without this being at all scientifically grounded now), so that let us abstract from the accepted in the moment and investigate a but the pluses and minuses of this proposition. From the point of view of the man this is one quite good choice, because to each man is allotted one woman, and this is better than nothing! The same is true also for the woman, although she might have preferred, possibly, to have 4-5 males, but the sex is not the single moment in the continuation of gender, and then the so called "sultan's harem" is much more unsuitable for her, so that she may put up with this situation. From the view point of the nature, or of the necessity for continuation and developing of the genus, this is one good variant, especially if combined with the possibility for divorces and with the emancipation (to which we shall come after a while). So that, on the whole, the commonly accepted variant is good enough to be used also in the future.
b) The next variant is one man for many women, or the "
sultan's harem", which is the worst variant for the averagely taken man (i.e. if he is not a sultan, or has not enough money to buy himself ten or so women), because the peculiarity of the case is that it
is not applied well with a pair of women -- they will most probably scratch out their eyes, and the man will be forced to buy later other ones -- while with ten or more, the women, in their wish to hate one another, become confused and by the by learn to get along one with the other, because the sultan, anyway, visits them quite rare! Most successfully this approach was applied by the biblical king Solomon, who, as they say, have had thousand wifes and concubines and still succeeded to cope with them. If one man has not enough money for women, and from here for continuation of his gender, then nobody hinders him to enroll in the army and in this way to lessen a bit the affluence of men in the country; or he is left with the homogeneous sex for consolation. But if this method is good at least for the wealthy men, then it is the most unsuitable for the women, because they are rarely used (in the old times, occasionally, an eunuch has helped a little, but this was only substitute, something like, say, the caffeine-free coffee -- has similar taste but the effect is not the same). From the point of view of the continuation and developing of the gender this might have been good if it was obvious that the wealthy men are also the most endowed in genetic and other aspects, but this is not the case, so that also in this sense this variant is not acceptable. It is possible some modification if in particular way (e.g. by euthanasia) is diminished the number of masculine individuals, and even better if via timely diagnosis of the sex of the future child (about the first-second month of the pregnancy) and subsequent painless abortion is maintained proportion of men to women as one to ten. If this is done randomly the nature will be more or less satisfied, the men, being very few, will remain satisfied, but the women, again, will be in the worst situation, even worse than by the harem (because there will be no eunuchs). So that, all in all, it isn't bad that this variant is rejected by the contemporary society, because it has more drawbacks than advantages.
c) The third variant is reciprocal to the latter and it is "
harem of men", if we may name it so. For the man there is nothing good in this, though is possible to be applied the time sharing method of servicing the woman by the males -- stipulated that their number and the continuation of ... her cycle are mutually prime numbers (if we use the language of mathematics -- in order not to turn out that one and the same man is always the loser), but may be used also some grouping in permanently or varying groups of men. For the woman this variant is good enough, but must be mentioned that here is preferable if the group does not exceed 4-5 men, for to avoid bigger complications and bloodshed between them. From the point of view of the natural requirements, however, this is pure
overuse of "planting material", and the nature likes elegant decisions! Here also is possible the modification with the decreasing of the percentage of women, what will make this method the best one for
all women, but the other minuses remain. So that, on the whole, this method is the worse of all discussed till the moment and maybe that is why it is not applied nowadays, but will not arise some necessity for it in the future can't be said definitely.
d) The fourth variant of "
many to many" has several varieties, because the one "many" may not equal the other one, but as far as this does not bring special changes in the observation we will consider equal (or almost such) quantity of men and women. Such communities exist by some religions (the Mormons, if I am not in error), so that this isn't pure abstraction, and besides, in this way is alleviated the question of superiority, where may exist some governing body of the community. From the point of view of the man this is quite good variant, where for the continuation and developing of the gender it is
the best from all. This method can be applied, for example, by two present-day families, and it isn't that this does not happen sometimes. There exists also a variety good for a big apartment building, or for an entry in it, where the low three floors are filled by three children ages (beginning with the kindergarten), then follows the floor with the common kitchen and dining area (there may be also small booths -- why not?), and above this follow modest apartments for each man or woman. In this way we come, in fact, to some modification of Plato's Republic, where all children must have been common and property of the nation. By this "big building" variant can easily be had also guest rooms in disposition, so that the likeness to the Plato's ideal becomes full. In this way can easily be realized at last the dream of the Frenchman, namely: going on the street to have all reasons to fondle each met child -- for, who knows, it may happen to be his own? Despite the comic character of the situation there is nothing unnatural in this case, except that it is not
yet accepted, but it may become reality in a pair of centuries, on the background of growing emancipation and eventual extrauterine conception in the future.
If the main characteristics of the male and female individual change and equalize, remain in force only the requirements for developing and bettering of
the kind, which come to substitute the classical form of belonging of the children to their mothers and taking care only for one's own posterity (for the children this variant will be worse, but nothing hinders some mother to take care also for her
own child, as long as she can find enough time for this). In one sufficiently developed society there are all reasons to suppose that the minimal unit (the family in the moment) will
grow further, comprising greater and greater part of the society (though it may also diminish to one parent, where to we, as it looks, are moving), and in this way will create prerequisites for greater organization in it, because the goal of each system is to organize itself better.
3. Let us at the end look also at the question of
emancipation of the woman, which is one, still, misunderstood process. Originally this word means liberation or escaping of the woman (from the yoke of man) and this is the right treating, but the women are not between those who will begin to think much, and also often lose their sense of proportion (as much as they have it), so that they have no reasons to be vexed when somebody (like your author) calls them emanci
patesses -- for that is how correctly must be build a noun of feminine gender from the verb "emancipate" (but the point here is that the salt of the invented word in Bulgarian -- "emanci
patka" -- is that the ending "
patka" as a whole word means ... a goose, she-duck). So these
Emanze (now according to the Germans), in the worst case (which they don't dare to admit, but nevertheless think so) imagine that this movement is for establishing of
superiority of the women or matriarchy, what we have shortly explained to be motivated with nothing absurdity, and in the better case understand this as equality of the woman with the man, but to look for equality where the nature has created the biggest possible difference (Yang -- Yin) can enter the head only of a typical woman, because this
contradicts to the common sense! It can be spoken about equality before the law, or for equal with the man
position of the woman, what is one big achievement of the 20th century, although this shook vigorously various set norms in the society, but it was unavoidable, going out of the many social changes and increased standard of life throughout the world. But let us be clear that one real equal positioning of the woman with the man can at most lead to ...
proving of her inequality with the man!
Generally speaking, when we talk about equality this means also that, for example: the woman must also be subject to military service, when the man is; the man must also learn to breast-feed, or then the woman is to give it up (this latter thing now became a mass phenomenon); that the man has to learn how to give birth, when the woman does this (what, according to the radio Yerevan, has not yet happened, but the experiments still continued), or, what is easier, the woman has also to cease to do it (what is not at all a chimera with the possibility for extrauterine conception); that by divorces the children should not be given as a rule to the mother (how it is from the Roman law) but only the girls to her while the boys -- to the father (if they are older than, say, three years), where the mothers pay their alimony on equal footing with the fathers; that the women must exercise male sports
together with the men; and other similar things. More of these things are possible even in the moment, and some others -- in the near future, but the point is that from this
the women will only lose their female advantages and the pleasures of maternity, while it is very doubtful whether they will gain something more than new obligations, more difficult for them because of their not yet transformed feminine nature. So that the question here is very much like what is stated in our saying about the frog, who, on seeing that they were shoeing the ox, also lifted her leg.
Up till now the emancipation has led only to active inclusion of the woman in social life (it, the democracy, in principle, is one "feminine" governing, but about this in the corresponding essay) and in productivity (while earlier her work was not openly seen), as also to disintegration of the families (still not entirely but with obvious tendency in this direction), and even to more often expressed homosexuality (because when the woman does not need a man, then he also can do somehow without her), and to various paradoxes here and there, but it seems that has helped with nothing for one really
relieving of the life of the woman, what should have been the goal of the activity. And in addition to all this, when equality exists (or even when there is a talk about it), it turns out that also
the emotional attachment (understand,
love) significantly
diminishes, because it
is based chiefly
on differences, opposites, complementing! It is mind not the family related "philia", which is one forced by the circumstances feeling of belonging to some group, but the real
sympathy, passion, love, need or desire, Greek αγαπη, and so on, which
never arises between equal -- for the simple reason that one wants strongly this, what one has not; it is usually related with the sex, but not always, and there, too, or at least in the classical (and till now taken for the only decent one) case, the things also reduce to "is -- isn't", "1" or "0". The equality, if it leads not to some collective feeling (and in the last times we began not to like much the collective and comradely indications), can at most lead to rivalry and struggle for superiority (what isn't, and could never become a goal of some heterogeneous group, in order not to say family or married couple); and even in the most collective group again arises struggle for supremacy. So that, if we want to obliterate the differences between the both sexes, we shall do without the love and sympathy, too, and then even the sex will not help us (as substitute for stronger emotions), because there also exists inequality.
Well, the situation is not utterly hopeless and may be expected (the hope sustains life) that, after the initial inebriation of excessive freedom passes, the women will succeed to feel how fare to reach and whether they gain something from their equalizing with the men, because, as it was said above, the family, still, is necessary (until the society has not proposed a better minimal unit), and also the patriarchy is the best form of ruling in it. The important thing is to realize that the interference in the "God's work" of continuation of the kind may cause much greater disasters than the environmental pollution and here must be handled very carefully, and even better if noting at all is touched, limiting us only to relieving the painful moments in life and leaving Caesarian to Caesar, masculine to the man, and feminine to the woman.
* Let us not go into details about the exact etymology of the word "woman" because it is not only questionable, but gives also nothing useful, for via some old "wifmon" sends us to the name "wife", where the question about the hidden in the word ideas again remains, and then, if it is so, may be added that for the Slavonic ear this "wifmon" sounds nearly the same as their vime, what means -- I beg your pardon -- udder, what doesn't sound more flattering for the women.
ABOUT THE MANKIND
The mankind is the amount of people living on our planet, but whether because of annoying blunder of God, or of divine wisdom, or then of random necessity, this quantity of people is extremely divided. The people are dispersed over the Earth globe nearly so as the space dust is dispersed in the interstellar space -- here and there are a bit more than in other places, there are some forces of attraction and repulsion between them, similarly to the gravitational, there is some level of organization and structuring, as in every kind of matter, there is dynamics and evolvement, but all this is wide away from enough for to may speak about an
organism. The ties between the indivisible units, called individuals (
individuum in Latin), are in very rudimentary state, and the people are a kind of intelligent terminals -- capable of independent actions, but tied in some wireless way in the society -- only that they most often work in "autonomous mode", and if in the body of some animal each organ works for itself, then this organism will incessantly give defects. And exactly this is, in fact, what our society does, beginning from the moment of "descending from the tree" and up to the end of the bloody 20th century, because the humanity, alas, has still not learned to live as a whole organism.
It is not needed special genius to spot that the universality of the human being is a double-edged sword, on which blades we constantly cut ourselves. The universal mechanism is convenient when there are to be performed different activities, bur it is
maximally ineffective in relation of each one of them! This should have been obvious and we spoke about this question in the essay "About the creation" (in the part about the human), so that one slightly more intelligent God should have found some way for
predisposition of the functions of different individuals from the very moment of their birth. This predisposition should have been in some limits, allowing substitution and competition between them, but not of everyone with everyone, where in the human society only in the area of reproduction exists strict division in two classes, so that two men, for example, as much as they strengthen themselves, can't produce offspring. Without some fixing of the functions of each individual in the society can't exist united functioning of all of them within the community, can't exist one organism, we can not reach perfection. And this leads us to the thought that the mankind is some pretty new thing for the nature (or God, if you like it so better) and the things are yet to be developed and bettered, forcing arising and passing in heredity of some more substantial differences between individuals (exceeding the racial and proprietary ones), which are to bring also greater harmony in the future. But let us look consequently at the: society (with its drawbacks), and the civilization (which tries to overcome them).
I. The Society
The society, torn apart by the selfish interests of its members, does not possess various attributes of a complete organism, and for this reason it does not differ much from any gathering of specific kind of animals -- wolves, hares, fishes, locusts, etc. -- or, more precisely, has the features of each one of these groups (inasmuch as the human being is universal animal). More specifically
the society has not
1. Specialization. This means that the society has not its own intrinsic differentiation of activities, by which each individual, already
from the moment of his birth to know what are his specific rights and obligations and to what group he belongs, i.e. who will be in the services, who in the technical production, who in the farming, who will create and distribute art, who will rule the masses, who will be engaged in the sciences, who in the sports, and who with upbringing and education of the offspring, and so on. If we use again the same example with the sex, then there everything is precise and clear, though some differences and exceptions obviously exist, but they have no significant impact on the growth of population (what is the goal in that case). The ideal decision here supposes some
classification on psycho-physiological types, where the level of belonging to each of them must be checked periodically (say, in 5 or 10 years) with tests that have justified themselves. If today this looks still in the realm of fantasy, after a century it can become a reality, at least on the basis of some more thorough statistics, similarly to the zodiacs, which, though they are mainly "black magic", in many cases are indicative, because they are an artful treatment of some inaccurate statistics fulfilled in ancient times (let us remind that the constellations
not at all look like their stylized pictures, what says that not the characters are defined by the constellations, but the constellations are named so because of the characters of the born under their sign people!).
