Intellectual Challenges in the New Century

Introduction

Man's main problem is not external, it is internal: How to bring himself to be more rational as a matter of habit [1]. Folly, deceit, and mass murder can entail disasters of greater consequence than ever. Remarkably, a large part of these human failures have their roots in our own weak character, and not in our stupidity! Studies and learning are necessary, of course, but thinking more deeply about ourselves is essential to discover how to make the internal “controller” (which is Freud's super ego) more effective. Without having the students understand this, the efforts to improve education will not be enough because, while they are aimed at learning, it will be character faults that force a tightening of the social control. Furthermore, people without discipline cannot resist the threats from fanatics of various ideologies, and do the necessary.

For pessimists, the present civilization is failing, but this overlooks its fantastic successes. Has medicine not eliminated a huge part of human suffering and premature death? Have science and technology not given us luxury, food for billions, and a degree of life enjoyment that would make us appear as super human in the minds of the ancestors of only two hundred years ago? Yes, and much more. Man has even visited the moon, a truly tremendous achievement. However, the rest of the picture gives cause for accusations from sides that have no justification for doing this: That we are weak in dealing with new threats and have allowed billions of people to live only from one day to the next, not better than they did it in the remote past, while thanks to our communications services, they are aware that millions of others live in incomparable luxury. And yet, many of these people are addicted to beliefs of the past that keep them locked into their primitive state. We note much aimlessness at home, too:  minds firmly in the grip of alcohol, drugs or violence - all of which we must include if we evaluate modern man's “success”. In other words, our culture has succeeded only partially and it is urgent for the social “machinery” to work more effectively - without abandoning the immense accomplishments. This must be done while the civilization extends itself over the globe and by doing this, is running into a ferocious cultural conflict.

Many thoughtful persons have given up thinking about problems of humanity they consider hopeless, and many fall into cynicism. This is not a useful response for coming to grips with the problems. In fact, it suggests a source of the trouble. While the fantastic material progress was achieved in the “banausic” world of the technicians, engineers and natural scientists, our once lofty intellectual culture has disintegrated. The result is confusion about standards of social behavior which damages the life of us all. People question now even our ability to survive for long as a working civilization. It seems difficult to turn this around, to bring our mind to a more constructive mode so that our intellectual culture can match and support the technical. But what exactly prevents us from doing it ? 

First we complain about the lack of time. We are too occupied with ephemeral and frivolous issues and neglect to learn the most important thing: how to recognize and concentrate on the important - and to reject excesses. To be disciplined is not a natural talent, but it can be learned in the right environment and made into a matter of habit during adolescence. Man can learn, but he must be induced to try.

The second problem concerns the substance of the public discourse. Thoughts that we use in our leisure go with the degree of interest that we show for the world and its problems. But how can this interest be awakened? In America, e.g., we have too few people (< 6% of high school seniors) who become interested in the sciences and technology. Obviously, the curiosity of the young is absorbed by too many things that are not useful, if they are not actually harmful. These things are being talked about, but if the talk would change more to things of  substance, we would see a response in the subjects taken up for study. Enlarging the national capability in this way increases the subject interest - an important factor for later success in every profession. However, the appetite comes with eating and the most important thing is to get the young involved as opposed to the present mostly passive exposure. Ten years after the massively publicized Sputnik event, America suddenly had a surplus of engineers and scientists, albeit temporary. The important point is that the intellectual climate is decisive for the mental activities in the nation. It is crucial to understand that saturating this climate with trivia and gossip, with grievances without pointing to better ways, and polluting it with  intellectual rubbish, is harmful for all, and influences directly what every individual can get if he only keeps his mind free from the chaff.

A third problem comes from some experts in Behaviorist Psychology who are telling us that man is totally determined by heredity and environment, and that in regard to his behavior, he has almost nothing to show as his own. This is a pernicious message and it is slowly bringing about a fatal change in our society. Fortunately we can show that the message is false, but people are not yet aware of this. We are not  “determined” in advance and must not forget that we are  persons who choose from different options. To confuse statistics which seem to tell us otherwise, with a determining cause is a very bad mistake.