This idea, as we see, is surely not new, and if the humankind sets itself the goal to solve it (at least with sufficient precision) then there are no principal difficulties, because now we don't doubt that the genes, anyway, serve exactly to establish the boundaries of possibilities for developing of each individual. In this case the task is reduced to precise decoding of encoded genetic information, what would give immense perspectives for personal development. Such tests must be used before beginning of whatever education and be taken in consideration by appointing to work, but having in the beginning just recommendatory character, till we become convinced in their truthfulness during long period of time. This, naturally, would have facilitated significantly also the healthcare, as much as the prevention of crime (in which direction were made many efforts, but from this, that they have proved to be unsuccessful, does not follow that the
direction is not right). The specialization of the individuals does not imminently mean differences in their appearance (because one rarely uses directly his limbs in his working activity), but in the
propensity of the individual to a given type of activity. The whole subtlety is for these tests to be able to work from an early children age, if not from the uterine growth.
Further on the society has not
2. Organization. This means that in the human society is not clear who whom must govern. By the animals the question is easily solved applying the right of the stronger, but by the humans, because the strength has different aspects -- physical, moral, economical, intellectual, and others -- the things stay pretty bad and cause almost all bloodshed in the human history. There are no chances for this question to be solved in a near time, due to the benefits of the power, and, naturally, its radical decision consists only in taking away the privileges of the power and rendering it to a kind of working activity, as each other. Some beginnings of decision, however, exist, because the management is exactly science for managing (as much as it, anyway, can be observed as a science), but until the manager depends on the capital and receives additional benefits from the very power (besides his salary) he will not be real manager. One such treatment has nothing to do with the aristocratic, or racists, or other similar conceptions about the "chosen" (by God) class or nation, which are preaching about once and for all and passed
by inheritance predetermined division of people in governors and governed; neither this presupposes privileges of the one group before the other. This does not contradict also to the democratic tendencies the benefits of power to be distributed by those, who do
not gain directly from them (i.e. the governed to choose their rulers), but requires dividing of the power between people
capable to perform this activity.
As much as this question at the moment remains in the sphere of fantasy nothing hinder us to offer one such decision, namely: the whole tactical management, i.e. by given laws and concrete strategical goals, to be put in the "hands" of artificial intelligence, which has no reasons to be egoistically partial. In this case each member of the society will know from his birth that he (or she)
is not born to rule, and then he will have nothing else left unless to listen and obey -- as simple as it is ingenious, isn't it? In any event, though, can't exist organism in which the question of superiority of one or another organ is not decided in advance. If we use one metaphor from the zoology can be said that
the human society as a whole
has practically
no nervous system and resembles the jellyfish or the worm, which have some beginnings of organization, for they can move in a particular direction, but it is most often arbitrary chosen, or this is the direction of the least resistance! Different smaller groups of people, like tribes, nations, or states, have
higher level of organization, can set goals and fulfill them, but the whole society, still, has not learned how to do this, by the simple reason that it lacks predetermined by its nature organization or structure. This is extremely important moment and until it finds some solution the human society (as also each other animal community) will maintain the semblance with the jellyfish, but will show nothing really human.
And let us remind that the ruling is not necessary to be always hierarchical, there can exist also heterarchy, or dividing of the power according to the area of governing, or some alternating in the time, or common voting for various questions, or arbitrary choice using some lot, and other variants. The important thing is this to be decided once and for all in the society, and not: there have hardly flown a pair of centuries and let us make revolutions (i.e. revolt the things, or put the society with the feet above the head; from this root comes the word revolver). The revolution is the harshest way for making changes in the society and it speaks only about the
incapacity of the existing system; it gives no guaranties about the reasonability of the new order, neither proposes reasonable transition to it! The contemporary democracy mainly "throws dust in the eyes" of the people with its boasting, but it is only one temporary decision, which is not new (but from 26 centuries), and is some compromise of the classical Greek democracy with the dictatorial ruling (see "About the democracy"). The fact that we return nowadays to something from before so much time leads us to the conclusion that it has have many shortcomings, so that the question is not at all solved but stays open! Still, it is easier to be solved within a given country, where for the humanity as a whole the chaos is almost the same as it was in the time of old Babylon.
Then the society has not also
3. Reasonableness. It is minded that the reasonableness in the behaviour of the society, at least up till now, has been
lower than the average level of the individuals that make it (what is one a priori and hard to be proven assertion, but is highly plausible), and, obviously, much less than that of its most intelligent members! In other words, we may state that the society satisfies
the law for diminishing of the reasonableness, or increasing of the chaos, due to which the big amount of people takes, as a rule, the most "stupid" decision! To be added that this law depends significantly on the
number of people, where such smaller group can take sometimes right decision, but asymptotically, with the increasing of community to hundreds and thousands (more so to millions), its heterogeneity leads to gradual
suppression of the voice of reason, or its "noising", using technical language. If we go in the other direction, i.e. to the diminishing of group of people, we will mark also some diminishing of the reasonableness of their decisions by very small groups (of one-two persons), but this is because of the lower average level of the individuals, not because of the effect of the group. This leads us to the conclusion that exists some optimal number of individuals, who can take right decisions, and this number coincides with the, hmm, ...
number of our fingers (possibly adding also the toes)! We may call this rule
law of the small numbers and it is easy to be explained with the capacity of human psyche, for which reason one can get used to work good only with a small number of persons (or the better level of acquaintances we want to have, in the smaller group of people we must look for it). Anyway, this is well known and because of it most of the commissions are chosen in number of 10 -- 15 persons. The society, alas, greatly exceeds this optimal number and that is why the reasonableness of its decisions is something practicably unattainable.
If we try to find the causes for this suppressing of the reason of the masses we will reach to the root of evil, i.e. to the autonomy of the individual, who, in order to be able to show free will, must have some conviction in his decisions. But this conviction can be got, either by the way of the reason, or by the way of unjustified self-confidence (i.e. of the lack of reason), if we do not mess here the instincts (or the "call of the wild"), which exist also by the animals, and we observe here, after all, the human society. This is quite elementary and, surely, right decision from the point of view of the Creator, but if we monitor the things at the level of individuals, while at the level of the whole society this produces big problems. And really, if the more elementary people, not endowed with any special thinking abilities, were conscious of their inability to take right decisions, then they would have permanently suffered by inferiority complex, and for this reason when one can not logically justify his actions (or grasp that of the others), he simply acts how he finds it suitable and denies the logical considerations. This
isn't unjustified in the general case, because the logic of the ordinary person is often imprecise, so that even if he has always set on it, the errors wouldn't have been rarity. In any event, though, the simpler one is, the more he defends his errors, for they are
his own and he insists on them (see also "About the democracy"), and for this reason the common people have always silenced their great personalities. It seems by everything that this is one insurmountable contradiction and each solution can be only compromise one, but such solution is necessary in order to make the society to something more than a swarm of locusts, for example, because if there exists some human feature which makes him differ with something from the species of animals, this
should have been the reasonableness of his behaviour, and the reasonable criterion, naturally must be
the minimal level of sufferings and cruelties in human life. From the point of view of the nature this
also would be reasonable, because
the purpose of life is to continue the life, and if this can happen with less wastes of biological matter, then this is one more economical decision, and, hence, preferable.
II. The Civilization
The civilization, in its development, has incessantly strived to overcome the explained in the previous chapter "nos" in the society, i.e. the lack of specialization, organization, and reasonableness in it, which are consequences of the lack of predetermination of the individuals, and has tried and tries to bring the amount of people nearer to some complete organism (and let us say that in this chapter we will use one collective meaning of the word "civilization", i.e. all previous civilizations). This, of course, it has failed to do, were it because of the lower level of knowledge to which we have come, were it because of the difficult for solving contradictions between the society and the individual, put in each one of us. The experiments, though, continue and will continue until this proud two-footed animal, called himself intelligent, exists, because the life is one
accidental experiment in the Universe, which only meaning is to see ... whether
other experiments have to be made.
So, for example, in its efforts to the whole organism, the civilization imposes the necessity of education, and this not only as way for understanding of the world, but also as means for specialization (i.e.
restriction) of the individuals in order to receive more profound knowledge in a given field. The civilization imposes also the necessity of some organization in the society, which must simulate the nervous system of the organisms and force the individuals to do not only this, what they want, but also what is useful for all the people. Since ancient times, though, was known the radical method of organization, which exists also between the animals, namely: the right of the stronger, or the centralization of power in single hands, or the hierarchical form of governing; as were known also the drawbacks of this method, and that is why other forms have been sought, which are not so military. This, in fact, says the very name "civilization", what means some
civil governing, with specialization and dividing of the powers, where this is possible. The civilization imposes also reasonableness in the society, which has to be, as far as this is possible, greater than the noisy reasonableness of the crowd, and to contain the experience and conclusions of the greatest minds of their time. For this purpose it discovers and spreads the religions which, using some form of delusion, succeed to make the masses to jump a bit out of their own skins and begin to feel themselves part of the entire Creation. Thanks to the civilization are developed also the arts, which propose one more intellectual occupation for the people and method for avoiding of their bare animal instincts, and likewise for beautifying of their life. There are developed also the sciences as a quintessence of human intellect, and the sports, as cult to the physical beauty and perfection, and other things.
The civilization, generally said, is the only thing that succeeds to make the human society to something different from the aggregation of all animals of a given kind, just that it has too many shortcomings to be taken for well done! If we return to the etymology of the word we have to admit that up to this day there is not a singe
really civil form of governing, because there is no one state or community where do not exist army and some forces for maintaining of internal order, which are not at all civil structures but military. In addition to this the mutual relations between the countries continue to be established from the position of strength, though this strength not always is military, but may be also economical, for example. The ideal civilization, obviously, must be one worldwide state, with its unchanging government maintaining the status quo (i.e. the
stagnation), what has to be performed with sufficient dose of intellect (not necessarily human), in which state must be precise specialization of the activities according to the genetic makings of people, and which has to aim at equilibrium for all biological kinds and harmony with nonliving matter. The main efforts, though, of the contemporary democratic form of governing are not in the direction of unity of humankind, but in the direction of its
fragmentation in autonomous units, combined with attempts for minimization of their confrontation, i.e. not to structuring, but to greater degree of freedom of the groups (states) and individuals, what is
not movement in the right direction! This is explained with the fact that the democratic freedoms are propagated chiefly by the stronger and more developed countries, as well by the rulers in a given country, in which case they, unavoidable, defend the interests of their communities, not of the whole human society.
After these more general observations of the civilization we will focus on some well-defined subject areas of its activity, discussing their concrete problems and eventual ways for their solving. Many of the theses may seem fantastic, from the point of view of our everyday life, but with such global problems we have no right to restrict us with current reality but must apply one more all-comprising and starting from the goal view to the nature of things. We will begin with the contemporary
1. Medicine. It is wide away from its goal: to eliminate the sufferings of human body, proposing one
moderate way of wearing or aging and revealing all his hidden talents. Such has to be the etymology of the very word, whose root in Latin is "medi", what means "middle", and has to be formed under the influence of old Greek view about the moderation in everything. Despite the fact that the contemporary medicine is wide ahead of its level from two centuries ago, for example, it, still, does
not propose the most reasonable way of life, according to the characteristics of individual, of course. The main power of medicine nowadays is based on the power of medicaments, but this power is double-edged sword, and the question is not: how to fight with the illnesses, but how
to prevent them, or to make the organism to fight them
alone, after we have caught them already. Most of the victories of medicine consist in this to eliminate the illnesses imposed by the civilization, or, at least, having received a wide spread by its own fault! The mass epidemics, with which we have managed to cope in the last pair of centuries, have originated somewhere in the times of Babylon, because of the unreasonable aggregation of large human masses in one place, and surely were not so widely spread at the time of the caveman, for example. The present-day AIDS also receives particular expanse in the age of mass communications and promiscuous sexual contacts (though the inter-tribal sex has had its own disadvantages). And what to say about the cardiovascular diseases and malignant tumors, which are causes for more than the half of the death cases? Earlier people have died, say, from a single cut of the finger, but today they die simply because live in the towns, not between the nature! The harmful influence of the civilization on the health of people is fully
commensurable with the positive contribution of the medicine, so that, on the whole, the people still can't live to the allowed them century life. (By the way, Russian word "
chelovek", meaning man, according to the most often folk etymology was made combining the words "
chelo"-forehead, which maybe is not present in contemporary Russian, but exists in the Slavonic languages, where has come from the Latin, because may be found in Italian and in the music --
cello --, and the Russian is very near to the Latin in its vocabulary and grammar, plus the word "
vek"-century, what will say: to each forehead a century.)
The average life span, surely, has increased very much in the 20th century, chiefly due to the really fantastic decrease of child mortality in the civilized countries, as well also to the significant bettering of labour conditions, and these are big achievements of the medicine, which we should not ignore. At the same time, though, while the surgery cuts out one damaged organ and does not heal it or substitute, the medicine will be wide away from the goal. But the lizard can grow its torn out tail, can't it? -- hence some hidden mechanisms exist also in our genes and we should be able to grow oneself new hand or foot! The same can be said also about the stomatology, which still has not learned how to make the organism to produce new tooth on the place of the sick or fallen one -- when this happens once in our life it can happen also a second time! The nicotine and alcohol are well known poisons for the organism, but the medicine has still not found substitutes for them, i.e. something as harmless as them (almost not inflicting the psyche, on the contrast with wide amount of modern medicaments), but what has almost instant effect; and this effect is
wide-spectrum, what means, that if we want to sleep, one cigarette (or cup of vodka) will make us drowsy, but if we have important work to do then the same dose will increase our working ability -- because these are natural products which force the organism to cope
alone with the situation, they don't block its efforts, as do the greater part of medicaments! The long-living persons (over 100 years) today are hardly (in percentage) more than 10 -- 20 centuries before, and they are such not because they make use of the services of medicine but regardless of it, or even
in spite of it. The main merits of medicine nowadays are in the mass prolongation of the period of life of the people, but this only increases the overpopulation of the earth globe (see "About the population"), and in many cases (especially to the end of his life) one just
suffers longer, what puts on the agenda the question "About the harms of the benefits".
2. The jurisprudence, or justice, is a kind of
misunderstanding of civilization, because its goal should have been making and applying of equal for all rules in order to protect the society from harmful for it elements, as well as to prevent the crime, but looking at the absurdity of contemporary justice one involuntary comes to the conclusion that the ancient monarchs, who have judged without whatever laws, in many cases have taken more justified decisions than those, which are observed in the current days legal trials. When one commits some offence or crime this is
not because he does not know what is right and what not -- he may not know the letter of the law, but he surely knows its
spirit (otherwise, at least nowadays, the laws would have been studied even before the children have learned how to read and write) -- but because he hopes to "pass between the drops", i.e. to outsmart the others, and then the jurisprudence is only "grist to this mill", thereby bestowing favours to the judicial system! If one judges personally, then he at least represents (or misrepresents) himself in result of this, and when he judges according to prepared in advance laws, then he, in fact,
does not judge but just receives his salary for compliance with certain (well paid) procedure.
It, surely, is clear why has come to this detaching of the judge from the very decision -- all people are egoists (or sinners, if we use the religious terminology), and when so it is better to decide what must be the punishment before knowing the concrete offense, than to judge about the punishment only based on the given situation and personality of the offender. Logically looked at the things this is a right decision (i.e. the idea is understandable and correct), but it is simply not implemented properly in the reality, because if the judge must not be partial to the lawsuit then he must also
not know who he is judging, as well as the reverse thing -- the offender must not know by whom he is judged! Themis only on pictures is shown blindfolded, but have you ever seen some judge with blindfold and face mask? At most he can put on a wig because of greater vanity, but not to remain unknown. Besides, if the truth is to be searched, then it has to be independent of material benefits. But why are then allowed the paid lawyers in the lawsuits (and paid exactly by the interested part and in connection with the concrete suit)? And something more: if each concrete case can't be included beforehand in the laws, but are provided only typical situations of offenses, while the guilt in the specific case is established during the law trial, then the decisive word must be given to some arbitrary selection of the population, not to paid officers. But even in the countries whose legislation chooses jurors for each case from the ranks of the people, they can be rejected by each of the parts, and this now isn't arbitrary choice but a parody of it; or is searched unanimous decision (in the suits for murder in USA, for example), and this is not natural situation which leads to compulsory decision. Objectively looked, it turns out that the only positive element in the present-day jurisprudence is the conception of prosecutors as defenders of the interests of people, because there the mercantile considerations are reduced to minimum.
At any rate, the ways for bettering of the things are clear, so that let us say first what can be done in the near future -- this is the introduction of some conditionally free, i.e. paid in advance
judicial insurance, in the same way as there exist medical and labour insurances, and the lawyers of both parts are to be fixed by the judicial authority by some established procedure. If the advocates-lawyers are only some kind of "translators" from the natural language to this of the laws (add +
voce, in Latin, or voice in English, i.e. a kind of megaphones), and not mechanism for gaining of personal financial benefits for each of the parts (how is the situation by the civil cases in the moment), this will be wholly rightful decision (and for the criminal cases, too). The very fact, which can be confirmed by each lawyer (to say nothing about the common folk), that the suit is won by the better lawyer, means that the goal of the procedure is
not establishing of the truth but the personal combat (in order to get benefits from this) of the lawyers, as also of each part in the suit. If the proposed here is not yet introduced as practice, this is only because the laws are made by jurists and they are not so silly to "cut the branch" on which are sitting! The judges, also, must be called simply chairmen of the court (or
ushers, if you like), because they don't judge themselves, but just monitor the compliance with the rules. Together with this measures in all cases where this is possible the court procedure must be simplified and substituted only with judges, but
without lawyers, and even with some computerized systems (what already begins to be done in some countries) -- it goes about act fines, divorce proceedings, and even financial and other civil cases at first instance. The last instance, in any event, must be some
national court, where to be chosen the corresponding number (7, 11, 15, or 21, for example) of jurors from significantly big pool, but in the day of the suit and by
arbitrary method, who exactly are to give their say on each point from the formulated by the chairman accusations, and the decision, which must be kept anonymous, to be taken as by voting, and/or via averaging of the votes (together with their eventual weighing when several options are present).
The future tendency must be towards increasingly
throwing away of the human from the judicial processes and using of some artificial and impartial intelligence at least at lower instances. The chairman of the law suit, if and where he is human, must be maximally
separated from the parts, where they neither see themselves, nor hear, nor know one another, but communicate via some terminals in different rooms, and should even not be allowed using of their real names but of some conditional names like accused, accuser, witness_No1, and so on. In higher instances, where the decisions must be taken by arbitrary chosen jurors, they also must not be known to the parts of the suit and must remain anonymous. In especially serious cases must be provided as last instance also some computerized procedure for nation-wide voting (according to the points of the accusation) via phone-cards, or through terminal net. These are things that will be realizable everywhere after about half a century, if the civilization comes to the right decision whether the courts must remain only spectacular events for the people, from which each part, and the very judicial officers, take personal benefits, or are obliged to become instruments for impartial condemnation of anti-social actions and crime.
The other variant there is to perform real judicial court, but
without laws and punishments -- for lighter infringements -- something what we called "comrades'" courts under the totalitarianism (not that they did much work, because of the total penetration in them of the guiding ideas of the Party and the deformed selection of people, or the manipulated peoples opinion). Anyway, this is not some fictitious idea and can also be performed by terminals, so that the person can remain anonymous, as well as his judges. In this way we will have some variant of
confession, that is used since centuries by some Churches, and, hence, is psychologically entirely justified for the offender, and what concerns the role of confessors we may be sure that there always will be enough people wanting to be included in that circle, because people are very prying (not inquisitive) and everything, that is some secret, will be interesting for them. Again no obstacles, except the willingness of the people.
3. The management of the society is the main stone in which for millenniums the civilization stumbles, because it is clear that we can't do without strong central government, neither without feedback from the people, but
all forms have together with their advantages also their drawbacks. It is clear that must be found some compromise, because otherwise the middle point ... again is reached, but
in the time, i.e. through the incessant
changing of the one form with the other (something that is very similar to the muscle tremor of the old folks)! The contemporary democracy is one such compromise variant, but it has too many shortcomings, on which, though, we will not dwell here, because they are extensively discussed in the essay "About the democracy". The future management of the society will be, in any case, some form of democracy, but in it should not be excluded some dose of artificial intelligence. So, and let us go now to
4. The education, which is one enormous acquisition of the civilization, but which has
two contradictory aspects, namely: enlargement of our knowledge about the world in which we live, as well as restriction of the examination in a given narrow object area, in order of its more profound studying! This isn't a paradox but elementary consequence of the limitation of out abilities. Let us remind you that the achieved long ago negative meaning word "scholastics" comes from Latin (and old Greek) word for school (or
shkola in Russian, or
Schule in German) and says just something, that can be learned at school; it is true that the first schools were in the monasteries, but the disregard to such kind of knowledge comes not at all from the positions of atheism, but from the perception about the uselessness and narrowness of many educational disciplines, and stresses that not always the "learned" is the right one. In any case, the unbiased children psyche in many cases thinks more rationally than people with some education, and the higher the education is, the more restricted and
professionally deformed become they in their ability to think, while there are not at all rare the cases of some self-educated persons with broader and truthful knowledge about life. I can't restrain myself from citing here the known aphorism of Oscar Wilde, who says that: "This, what must be learned, can't be learned, and this, what can be learned, there is not much need to learn it!". (It is meant that this, what one wants to know -- say, which ticket in a lottery to buy for to win, or which girl to marry in order to become happy, or to what party to adhere for to succeed in life, et cetera -- there is no way to learn, and this, what can be learned, it is already
known and, hence, it doesn't pay to fill his head with it.) In this sense there is
no danger at all (if one of you has become troubled about this) that the education will make people very clever (educated -- yes, but that isn't the same), what, for the most part, is right, because in a society must be maintained some reasonable proportion of the more intelligent, or wise men, to the more mediocre, even if with tertiary education in a given narrow area.
This, what is learned in the school or the university is mainly some factual data allowing to the student to unite with some professional
group, or with some "flock", because exactly this shows the analysis of the English word "student", which was formed from merging of stud + end, where one of the meanings of the first word is a flock specially of horses (which word is common Slavonic,
stado, and Teutonic, where from is their current
Stute as mare). In other words, the student is like a young horse (or mare), that has not yet learned to run together with the flock and for that reason is somewhere at its end; though the second word may be just an ending, because in the Latin he is
studiosus. Or else: if we try to translate (better in Slavonic) the German
studieren as "stadieren"-flocking we will not at all be in error! And this what people need is the ability to
think correctly, but the thinking is one enigma and mystery for us (see "About the intellect") and we can't grasp to the end its secrets, we only try to (chiefly via studying mathematics in school). For this reason the goal of education becomes to "pump" us with certain facts, so that to be able to understand given professional jargon, and to be used as
instrument for selection according to the makings of everyone; this is the way in which must be looked at each form of education, even at the compulsory. Checking of the abilities to think, where possible, is done, and will be done, but teaching in thinking, alas, lacks, because it is not clear how to do it.
5. The sciences are the core of the civilization, because only the knowledge can make our life more interesting and happy! They, obviously, are related with the education -- via the double meaning of our knowledge, as also through the educational character of the activity of scientific workers (in order to obtain resources for their work). Still, the sciences mean getting of something
new, not just applying of already known truths, where this yearning for the truth for the very truth, or as it is also said: for
speculative knowledge, is one, really, divine human feature (no matter whether we admit the existence of God or deny it). Some negative moment in the sciences occurred mainly during the 20th century, which moment is related with their very fast, i.e. revolutionary evolvement (because, naturally, the
evolutionary movement is preferable, for the lesser number of cataclysms), but the things gradually will normalize having in mind the enormous complexity of our world, with which we inevitably collide digging more profoundly in every direction. The immense volume of knowledge begins to conflict with the creative character of scientific activity, where it remains a kind of industry, and this for its part diminishes its attractiveness, so that may be expected that the grown percentage of scientific workers will continually fall down to some reasonable level of 2-3%, what will pacify its explosive rate of evolvement.
In all events, however, we have no rights to blame the sciences for our human shortcomings and inability to use the new given possibilities. It is normal that a child who gets for the first time knife in his hands may wound himself, so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that we "wound" ourselves with each new and epochal scientific discovery. Ultimately, the variants are two: either the humankind will recover and learn to use the new acquisition, or will become ill and perish from this world, but this will be because of innate defects of the human beings and society,
not because of the very scientific discovery. It is true that the sciences are one of the most dangerous aspects of the civilization (a moment maintained by all religions), but they are also one of the most reliable ways for achieving of civilized society, so that: if we want civilization we can't do without sciences.
6. The industry inevitably accompanies the civilization because it provides ways for enhancing the effectiveness of human labour in every routine activity. It frees up more time from direct obligations to the society, permitting in this way happier life of the people, only that this possibility is not at all always used by those who work in the given industry, yet this also is not fault of the industry but of the social order. Like everything immoderate, when is set too much on the industrial productivity, can be reached to not very positive situation, which will depersonalize human labour and turn the people to a kind of draft animals to the technique, what often happened during the 20th century. This is well known and we try to fight with it, but the temptation for easy achievements is too high to withstand it. Because of this now our food is almost entirely artificial, and our clothes, too, and the entertainments, and so on. The industry confused the whole nature because for very long time we have thought that the point is to make much noise and dust (where from comes Bulgarian phrase that "I work so that dust is raised up"; as also the very word "industry" is split in: in + dust + ry, what says "something in the dust"), and the industrial methods entered in the sciences, in the arts (if we may call so the proposed en masse by the media surrogates), in the sports, and even in the sex and pornography, and where else not. Still, we began now to realize that only the effectiveness isn't all, and can hope that in the future will learn to use the serially produced things only as
substitutes, in order to save time and money, but not as something satisfying the seeking nature of the human. Life will show whether the things will get better, or worse (before getting better).
7. The trade and the market are very significant achievement of civilization, though some kind of exchange of goods has existed also in the primitive tribes. The establishing of precious metals as single equivalent for assessment of all results of human activity is of extraordinary importance for reducing of the multi-coordinate space of values to one and only ordinate. This is not always a good assessment, but it allows for comparison and exchange, and the introducing of invented and endowed with some value money units now facilitates the very process of exchange. The facilitating is relative, because in reality becomes necessary also the existence of intermediate market of currencies and valuables, but there is no need to discuss it because it has the same common characteristics of every market. The money are some substitute of valuables, or "hot air", "
mentè" as jargon in Bulgarian, but this view exists for milleniums because you know that in English "mint" is both, the herb
menta-mint, and the place where the money (
monetas) are made. As far as the market is the place where the very changing is performed it is naturally that it will gradually begin to dictate also what to produce (for to change it with something else). This is natural evolvement of the things, but it is not at all the most correct and reasonable decision, because it applies chaotic methods for control, and the chaos can never be good decision in the society! So that the market is one temporary decision, for lack of better one, but this does
not mean that it is the right decision.
Let us look here more precisely, proceeding from the interests of the producers and the buyers. The third group of the merchants (dealers, or brokers) is not necessary to consider for simplicity, because they, staying between the both above-mentioned groups, fulfill to each of them the role of the other one, so that they do not give anything principally new. The small producers definitely lose from the market, because is not in their possibilities to analyze and predict it; the big producers also can't predict it
exactly, but only is rough strokes (because if they could have done this then the whole trade would have been reduced to exact analysis of the data, and on the contemporary level of techniques this would have been just a combat between two computer programs, not attractive intellectual activity), but exactly this gives space for their manifestation. Inasmuch as the small producer can't fight effectively the market his salvation is: either to unite with other brethren in misfortune, in order to gain "critical mass", where he is not so dependent on it, or then to work for some big producer (or wholesaler). But these are only ways for
suppression of the market, not for its using. In other words, the market is profitable only for such producer (wholesaler), who is big enough (one out of ten or so biggest in the branch or region) to influence it!
Similar is the situation also with the buyer -- if he is small he will almost always lose, because by subsequent verification there is no way not to find that: either he could have bought the same ware cheaper, or could have bought better ware (or both), or then, if he has strived to study better the market in order not to make a mistake, he could have spared himself the time (and the nerves, too) making rough and arbitrary choice where from to by it (because in one saturated market
all similar wares are more ore less equal in their prices)! Only the large buyer (company or person) may win by the market. The much touted market economy is a
pure deceit, widely circulated by the large scale business, i.e. trickery for the small "fishes" (to become fry for the big ones)!
The market is the most ineffective way for regulation of productivity, and it has the single advantage that is more
adaptive than the centralized planning, but because the latter also has his drawbacks it turns out that each decision can be
only compromise! The current compromise decision is not good, and the ideal decision is some form of unified planning of production for the first ten (for example) largest units in the branch, based on dynamical monitoring of the customer demand, but by
separate structure, different from the very productive units, which must give directions, in some limits, about the quantity and assortment of production types depending of their economical indicators, defining for them marketing regions, but not excluding the needed competition between them. Not that this is easy, but this is the way in the future.
8. The ownership, mainly over the means of production, is cardinal question, which the civilization, still,
has not succeeded to solve satisfactory. It is clear that here the solution must also be compromise, because there have always been things which not everybody could own, as well as there will always be things, which each one must have, but there are many speculations on the question, so that let us also say a pair of words. The principal controversy between the capitalism and the socialism (or communism) is at all
incorrectly set, because it doesn't matter whether the ownership of production means is private or common, but whether it is
personal, i.e. whether the one who works owns this with what he works! From this point of view the difference between these two ways of organization in the society vanishes, because even in the developed countries (as also under different social orders, like slave or feudal ones) only about 3 to 5 percent of the people own these means of production (but these pair of percents do
not work with them).
The ownership, from times immemorial, has served mainly as
means for exercising of supremacy of some persons over others and for choosing of rulers (something what the communists name, and not without reasons, slavery of the capital), what returns us again to the shortcomings of the society, which we discussed in the first chapter. By reasonable choice of the rulers (based on personal genetic makings, suitable tests, and statistics of their personal successes) in one natural way will vanish also the question of ownership of the production means and will remain only the dividing in personal property (habitation, means for transport, etc.) and non-personal (or necessary for the society). This, however, does not mean that the non-personal property will be free or mismanaged (not owned), not only because it will be wasted, but also because one can not work well for the others (as part of the social organism)
without some degree of
compulsion, or exploitation! As far as this question is discussed in the essay "About the justice" (as well as also in "About the future") we will not dwell here more on it, but will mention that
society without any
exploitation is simply
unthinkable!
9. The army and the police, as we already pointed out, are not civil structures, but, as far as pure things in the nature rarely happen, there is not a single period in the history of civilization when we have succeeded to do without them. It seams by all that it will continue to be so in the future, too, though the army in one worldwide state may turn to some rapid reaction force by natural disasters (and /or eventual cosmic invasions). But the police will remain, because society without whatever prohibitions is unthinkable, and, hence, there will always be people who will violate them (what, by the way, is seen by the Roman understanding about the police as derivative from the town-
polis).
10. The arts are also common characteristic of each civilization, because they propose (alternative to the religion) way for beautifying of our existence on this world, or a kind of
escapism. But as far as the author is not a man of arts there is nothing left to him but to admire them (well, if these aren't mass stuff, of course).
11. The religion is indispensable element of civilization because the people are weak souls and will always need some
delusion and support (or the needed for them "opium"). There are many things to be discussed here, but we will skip them now, for there is special essay dedicated to the religion.
12. The media are a kind of
alternative to the official religion and/or propaganda! Their power rose mainly during the 20th century, because of the possibilities for mass information, but we must always have in mind that they are means for mass
manipulation of public opinion (although in interest of the very society), for the simple reason that there have to be used all methods for opposing the law for diminishing of the reasonableness in the group, about which we spoke in the beginning. (Instead of manipulation we could have used the word "insinuation" which speaks about sticking of something in whichever "sinuses" this is possible, and if we look in the Italian then there the word for teacher is
insegnante, read 'inseñante', what stay pretty near to
insinuante, though this isn't very sound etymologically, for their teacher comes from the
segno-sign, but maybe this relation is made by the people.) The achieved decision here also isn't the best, at least because the media, financed by the big business, defend, surely, its interests, and not these of the masses (but the masses not at all always realize their interests good, what is regrettable for them).
Therefore, the civilization supplements the human society, striving to make it more humane and happy, only that it rarely succeeds in this because meets with problems when entering the reason in action. The human society can't, for the present, appear as a whole organism, and even less as reasonable one. But there's nothing to be done because such is the
material with which we are forced to work -- the unreliable, cruel and egoistic animal, which can behave reasonable, sometimes, but not until he has used all unreasonable ways for achieving of the goal!? After we have appeared on the world, however, we just
have no other alternative, except to live our live. Let us hope that each new generation will make this a bit more civilized than the previous.
ABOUT THE INTELLECT
I. Definition
Exact definition of the intellect is principally impossible, because this is all-comprising basic notion, about which is supposed that each one has some intuitive idea (in the same way as it is not defined what is this God, or matter, for example), so that we will rather remind in the beginning what is this idea. But let us turn your attention to the fact that the word "intellect" is used in different contexts, which are often contradictory, and in other cases are highly restrictive, because we are inclined to ascribe intellect only to the humans (and from here also to the God, in all religions), where different animals, as well as artificial systems, can also show intellectual behaviour in many situations. So that the best, what we can expect, is some heuristic definition, which must comprise the most significant, but without asserting that it is complete and uncontroversial, where more important for us will be not to miss some intellectual manifestation, than to exclude this, for which special intellect is not needed.
In the second half of 20th century this question become particularly important because of the trials, some of them strikingly successful, for artificial modeling of human intellect. To many readers maybe is known the Turing criterion about this, when we have one intellectual system (computer, robot, or human), which is reduced to this, that a person converses through some informational channel (computer terminal) with somebody, without seeing or hearing him directly, so that he has no knowledge about him, and if after some reasonable amount of time he can not say for sure (or makes an error) whether he speaks with human or automaton, then he has before himself an artificial intelligence. Here the accent is, on one hand, on the subjectivity of assessment, and on the other hand, on the independence from the elementary basis (live cells or electronic elements). This is a right approach, but it says us nothing about the essence of intellect (except the fact, that there is no other way for its defining). The intuitive idea, usually, is about such activity, which looks quite complicated, so that even not every human being can do it.
Something similar states the etymology of the word, because "intellect" must come from Greek
entelecheia (εντελεχεια), which was a term coined and used in ancient times by Aristotle as one of the names of energy and meaning: activity, operating and efficient energy, efficiency of given activity, or just something that may happen,
opportunity for something. In other words, the intellect is something hidden (in the canvas of the things), something which can't be seen, unless it shows itself in some way, some working principle of the matter (i.e. it is not obligatory connected with the human), what makes it to function correctly. But even in the time of Aristotle this word has not fallen from above, and, although made around the word "energy" (ενεργεια) as something active, and as something different from the dynamics, it is still quite away from the energy and in Ancient-Greek can be found εντελεω as whole, complete, intact, εντελεια as wholeness, or εντελετεω as inspire, excite! Well, not that people like much to be inspired by the intellect (they prefer rather actions and thrillers) but this is the meaning put in the word for centuries; and if we take into account that the very body (more precisely the root
tele--, which in Slavonic languages means body) is also hidden in it, i.e. when we take aside the prefix εν = in (which is very old), we come to the idea about inserting of something and uniting of the parts in one whole system, or about the
relations between the things.
In this situation it is reasonable to connect the adjective "intelligent" with the activity of a driver or football player, for example, even if this isn't some tiring mental activity. And the point isn't in the complexity of procedures or reasonings but in their
originality or novelty, in the exact evaluation of the situation and performing of the
most adequate action, so that it is entirely possible for the play of some elite footballer to be more intelligent than the solving of a given integral equation, for example. Similar is the question also with all great masters in the area of arts, the majority of which surely meet with problems by solving of tasks from the upper (and even middle) school classes, but whose activity is intelligent, it you want only for the reason that such tasks solve practically all school students of some average grade, while the creative activity of those masters can in the best case be imitated! From what follows that the intellect is mainly in the creating of something new in a given situation, not in applying of known, even if difficult, rules. This new thing was only as possibility, until they have turned it to reality.
But if you ask those people what is this new thing, which is the secret of their success, they will not explain this to you, not only because that is how they win their "bread", but because even they alone, in most of the cases,
don't know what it is. When for performing of a given activity exists some description, procedure, recipe, or algorithm for acting, then it is not counted for very intellectual, but if good rules don't exist it deserves praises and admiration, and this is the reason which has forced the Ancient Greeks to contrive the metaphor about the Muses, who whisper in the ear of the artist what and how to do. It is interesting in this relation the answer of the sculptor Auguste Rodin how he was doing his statues -- he said: "I take a piece of stone and cut out all redundant."! So that the intellect was and remains first of all one mystery, though in many cases can be proposed different rules and methods of learning. Today everything is learned, but this does not mean that the great masters have become such because they have learned the secrets of the craft during their time of education -- it was necessary for them mainly to expand their horizons and to add new methods and means to their palette, but not to change this, what was already in their heads.
And because we have mentioned once the algorithms of creativity let us draw your attention to one misleading paradox, which consists in this, that the activities, taken usually for most intelligent, turn out to be quite easy for artificial modeling, while those, which are more elementary and accessible even to many animals, turn to be the most difficult! The chess game, which is played by the humans for millenniums, is a typical example of complicated intellectual activity, but in spite of this the contemporary computers, though being still in their "infant" age (about half a century), have succeeded to beat, not just anybody, and not some average chess player, but the world champion in chess, debunking the myth about the unsurpassable human intellect. And on the other hand, various elementary human activities done with naked hand and practically without mental efforts, as also the very graceful gate of some animals, are still quite difficult to be performed by a number of robots and in all probability the creation of sufficient similarity with the humans is not a question of near future. This is so because there, where the procedure can be easily algorithmized, the contemporary technology is sufficiently powerful to do wonders, while the simple mechanical movements and seemingly elementary conclusions at common sense level are much more difficult for realizing. Similarly to the chess may be mentioned also the computer animation and music, which are developing for some twenty years, but already have many impressive results (we are not speaking about what one can do with the use of computers, but about
autonomous activity of computer programs).
Based on the above said we can give some working definition of the notion intellect, as:
heuristic processing of information, which allows invention of new relationships and conducting of adaptive behaviour in unforeseen situations. The heuristic means
incompleteness or inaccuracy of the decision, as also missing of the right decision, and the adaptability presupposes some adjustment to the environment and learning. The intellect is just unclear way for processing of information, and is this done consciously or not (and what is this "computer consciousness"?), as also is it volitional or arbitrary act, is not so important. The presumption about some
decomposition of the goals exists, but it is implied also by the novelty of situation and by the groping way of working of the intellectual system. There is no need of considering the material medium in which this processing of information is done, because important is the idea and not its physical realization. (A propos, even the very word "idea", i.e. the Latin
idea, is based on the root ...
Deo, what is old Greek Θεοσ, or God, what means that in the idea necessarily exist something divine.) This is enough as introduction, and in the next chapter we will deepen slightly our views to the intellectual processing of information and will divide it in two major classes.
II. Reason And Intellect
The reason and the intellect are often observed as synonyms, but is good to make also
difference between them, because while the intellect is something in possibility, then the reason is the ability for applying of already known algorithms. The very word "reason" comes from Latin
ratio, what means relation or dividing, and the meaning of its applying for intellectual activity comes from the difficult procedure of dividing (it is meant with Roman numerals), which in the antiquity was known to less than one out of thousand people, maybe (and today is even less known, because the Roman digits are not more used in arithmetics). Phonetically here is hidden the dividing or making of ... strokes, incisions (as also in Slavonic
razum or French
raison = reason; also, say, in old Bulgarian
rabosh as abacus, and others), what deserves to be mentioned (because the reason usually clicks), although this is pretty rough handling of the matters. Another synonym of the reason is the logic, which is Latin-Greek
logos, what means some record, or at least in this sense is used today in the English (you know: logo is an emblem, symbol, then logistic is management of resources, i.e. keeping of records for what is present and what not), and then the logic is the ability to process some written records, symbols, words, et cetera (remember the biblical "In the beginning was the word ..."), in order of revealing of their gist. In this sense is better under reason to understand the ability for complicated intellectual activity, for which, though, exist some known rules or algorithms, where the intellect is not limited only with this but presupposes also ability for getting of
new solutions on the basis of comparing of situations and generating of ideas.
More precisely in the artificial intelligence is spoken about
analytical and synthetic methods of solutions. The analytical methods are also called discrete or digital (symbolic) and are based on some decomposition of the information and analysis of the data and the relations between them, what must enable the applying of one or another partial approach for solving; these are properly reasonable or logical methods. The synthetic methods, for their part, mean some recognizing of the situation as a whole, without detailed analysis (were is of writing of letters and other images, or of playing, war and operative settings, or of musical works, etc.), and are called also analogous; they don't give so exact solutions, but can be very fast and can be easily acquired by the people. These notions very often are interwoven and is possible that analogous procedures are realized on digital machines, or logical algorithms are performed in analogous way, and this happens as in the computer systems, so well also by the people, because there are different types of psyches with their preferred activities. The important thing is to grasp that these are
two types of information processing and not one, though in the contemporary computers for the time being exists the tendency to use the digital processing everywhere, but this is question of effectiveness of the element base and can be temporary phenomenon.
The word "analogous" also originates from Ancient Greece and has to say something
different from the "logo", because the "a" in the beginning of the word (from ancient times, but at least from the Ancient-Greek, most often) is prefix for negation; the learning by analogies (situations or
casuses-cases), though, is basic method in various sciences. It is so in the example with the driver and football player, in the military affaires, in the jurisprudence, medicine, literature and other arts, and where else not, what means that we have no rights to disregard this method of solving of intellectual tasks. Otherwise it will turn out that the whole intellectual activity is reduced to solving of tasks from higher mathematics, or to playing of chess, where the computers are already better than the humans, and even will be forced to exclude from the sphere of reasonable people all so called intellectuals or people of the arts, as also those working in other humanitarian areas, only because they can't (and they
really very often can't) judge reasonable. So that we must observe both kinds of information processing in their integrity, when we speak about intellect -- were it human, were it machine, were animal, or then extraterrestrial.
And really, some people are good in memorizing of the facts, and another ones of the rules, and this is well known, though such division is nor very indicative, because these both things are analytical or discrete informational entities. But there are people with differently developed imagination and differently emotionally charged, as also such who prefer actions by analogies. Till recently at this was looked as at different ways of functioning of the brain, but in the 70s years of 20th century was discovered that they are related with different
parts of the brain, but not of consciousness or subconsciousness (what is one functional, not material division), or of cortex and subcortex, but of something much more differentiated -- of left and right hemispheres of the brain! The left hemisphere (except that it controls motor activity of the
right half of the body -- the nerve fibers "seek" every opportunity to extend themselves and cross one with the other, because precisely there are built the nodes or synapses, which are the exact memory units) is responsible about the rationally-logical or semiotic (symbolic) information processing, which is most often verbal or symbolic. In the left hemisphere is placed the center of speech, and it, although polyvalent, diffused, and imprecise in comparison with mathematical rules and formulas, is one discrete transformation of information. There is the semiotic machine of the human and there is performed the decomposition of the goals, the planning, the logical reasoning, at cetera. As far as the people are predominantly right-handed, then also in relation with the coordination of our movements the left part of the brain is, as a rule, more developed and important.
The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is the analog machine, which realizes chiefly the processing of emotional images and by the greater part of people works mainly during the sleep. There is performed the associative recognition, the judging by analogies, the spontaneous situational classification, at cetera, which are
full with errors, if one has succeeded to "catch" his brain in many incongruities during sleep, but they are much faster and interesting. The intellectuals, probably, have the ability to use their right hemisphere also while awake, what amplifies their imagination, while the logical verification of the left hemisphere is weaker and undeveloped. By each of us the brain has its specificity, but the important thing is that we have in our heads, in fact,
two types of computers, which work together, where this duality is the basis of our thinking and of the human intellect! Our brain is not simply one multiprocessor system of identical processors (though by some individuals this is also realized, meaning that there are people who can perform simultaneously several mental activities), but a complex of different in their way of functioning machines. The experiments in artificial intelligence are reduced, for the time being, mainly to modeling of the activities of the left hemisphere, though it is not that the ideas of the perceptron and the neural networks, which must help in realizing of our "right" computer, have not existed, but we have to wait for this, maybe, half or one century more. In any case, this obscure thing in possibility can be achieved also in artificial way, more so that the nature (or God) has succeeded to do this in the most elementary way -- via millions and millions of trials and errors.
III. Undeveloped Instinct
This, that we have in our disposition such perfect computer devices in our heads, however, does
not mean that we use them properly. More precisely said:
the human being acts reasonably only
after he has used up all unreasonable methods for achieving of the goal! The intellect is as if the last resort for us, and we remember about it when all other means have already failed. In this sense is justified to look at it as at one
undeveloped instinct, of which we rarely make use even in our individual activity, not to mention our collective decisions in society, where the noising of the environment is so strong that suppresses the reasonable voices (see "About the mankind"). As far as this, to have in disposition something good and not to use it properly, must look as pretty strange phenomenon, let us look more precisely at the
causes for our
unintelligent behaviour.
1. The intellectual decisions require much time and the process of thinking is significantly slower than the instinctive reactions, because of what the people very often behave like the animals. Here it goes primarily about the analytical or rational decisions, bur they continue to be regarded as properly intellectual and exactly there the human beings think that they have superiority over the animals, only that the latter very often behave more reasonable than them and even more "humane". In fact, it can be said that the human is just one
universal animal, which on account of his universality is also more incapable than any other specialized animal in whatever concrete activity, and because of this tries to
compensate his imperfection through this new instinct (or, rather, that the human being has
become universal, in the process of evolution, because he has been sufficiently incompetent and helpless in various activities). So that, in the best case, the human tries to automatize his knowledge and technique of work to the speed (and level) of the instinct, where, if he succeeds in this, he acquires then, with the time, some
intuition, what shall say unconscious intellectual activity, performed spontaneously and without apparent mental activity. It happens so by solving of school tasks, by driving, and in fulfilling of his direct obligations, but this is, rather, applying of previous mental activity, reduced in the moment of action to automatism (as, for example, if one thinks while walking which leg to heave and how to shift the center of gravity, then he will often stumble and fall). But such, now reflective, activities can be performed in known situations, while in complex life problems one is forced to think
on the spot, only that this is very tiring and slow for him, and the operational situation not always allows it.
2. The human, however, except head, has also body, what means that
he is first of all emotional and then rational. The human is higher
animal (what should not shock us because it is true), and the main goal of every animal is to have a pleasant life, so that here we have one dialectical contradiction in the goals of existence. The robots are not emotional (at least till now) because we have not decided, that this will be of some use for them, but the modeling of emotions is nor more difficult than the modeling of intellect, and if by us the emotions are hindrance it is natural not to apply them in the artificial intellect. But the emotional load of human judgements does not mean simply taking of partial decisions satisfying only our interests, because the intellect is obliged to force the superiority of the given individual or group above the others and this is natural. More than this, it can be stated that in our world one suffers mostly
not because he does not seek his interest, but because he can't establish correctly his interest (for he seeks it too eagerly)! The partiality of human thinking is expressed in
violation of the very logic of reasoning and substituting it with this, to what the individual is emotionally more well-disposed, or, in the slightest cases, in filtering of the input data from the point of view of (often non realized) individual preferences. The human being is up to such extent egocentric, that he can think logically very rare, by the simple reason, that a priory takes for true this, what wants to prove in the way of logic. So does the politician, and the jurist, and the patient, and the enamored one, etc., and as if really reasonable behaviour can be observed only by working with abstract mathematical categories.
About the contradiction between reason and emotions, surely, is spoken much, but the core of the matter is that it is not at all necessary for this contradiction to be antagonistic and the whole "trick" is in this
who will command
who. It is normal to expect that the intellect will rule over the emotions and from this will gain the very emotions (together with the intellect), but as far as the human being is not created at once, but is product of the evolution of animals, the emotions take more basic position than the intellect. This, in fact, is paraphrasing of the thesis about the undeveloped instinct, because when it will develop enough (and if it will do so, of course) it must take the whole commandment using the emotions only as "consultants" or "arbiters" by evaluation of the decisions. In the next few centuries (and more realistic -- millenniums), however, we have no reasons for big expectations because nowadays for at least 95% of the people the arguments of the intellect continue to sound dry and unconvincing and they prefer the action before the thinking, because the former brings more immediate emotions, what means that they have, still, not learned to feel emotional satisfaction from the
very process of thinking.
3. The heuristic character of intellectual decisions means that
their truthfulness is not always guaranteed, and their checking in many cases is not possible, were it because of the enormous dimension, were it because of the main criterion for truthfulness (at least in the social area) -- the verification of the future. Looking more generally, the most efficient strategy, used everywhere by the nature (or God, if you definitely want to personify it), is the teeming with so many errors trial and error method (or complete search in the state space), which, though, can be
successfully applied if one has at his disposal unlimited time and resources. The human isn't God, but he also can apply some limited form of this strategy, if he realizes his position of dust particle of the human society and history and uses the accumulated millions of errors during the passed centuries. Only that each individual prefers to make
his own errors (because this is much easier than the processing of whole accessible information) and is very proud with this "independence". Well, in various cases this turns out to be correct, because the conditions of the previous errors surely were a bit different in something. In any case, our decisions are heuristic and our criteria for truthfulness are relative, so that the exact decision is not always guarantied.
But if the exact heuristic decision is not always guarantied, then at the expense of this is possible to be found some acceptable solution in relatively short time. In similar way work also the computer programs for playing of chess (and, naturally, the chess masters, too), which never consider all possible moves, but limit themselves with certain depth on the tree of conditions, as it is said. According to approximate calculations the number of possible moves in a game of chess of average length is a number written with a one followed by 120 zeroes (i.e. 10 raised to 120th power, 10
120), what is one really enormous number, because the amount of all
atoms in the Universe, was written as one followed by
only 80-some zeroes. So that the heuristic is unavoidable in complex tasks and everything is question of acceptable balance between wholeness of the examination and time for getting of the solution. But what is the intellect, if not also a balance between contradictory requirements? Exactly this balance, though, this finding of the middle, as have said already the Ancient Greeks, is the most difficult thing for the human.
4. Another reason for the irrational human behaviour is the verbality of our judgements, or the
restrictive influence of the language. We are especially proud with our articulate speech, capable to give good description of the nature, but this, what it most of all gives, is one
virtual (i.e. seeming)
reality, which is rather misleading and ambiguous, than exact. Nobody can convince, say, a dog, that it is better for him to eat beans, soy, nuts, etc., because it does not understand human speech and thus prefers always the meat, while the humans can be convinced in this (and according to the Hinduism the use of whatever meat is not proper, including also eggs and caviar, for these were the future offspring of the animals). Our social system is based on the human speech, because no politician can manage the masses if he can't speak well, i.e. manipulate the people. We just like the delusion, which the words give us, and don't want to change it with anything else; the seeming reality of the literature is more attractive than some other arts, because their language (of the painting, for example) is poorer. By the way, it is not known which Bulgarian has first decided that our speech must be called "
rech" (and was he a Bulgarian), but he must have had sense of humour, because you know what "retch" in English means! This, of course, is just one linguistic curiosity and is not directly related with out discussion, but is indicative for the uselessness of many superlatives related with the (considered as logical) speech center of the brain, which, in fact, does what can, under the limitations imposed by the language.
The natural languages are especially inaccurate and work with very fuzzy concepts, what is the main reason due to which different people can on the basis of
one and the same data come
to radically different conclusions! Our trouble is not that we can speak, but that we believe to what was said! If we could have used some semantic language, which reflects better the meaning of the concepts, as now the artificial intellect tries to do, or if we have at least mastered the telepathy en mass, not just as some phenomenal exception of ones out of millions (and this not always and not for any mental images), we surely would have been more reasonable and more truthful. Many animals have their, primitive according to our understanding, languages, but they are good enough to express the necessary for them emotions (because their intellect is very rudimentary and on a more subordinate level than the emotions, in comparison with ours).
There are reasons to hope that, under the influence of the logic, the natural languages will become more and more precise, though this is very slow process. We, I mean the Bulgarians, for example, still use the double negation (e.g. the phrase "I don't know nothing new", which all the Slavs use -- but it is so in the Roman languages, too -- correctly understood means that "I know something new") while the Englishmen (as also the Germans) have rejected this before more than a century. But this does not mean, that they (i.e. you, the English speaking people) are significantly before us, because they have still not learned to make difference between the letter "o" and the number "0", and in many cases call the numbers "figures". Till now as if the only progress is the entering, already also in Bulgarian, of the combination "and /or", because our everyday "or" is the so called "excluding or", i.e. logical function which is true only if the both things are different (i.e. either the one or the other), while the writing with slash is true always when the both things are not simultaneously false. In any case, it is important to understand that our language, how much helps us, so much also hinders us, in our efforts to find the essence of the things, and our intellect consists not necessarily in the ability to speak. So that it would have been best of all if we could have been intelligent
without speaking, instead of the reverse (what happens most often).
5. In relation with the rareness of intellectual activity by the humans not to ignore is also the fact that
the intellect is not directly related with the continuation of the gender, what is our global goal in life, from the point of view of the nature, because for continuation of the gender we need everything else but not much brains! The intellect continues to play secondary role in all more significant social activities (see "About the mankind"), which are related, anyhow, with the achieving of better conditions for reproduction of a given social group (although this is not realized by its members). From the view point of reproduction the human being is not intellectual but reproducing machine, where the man is the sower, and the woman is the earth-womb. Some of us may like this (especially the very process of reproduction, abstracted from the result), and some -- not much (if their reproductive apparatus is a bit worn-out, or not yet completed), but surely not more often than once in
thousand times one indulges in this activity for reasonable causes.
In any case, even in our enlightened age, and in the wealthy and developed countries, the intellect is valued mainly as
subsidiary element from the other sex, because the women search the beautiful, and/or the wealthy, and/or the strong men, while the men search ... again the same, but with the exception of the strength (because the strength of the woman, as it is known, is in her weakness). The intellect usually is
not a hindrance, when it is possession of the man, but it is just one piquant nuance (something like the combination between white and black race, for example, which has nice exciting effect), while by the women it is valued not according to the merits, but because of its rareness (something like, say, egg of a pterodactyl). And in the society is looked at the intelligent people in the best case with regret, because, you see, they
have nothing else left to them, with which to become famous. Maybe on some other planet the things are different, by the artificial intelligence this surely will not be so, but by the people this is innate quality.
6. At the end we will focus also on the
lack of organization in the human society as a whole, what makes the special intellect of its members just
unnecessary. And, really, what is the need of quite optimal solution for a given individual or a small group, when their interaction is still performed in the most primitive way (see "About the mankind" and "About the violence"), and the reasonable decision has no chances to be put into practice? The central nervous system of the animals is improved in their struggle for survival, but when the human being is survived, and even is overpopulated our "poor" planet to insanity, then why should he need further improvements? The limits of our biggest dreams for public harmony don't go beyond the democracy, market economy, and "reasonable" armament, where the democracy contradicts to the common sense (see "About the democracy"), the market is one obvious deceit (see "About the mankind"), and the armament is reasonable only from the positions of the stronger. Until the society does not succeed to build some better organization than this of the jellyfish, for example, where the decisions of the central thinking organ to be put into practice without opposition of the masses, and better specialization than that of the
destructive tests, or of prosperity of the fittest (as if we are on some competition and the sun does not shine equally for all), then there will be no special need of more perfect form of human intellect. In other words, until the contradictions between the individuals will not be reduced to the possible minimum the people will continue to behave unreasonable or like animals. Well, that is it in general outlines: the goal justifies the means!
As far as the
creativity is to a great extent related with the intellect it is proper to say a few sentences also about it. Each intellectual activity is, as a rule, creative, though the reversed thing very often is not true. Maybe it is good to define the creative activity as such, by which
the pleasure is in the process, not much in the result, albeit, if the result is good, this also is not to be neglected. The antipodal activity is the routine one, by which the pleasure is after its conclusion, in the results of it (say, in the payment), while the very process quite often is not attractive for the individual. Naturally, are possible different levels of compromise between those two extremities, as also varying of the character of activity with the time; besides, such dividing is specific for each person. In this sense it is possible that a given creative activity is not related with the necessity of much intellect and one example for this is ... the sex, which surely is not practiced because of the result (exactly it most often is undesired) but because of the process! But this is
really creative activity (at any rate until one does not get bored by the partner), because one discovers each time something new in it, and for the majority of people this is the
only creative activity. In his life, of course, everybody tries to leave at least one child after himself, but this seeking of the result comes
after the pleasure from the process and is rather for personal justification; the human is wanting animal and he always aims at something -- if not at anything else than at least at permanent life via his children.
So that the intellect, for most of the people, is still something new, in which necessity they are not convinced. And they are not convinced because it does not bring them special pleasure, like the sex, for example. Those, who get pleasure out of the very intellectual process are happy in their own way, because this helps them in many life situations, and also one more pleasure is not to be missed. Only when this becomes common practice (and if this happens), then we could be able to assert that the human is thinking animal, not only capable to think (because he is capable also to ... urinate, for example, but does not relate his name with that his "ability"). If, after all, this will not happen -- well, then the experiment has proved to be unsuccessful.
ABOUT THE RELIGION
I. Support For The Masses
Well-known is the sentence that the religion is opium for the people, only that the wide majority of public has prejudiced conception on the question, due to (justified with nothing) assuming that the opium is something bad, because from this must follow that the religion also can't be something good, but the masses, as a rule, see nothing bad in the religion (or at least in
their religion). Such judgement is logical but wrong, because the opium is not necessary to be something bad (for otherwise it would not have been applied in the contemporary, as also ancient, medicine), and in addition to this everything depends on the dose and the particular case (or ailment). The people
seek the religion exactly in their difficult moments in life -- by big misfortunes and death -- and precisely then they need this psychical and moral opium, in order to carry easier the heavy burden of their individual life. Surely, the religion is welcome also in the happy moments in their life, like marriage ceremonies, births, beautiful religious festivals and carnivals, because the great joy and the great sorrow have similar confusing impact on their everyday life; but even if it is not always so (because there is nothing confusing in an Easter, or a Corban-Bairam, or some other church holiday), nobody is crazy to deprive himself of nice traditions, and even looks for them alone, because in the many centuries of their existence the various religions have had possibility to devise much successful scenarios for nationwide holidays.
So that, if we get rid of the prejudice about the opium, we could even complete the above thought pleading that:
the religion is exactly this opium, which the people need! If it wasn't so the religions simply would not have existed for millenniums, because nobody can enforce over the man (at least not for a longer period) something what he does not want. If some priests do not understand the things in this way then this is just one more proof for their narrowness of thinking (something what is pretty typical for the cult officers, where the dogmatic thinking is norm of behaviour). The religion for the masses is what the fairy tales for the children are, regardless whether they are beautiful or scaring, because the common people do not differ much from the children in their naive conceptions and in their wish to escape somehow from the reality, which they wide away from always like. In this sense the religion is a kind of
escapism, and nobody can take away from the people the possibility for such temporary "switching out", and has also no such rights.
The communist propaganda, because of the fact that it was a
new religion (on what we will linger a bit about the end of this essay), although it did not dare to admit this, forced the perception that the religions (i.e. the
other religions) are something imposed on the people, what is not needed for them, and, hence, harmful. But this is just not true in the general case, because the people alone seek some religion, and this what is imposed on them (and they don't like it) is the
commonly accepted religion and its learning in the schools (for the compulsory things rarely appeal to the people), and for that reason already in the era of Renaissance appeared many adversaries of the religion. These adversaries were big humanists and great personalities, and their opposing was normal and necessary in order to tear, or
detach, the religion from the government, to eliminate the unnecessary dogmatism in the thinking (because it, as everything in excess, is harmful), to democratize and decentralize the society, but not to throw the religion entirely from the social area of life. And as we see even today it is not cast away. The religion exists, and will exist, as one vital need for the mankind, but it is changing, and will change, with the expanding of our knowledge about the world. The religious dogmas break, and for every dogmatist this means denying of the religion, but this, in fact, is one incessant evolvement from the naive and concrete ideas about God (or the gods) with human image to one more abstract understanding of the unlimited in the space and the time nature and of the nothingness and weakness of the human.
The religion is one
necessary delusion -- obviously delusion, because there are no proofs for the existence of God (to what we shall turn our attention in chapter III, but see also "About the creation"), and obviously necessary, because the people search for it since centuries. The truth, besides that it is inaccessible for the people (and thanks God, for if we could have reached sometime the whole truth about the Universe, then what would have we done thereafter?) and our movement in the time is one ceaseless process of discovering of new partial truths from the limitless absolute truth about the world, but is also almost unbearable (because the people, as we said, are like the children). The religion is one delusion, but
everything in our life is delusion: the success, the happiness, the love, the knowledge, the heroism, the purpose of life, the alcohol, the sex, the art, and so on and so on. The Christian religion says that "all is vanity", what has the same meaning (though it does not call this delusion) and offers as single alternative the faith in God and the afterlife. The only thing, that we can do in this situation, is to choose some
more beautiful delusion and be happy with our mirage!
It is very naive to think, that when one knows that he deludes himself in something he will be malcontent -- one is discontented only when he does not like something, and the truthfulness is the last thing that interest him, and this only if he is not contented. Most of the children somewhere about the fifth year know very well that there is no Father Frost or Santa Claus, but this does not prevent them to enjoy their presents for this holiday. Each sane human being is aware that it is impossible to search all available men or women (according to the case) for to choose a partner in life, or object for his /her love, but this does not hinder him /her to fall in love, if not with the first met, then at least with one of the first 5-6 objects. Each reader knows that the fiction books (and films) are pure invention (although we, in Bulgaria, are a bit confused, for one thing because of the existing for a long time "critical realism", and for another thing -- because we speak about literature, where the English speaking people name it exactly "fiction", i.e. invention), but this does not hinder him to read them, if he likes them. In this sense the realizing of the fact that that the religion is also an invention and the existence of God is unprovable, does not at all mean that the religion is not necessary for the people, nor that this hinders them to believe in it (i.e. to delude themselves).
In the light of these reasonings it is now time to give a definition of the religion, but such that is maximally broad and non-limiting, in order to include all existed and existing religious beliefs, as also possible future religions. For this purpose is useful to search also some etymological relations, because this, what was settled linguistically in the languages, is something deeply felt (or "unconsciously realized") by the people during the centuries. The very word "religion" is Latin and means something on which one relies, or seeks support, what can easily be seen in the English. Then the English word "pater" is Latin, but comes from the ancient Sanskrit where
patera means beam, prop, and this root is present also in Bulgarian in one rarely used nowadays word,
pateritza, what is a ... crutch. The Bulgarian word for pater-priest is
sveshtenik (or
sveshchennik in Russian) and means bright or saint person (
svesht /
svecha is a candle), where the Latin Pope is in Russian
papa and means also father (understand, of the humanity), and the Russian language, though for the West might sound like Chinese, has many Latin words and roots, only that the suffixes are Slavonic and different. Interesting is also the relation of the English God (and German
Gott) with the root "good" (in German
gut), because God is the good being; as also of your evil and devil, where the latter for the English is built from "the Evil (being)". And so on.
So that our definition for the religion is the following:
integral social system of perceptions and rituals, which is based exclusively on the faith, and is designed to support and encourage people in their everyday activity and especially
in the difficult moments, giving meaning of otherwise meaningless, from the point of view of the individual,
life. About the support, which the religion gives, we spoke enough, about the meaning of life (or its meaninglessness) there are many thoughts in the essay "About the creation", and in the next chapter we will dwell more profound on the goal of religion, so that here remains to say some words about the faith. In fact, it is obvious, that in the religion the assertions are accepted
not because they are true or right, but first on faith, and only after this, when and where this is possible (and even where it isn't) they are justified in some logical way, but
post factum. More than this, not only that it is believed in something not because of its truthfulness, but
precisely the opposite -- because of its unprovability, or as states the reached to us from Roman times famous phrase:
Credo quia absurdum, i.e. "
I believe because it is absurd"! For many people this may sound as paradox, but it is the pure truth (well, not absolute one, of course), because this, what is probable or possible, it can either happen, or be proved in logical or experimental way, and this, for which there is no way to be proved (but it must be accepted on instilled in the masses), can be accepted only via the faith and without thinking. In other words, this, what is to be believed in it, i.e. is possible, provable, there is no need for it to be taken on faith (i.e. it
is not "to be believed"), where this, what is not to be believed, because it contradicts to the logic and/or experiment, it must be taken on faith (i.e. it "
is" to be believed) -- quite confusing verbal equilibristics, but such are the human languages and the logic of common individual, so that there is no way to run away from such slippery situations.
II. Morality
Each religion has its deep moral purpose, and it is this, what justifies its existence. The fundamental notions about the good and the evil, introduced even by the primeval shamans, are vital necessity in the human society, not because the man is so silly not to know what is good for him and what isn't, but because the egoistic goals of each individual contradict to the common goals of the group of people, and, hence, there must exist someone, who has to formulate some more common rules for living together, and this someone must impose them -- were it with force, were it with delusion. In the nature there is
no good or bad, and these notions are not necessary for the animals, because they don't have abilities to build in themselves more or less good models of reality, and live simply day after day, without the possibility to predict the things wider ahead than, say, one yearly season. There are not virtuous cats, or wolfs, or dogs, or locusts, if you want, but this does not hinder them the least in life, because they have not the ability to formulate questions about its meaning, where the human ability for understanding (and this is where from comes the fable about the apple of knowledge in the paradise garden) is a two-edged sword. The ability for knowledge is something more perfect in biological sense, but it imposes new problems for the beings endowed with it, because if an animal kills only to defend itself or to become fed, then the man does this by various abstract reasons. In this way this social animal called thinking becomes very strong and dangerous, not only for the other animals, but also for his brethren -- ergo, he must still learn how to live with the others, so that the bloodshed (or the losses of biological materials, said more cynically) to be possible minimal. Because of this, exactly, exists the morality.
If we try to give one short and non limiting, but sufficiently thorough, definition of the notion "morality" we could have come to the following:
system of rules destined to unite the people in the time and in the space. The common coexistence on one and the same place can be reached relatively easy (most often with the use of force), but before the time, without moral norms, the mankind just stumbles! Group of people not united in the space is accepted to be called "savages" (for they can cut the throats of each other like a pack of wolves, were it because of some female, or of some "bone", or only to show what "heroes" they are), while group of people not united in the time are usually called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don't know how to behave in order to leave behind a good memory about themselves, nor are convinced that must leave such memory at all).
For achieving of harmony in life of the human with his own kind and with the environment all means are allowed! For this reason it is entirely natural the invention of afterlife (or of reincarnation of the souls), and the complete penetration of religion (at least until it is ruling) in all spheres of life, and the notion of sinfulness of the human, and the dogmatism of religious moral, backed by the apparatus of inquisition or, at least, of some censure, as also the acrimonious intolerance to the heresies (i.e. the erroneous theories), and the utopian nature of religious happiness in contrast with the real earth pleasures, and the unavoidable stagnation in the development (because the happiness, most often, is in the stagnation), and other common characteristics of a given religion. The religions are for the masses and, for that reason, they are
refuge for the weak, because the common one is weak -- as much to confront the evil, as well also to comprise in his mind the unlimited time and space.
For the unbiased and thinking man is completely clear that the bad and the goodl are not abstract but
relative categories and in each concrete case they can have different meaning, but such setting of the things does not solve the problem! One must know, for example, that the cannibalism is something very bad, cruel sin, no matter that there can be cases when it is one reasonable (say, from the view point of continuation of the gender) decision -- only that they are so rare and so questionable, that it is not in the power of everyone to judge, as it's said, on the spot, and there must be some dogma, or God's commandments.
The toleration of others' views, indubitably, is very good and useful for each society idea, but this is requirement which is pretty difficult to reach in our full with antagonism world, so that, notwithstanding the efforts of some of the religions, there is no one, which has always been tolerant to the others (even if there was such one, it would have lost its followers, because the people are those who change the religions). What will say that the religions are positive phenomenon concerning their cause for appearance, or their
intentions, but at the same time they have played extremely reactionary role during all epochs, when was come to the effect or result! This, however, is unavoidable, and the best, that one religion can do, is to detect that "the way to hell is strewn with good intentions". Nowadays almost all religions aim at ever greater tolerance, but this is mainly because of the fact that in the religious feelings of the contemporary citizens can be seen some decline and the greater tolerance creates basis for convergence of various, taken earlier for heretical, flows in a given religion, but also because in the today's communicative world people are forced to live in greater concord and require this also from the religions. If in this way the religion retains its leading place as moralizer of the society, then this can only be welcomed! In any case, we should not think that the religion has fulfilled its purpose and therefore will perish from the face of the world, regardless of the next chapter, where we denounce some of the pseudo-scientific or Jesuitical theses for the existence of Christian God.
III. Existence of God
Proofs for the existence of God are not provided, and there
can't be any proofs, if we are clear about the question what is this God? If we define God as such omnipotent and indestructible Being (or "substance", if you like it better so), which exists everywhere and always, which does not depend on the real world, in which we live and whose laws we continually attain, and which is even the primary cause for the creation of this world, we can't miss to come to the conclusion that our knowledge about this Being depends solely on His wish to allow us this pleasure. If God wants to stay away from the people and leave them, after having equipped them with free will, alone to achieve the meaning of good and bad, then He will always find ways so to hide from us, that we will not be able to find or prove His existence, neither in experimental, nor in rational way. If He, though, decides to show Himself to somebody, then this somebody will find Him everywhere: in the stone, in the tree, in the animal, in the fly, if you want, in the human being, in his thought, and will be categorically convinced in His existence, no matter what the declarations of the others are. For that reason the Christian religion insists that "who searches, finds". The whole thing here is in this, that God is not just much stronger, cleverer, and better than the humans, but is
infinitely, i.e. incomparably, more such, and He exists forever and everywhere. In order to be able to attain Him or acknowledge His existence only with his own efforts one must be at least with His abilities; yeah, but the human is not a God, so that this is impossible, or, put in Latin, this is one
contradictio in adjecto, i.e. contradiction in the very definition.
This is not at all a new thesis, but is known for about 25 centuries and is named
agnosticism. Though we, in Bulgaria, are a bit misled by this setting of the things, because the communist propaganda insisted that the agnosticism is a theory about unknowability of the real
world, not of God. In some religions God is identified with the truth about everything, or with the absolute truth, as we now say, understanding by this the whole knowledge about the Universe, but this is just another way for naming of the natural laws, or the
idea about the things. One way or another, if we state that God is really a God, then His existence, or absence, can't be proved by us in
whatever way, because we are imperfect and sinful beings, and when we think we have discovered God we can positively delude ourselves, as also when we think that there is no God. Said in more contemporary language God is a being
from another dimension, and we simply can't see Him, where He can (if only desires). From what follows that the existence of God is a matter of taste, or of
belief, and who wants can think that He exists, but who does not want -- that He doesn't. But our wish shows no effect over His existence or absence, because we are those who need Him, not He us! The existence of God is only a
hypothesis, and if we need it we can accept it, but if we can do without it there is no need to mess with it; the exact and natural sciences do very well without it, where in the social area it is often necessary, due to the naivete of the masses, and for that reason it is used there.
These reflections were necessary for us in order to know how to take the listed below "evidences" for existence of the Christian God, where the quotes are necessary, if we understand that proofs, anyway, can't exist. These are examples for Jesuitical logic, what is a mixture of logic and faith (where the logic fails), but we must not judge them especially severe, because they are intended for the masses, and the people, as a rule, apply similar imprecise judgements quite often, in order to excuse their own views in some, ostensible objective, way. Here are some of the most widespread
theses for the existence of God.
1. God is the primary cause for the world, in which we live. Everything on this world is created by somebody, because there can't arise a consequence without existing of a cause for it. One house can't be built of itself, neither a sword be fabricated alone, nor a human to be born without the act of conception, and so on, so that there must be cause also for this, what does not happen by our will -- sprouting of the tree in the forest, emerging of the wild animals, creating of the rocks, and the seas, and the rivers, and the stars in the sky, et cetera -- and, hence, they must be created by somebody. But no man can create a flower, for example, if has not its seed, or create a star in the sky, or stop the rising of the Sun, therefore all this is created by some omnipotent Being, Who lives forever in the time, knows everything, what was, and what will happen, because understands the cause-effect relations of the things, is located everywhere, where He wishes, and commands our whole world or entire Universe, because He alone has made it. He does not plant the seed for each grass, because He has said how this grass must plant its seed, or how each animal must behave and how to propagate, so that to populate this beautiful world. He has created also the human being and has made him to look like Him, but has not restricted him to do only good, because otherwise the human would not have had freedom of will, this divine quality, but has left him to suffer on this world in order to achieve happiness in the future life, when will come to Him, then without his perishable material shell, but only as an idea, soul, or emanation of the divine principle. God is the truth for everything, because nothing can arise without the idea for it, and the idea is nonmaterial, though it can be implemented in material forms. God exists, because however much we know we, still, can't achieve the divine nature of the world, and the world exist, hence it was created. If we think that some things happen simply because they happen, or casually, then we think so only because we can't grasp the divine wisdom, but we delude us and err thinking so. And so on.
All these considerations are entire speculative and can easily be rebutted also in one logical way: if God has created once the material world applying His free will, and if
each thing has to have its Creator, then who has created the Creator? In general, the thesis about the beginning and meaning sets unavoidably the question about the beginning and meaning of
this beginning and imposes the necessity of some hierarchy of gods, what again does not answer our questions! As, by the way, the separation of the matter from the idea about it inevitably raises the question of priority of one of the two things, but so long as they exist together (as the hen and the egg), then such separation leads to nowhere. The beginning of Creation must be observed only as some
conditional point for tracking of the time, not as some real beginning, as well as also the searching of meaning or goal, where they are not bound to exist, can't discover them but only invent them. Anyway, concerning these questions see also the assay "About the Creation".
2. The nature obeys natural laws and, hence,
they must be created by somebody. This is some modification of the previous point, only that it is much more contemporary and logical and that is why we treat it separately. It does not presuppose the idea of God being like a naughty child, who has done some mischief (say, has tied a tin at the tail of a cat) and has hidden somewhere to see the fun, but of Him being like a real artist, who has created something finished (a picture, or mechanism, or the like) and has left it to the people to use it. This thesis does not limit at all the scientific search and knowledge about the world, in which for God is not necessary to interfere after the initial act of creation. It simply imposes on us the unjustified with nothing relation between the natural and human laws, and if the latter are created by somebody and written on something, then also the natural laws must be created by somebody and written somehow in the matter. But the catch is the same: when something exists, it has to be created by somebody. It is true that there can't be a cause without some consequence, but who gives us the right on the basis of the consequence to
invent also the cause for it? And who can guarantee us, that the cause is one and only, for to choose exactly it? The arbitrariness of our world can be "coded" in it (by somebody or something), but can also be the only possible solution, in which case we do not need the hypothesis of God. And in addition to this the usage of this thesis again degrades the role of God, or contradicts to His definition, because if God has created all natural laws, then He also has to obey them, what says that He has no free will or is not at all God.
3. The purposefulness of our world can be explained only with the existence of its Creator. The grass grows in order to be eaten by some animal (and to saturate the air with oxygen, if we want to be more profound in the review); the leaves of the trees fall down in the winter in order not to freeze, and to prevent the roots of the trees from freezing, and to enrich the earth with nutrients; the cow exists for to give us milk, the sow -- meat, the hen -- eggs, and so on; the Sun rises in order to warm, the Moon -- to shine in the night, the river flows for to drink from it, the seas exist for the fish to breed there, etc.; the sex exist for the people and animals to breed and reproduce themselves; the man is created for to please God; and other similar things. Nothing happens just so in the nature, but with some specific purpose, and if we can not perceive it then this does not mean that there is no such purpose. If the world was not made by God then it would not have been so efficient. The sciences do not contradict to the existence of God, but serve only to
explain to us the divine goals, which He has set, and which, otherwise, the weak humans could not have succeeded to understand. God has given us the reason for we to be able to conceive Him, the notion of good and evil -- for to strive to the good, and the free will -- for we to be able to come nearer to Him. Even the fly exists for to feed the spiders and the birds (and, maybe, to teach us to live more hygienically), the worm -- for to loosen and enrich the soil, and the death -- for to teach us to value more the life and to be able to come later on in the paradise or the hell, according to this, what we have deserved on this world. But then, why not to add that the nose exists for to set the glasses on it, the little finger -- for to have something to ... poke in the nose, and the hands -- to be able to wipe our behinds (because we can't, hmm, lick us like the cats and dogs)? The life is result of propitious events and unlimited number of trials and errors (see again "About the Creation"), and all efforts to ascribe to it some goal or purpose are at least comical.
4. God exists in order to teach us what is good and what -- bad. This is the moral argumentation of His existence, but here, too, the things go from the back to the front, or we prove something only because that is how we like it. When one does not know what is good and what bad for him, and the human being really very often does not know, then must come some omnipotent power to teach him. But if the notion for good and bad has not existed before our "dear God" has explained it to us, then from this follows that the world which He has created (with the bad in it) is not at all good, and the very God neither is a good Being. The fables about the free will of the human, because of which God has left the bad in the world, because, you see, if there is not evil then there will be nothing between what one has to choose and will behave always good, are pretty nice in theory, but does not at all justify human miseries, and, in the end, when He is
God He might have devised some way so that there were free will, and also were bads and evils, but the humans could have done only good things! What from this, that in this way there would have not existed the reward of eternal bliss (or eternal punishment) in the "other world" -- then one would have lived on
this world like in the paradise. Surely this is groundless thesis. And if then the good and bad have existed before the arrival of God and the creation of our world, then God has shown no contribution to the question. It turns out that the things are easily solved if we do not mix these notions in the material world, which is such as it is, and the good and the evil are relative, as everything else, or are side products of the existence of the matter. The moral will not suffer from this, but will become what it, anyhow, is -- rules for peaceful coexistence of many individuals. Only that we shall move away from the hypothesis of God, and the purpose of the task was to confirm it.
5. God is the Saviour of mankind. Despite the misfortunes on this world God is who saves the immortal souls of the people, and He has even taken a particle from Himself, begetting in this way His Son Christ in entirely human form and with human flesh, in order to be able to experience all human sufferings and later, with His death, to defeat the death. God has created not only the real world, but the paradise and the hell, and in this way has made it easy for the human to became more fully united with His divine essence. Even if we leave aside the justified with nothing hypothesis about the existence of our Christ, because there are no historical evidences for His real existence, especially credible witnesses of the moment of conception or of His resurrection, after confirmed by competent consilium of medics physical death, but we have no reasons to think that the "other world" is in something better than this one. The human being is finite creature and it isn't at all clear whether one everlasting life (if possible) will be something good, or constant boredom, because the happiness may consist largely in the stagnation (for the reason that each transitional period is something, on the whole, bad -- as we in Bulgaria have seen on the example of our transition to the democracy, that never ends), but not the
everlasting stagnation, without whatever possibility for change (with the exception of those in the Purgatory, after which again comes endless boredom). There, where are no expectations and hopes for changing, can't exist any space for expression of the free will. In other words, as much as we twist our souls, the "other world" is one eternal exile! If God was really good and omnipotent He would have devised some painless way for destruction of the soul (or deleting of its memory, if He so much does not want to throw away something good), instead of this eternal tortures (or blisses with the same effect). So that: as this world is bad, so is also the "other", and so also the relation between the two worlds is almost the worst possible, and this isn't a salvation at all, because two millenniums after the Christ the mankind continues to kill one another as before, even in significantly greater scale. Instead of to "spoil the image" of God in this way it is better if we do not mix Him in the least in our human follies.
IV. Atheism
After our ascertaining that the agnosticism is a true thing and the existence of God is a matter of taste, we should not miss the other pole in the worshiping of the religions -- the atheism -- all the more that it is related with their future evolution or "mutation". The atheist insist that there is no God, but this
also can not be proved, as the opposite, and in this sense
the atheist is also a believer! This can sound paradoxically for the majority of people, including the
very atheists, but this is unalloyed truth. More than this, the believers and the atheists are not entirely symmetrically opposed, where the true believers are
exactly the atheists, because the existence of God, still, can be proved,
if He exists and decides to show up, while
the absence of God simply
cannot be proved (if He does not exist)! This now must be clear, because for each thing is much easier to be proved its existence (if it is present at least in one particular case), than its absence (everywhere and always), in which connection our folks say: "go and prove you are not a camel". In the most cases there remains no other algorithm for proving of the absence except, the so called, complete search, and in our case this is impossible, for we are to "search" each one point of the
infinite space
and time, and by this
having no idea how looks this, what we search!
Let us now try to predict the future evolvement of religions, going out, of course, from some common tendency in their chronological appearance and development. This tendency is not so difficult to be noticed and it is: from the concrete -- to the abstract! All primitive religions have pictured in some way their gods, where their image was dogmatically set and, of course, similar to the human or to some animals. The Hinduism also has humanlike gods, but some of them have by six limbs, and it begins to be spoken about million worlds or Universes, which can emerge from the breath of one god and be destroyed by another, where divine now becomes the truth. By the pharaohs and Ancient Greeks, as also in Hebrew religion, the gods are still quite human. But by the Christianity now appear three gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the point isn't in their number but in the abstract image of the Spirit, which is pictured as pigeon not because looks like it, but because He has to be pictured somehow. Seven centuries after Christ emerges the Islam, which says about God only that He exists, but how He looks like -- nobody can tell, for which reason in the
cami-mosques can be ornaments, and this mostly outside, but the walls are bare, in order not to distract the worshipers with various pictures. In the time of Mohammed there was not science fiction and that is why he does not call Allah being from the forth dimension, but the meaning of this God is such. The widespread during 19th and 20th century (though coming from Ancient Greece) atheism rejects entirely the divine image and substitutes it with the impersonal "nature" (or substance -- by Spinoza). It is true that by the atheists God disappears completely, as well as also the saints and the miracles, but there remains one His quintessence, the
idea about God, in the form of natural laws, i.e. remains the most important, this what can not be destroyed.
If one still wonders why the Islam makes significant progress, especially in the 20th century, then he simply does not realize how the rapid development of sciences makes untenable the strict Christian dogmas and the exact images of God. The people are still like the children and need fairy tales, but they want now something more up-today, some science fiction tale, i.e. some religion, which leaves more space for their own fantasy and thought. The Christian religion also changes, as much as she succeeds in this, diverging in quite different heresies since about 15th century, until the contemporary situation is reached, where in USA in 20th century arise also some, so called,
autocephalous churches, i.e. churches created by one person only, who alone is the head of it (as also its "tail", because it can't be said that they have many followers). It turns out that the icons are not compulsory for the believers, but the everyday prayers also are not something irrevocable. The important thing is for the person to realize that he is not alone on this planet, and that the life on it does not finish with his own life!
From the concrete to the abstract is the natural evolution of religions, but this is also the way through which go many of the sciences, because this is the way of our knowledge for the world. The final moment in this regard for now is the atheism, but it is not enough developed and has not many of the rituals which has each self-respecting religion, and this is the reason that it is not accepted from the masses as such, but the future is limitless (unless we alone set some limits), so that we should not reject it in a hurry as belief.
And meanwhile one
new religion emerged in 20th century and while the people argue whether this is a religion, whether it is good, etc., it succeeded to make its own way around the world. It goes about the
communism, or rather about the Leninism, which has all characteristics of an atheistic religion. It bred out of Marx's "ghost of communism", but began to exist as religion in the time of Lenin in the young Soviet state, went through periods of persecutions and prosecutions, created his own saints, succeeded to establish itself as official religion on a vast territory of the globe, and now goes around in the "third" world searching suitable soil for its prospering. It has
no gods, but has natural laws, which are no less implacable than the gods; has
no wonders, but has the wonders of the sciences, which are no less astonishing than those of the gods; has
no prayers, but has wishes, strivings and ideals, which have no weaker impact on the masses. It is true, that in regard of the rituals there is much to be desired, but its active existence is only about 80 years, and what are 80 years for a religion? It isn't now ruling religion in the ex-communist countries, but this does not mean that it doesn't still rule "the hearts and minds" of the people (well-worn stereotype, but, in general, true), because the collapse of the communist system was simply signal for
its separating from the state, as it has happened in the Renaissance with the Christian religion in the whole Western world. It has morality, has utopianism, has idea of sin, has afterlife ("the bright communist future"), has goal -- the happiness of the people, causes stagnation (as each other religion), and the stagnation is especially important when some civilization (as the contemporary) goes away, it is sufficiently tolerant to the others (i.e. genuine) religions, preaches ascetic way of life on this world, and is a real refuge for the weak or less developed countries and nations. It had even their own censoring bodies and inquisition, as each other ruling religion.
Whether and up to what extent it will exist -- the future will show. But many things in it can remain, even the five rayed star, because this is widespread and old symbol and exists on the American banner (though the Americans run away from the communism "as the devil from the incense", but this is because they are wealthy country and nobody there wants to be poor), besides the Pentagon is, in fact, one "pentagonal star with cut out rays" (or in the reverse way -- the five rayed star is an upgraded pentagon). The red colour is in nothing worse than the blue one (it's allusion to the modern in the first democratic years Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces, UDF), for example, and about the party houses -- nobody has said that they must be built only in "Stalinist" style (or "Communist Gothic") and can be shaped also like space stations, if you want. The future of mankind is one much more tangible ideal than the afterlife, because each one, in any case, tries to leave something behind (at least some child), and the total abstraction of the god-nature does never endanger to fall out of mode because of changing of the tastes. The most precious asset of the human is his labour and this is uncontestable truth, and the highest happiness (for each sufficiently reasonable individual, who can "exceed" his mortal shell) is the happiness of the others, because this is the mutual or shared happiness, and it is something that can outlive him, leaving some trace amongst the other people. The contradiction between the faith, which each religion requires, and the reason, which the very human nature requires, is not so hardly to overcome (as, say, the contradiction between the sexes, or the generations), because the faith can be stipulated by the way of the reason, and the reason to exist based on the belief (in it). More than this, exactly the symbiosis between faith and reason in the communist atheistic religion, or in some of its descendants, including the contradiction in itself, can make this religion live and long lasting. And the fact, that it does not set any racial, financial, sexual, intellectual, and other differences (except, maybe, the necessity for the worshipers to be not significantly wealthier than the others, but this is easily surmountable), makes it entirely accessible for each weak, but more or less rational human.
So that the religion is opium for the people, but until they do not show that they don't need this opium, it will take a central place in the social life of the people. But judging by the omnivorousness and naivety, with which the masses devour the advertisements, that are offered to them, there are all reasons to suppose that they will always need religion. The religion is harmful when there collide severe two different religions and begin to fight war (because, for example, one group of people were breaking the egg from the sharp end and another one -- from the blunt one), but otherwise some measure of delusion about life is vitally necessary for the people in order to be able to live it, and, in this sense,
each religion does good work, because one will never reject the delusion, if he likes it. Until a given society is divided in contradictory structures with different interests (and this will always take place, because the humans are created different in their tastes, interests, and abilities, and exactly this variety is the most valuable thing in this world), till then it will need something uniting and binding together its members. Until one needs support and purpose in life he will need also some religion. But he will always have such need because he is not a God.
End of this part