Wisdom is the rare summit of intelligence. For appreciating its indicating factors, current measures of mental ability are insufficient because "smartness" [2] is not enough. The high mental ability that is needed in our times must be understood with more distinction: it is to enable the individual to achieve lasting success in the pursuit of worthy goals, goals that may not be obviously important for himself; to guide work that is not driven by the powerful urge of desire, but by objective concern. Only lasting success really counts; and distinction is needed for the judicious selection of goals. It is significant that simple people are often wiser in decisions or choices, than sophisticated intellectuals who are more subject to “group think” (by knowing more, they may be insecure, which induces them to depend on agreement with others). In other words, what is needed is better individual judgment, based on more sustained and more critical individual thought. The question is how to identify and cultivate this ability..

High intelligence is taken as a gift of nature, gained without effort. In contrast, traits of character are assumed to be our own responsibility since otherwise, we would not deserve praise and honor, or censorship and castigation. That we are responsible for our deeds seems obvious because this is why we feel remorse, if we did not do  the right thing! However, modern science brings confusion into this with the widely heard, but superficial opinion, that both, intelligence and moral character are given or determined exclusively by heredity and the environment - the exact contribution of each being debated according to bias and spurious statistics. If this were true, nothing would be left for the individual to contribute. This has been actually stated by B.F. Skinner [3]! If true, it would require control of the individuals to be achieved by pure animal drill. However, is it true at all? Could this opinion of Skinner, which goes against all tradition, but is now pronounced by a highly accomplished scientist - could this be deficient? We say yes, it is deficient, and we realize that even in science, ideologies can cloud the issues and not all opinions are formed on the basis of objective and subjective facts.
 
Subjective facts?  Yes, in so far as it is common to all mankind and free from individual bias, our subjective experience is an inter subjective fact of reality. But, because it is subjective, it is held to be outside science by behaviorists such as Skinner, who demand that only physical responses be investigated scientifically. This is clearly too narrow a view: Ignoring the subjective domain as a fact of reality, leaves out what is most important for us: the domain of decisions and of the values on which they are based. Of course, a science as understood and based on Skinner's view which ignores all subjective elements, cannot help in personal decisions, in the political positions, in our legal system, in everything that deals with subjective experiences. Yet these incomplete views are taken by the public as the scientific basis for beliefs which causes a most serious social problem.

Conservatives adhere to the old view of personal responsibility, even if by doing this solely on the basis of traditional beliefs, they get into opposition to science and invite ridicule. On the other hand, the "liberal" ideology in the belief to be scientific (which they are, but insufficiently), must conclude that one cannot really hold anyone responsible for his deeds and that it is “society” which must be responsible and must be changed. However, this ideology is a disaster because without affirmed personal responsibility, a free society is impossible: We would find no responsible persons anywhere, not even as “leaders”! Controlling the “masses” in a huge system of laws with police cannot work well if one cannot punish effectively, yet millions would have to go to jail for the prevention of future crimes. This means that we are treating people as wild animals which must be caged. But this is only one aspect of a thinking that prides itself as being advanced.

It is difficult to advance here to a deeper understanding. Scientists tend to stop with the above view because they cannot conceive anything that could act apart from heredity and environment. On the other hand, the believers do not seek a realistic foundation of their thinking because mistakenly they fear that it might weaken their position. This created a deep split in our culture and it saps the ability to act reasonably and forcefully. In this current division, it is not possible to find common ground that would replace the struggle for power with a rational political process [4].

Einstein once noted that there is nothing more practical than a good theory. And indeed, if a better understanding of the basics in our life can bring enlightenment to the social process, a very great deal can be accomplished because for acting wisely, we must be able to see ourselves realistically.

Fortunately, the two opposing positions, while each is deficient in views, are complementary since each misses what the other emphasizes. The common scientific attitude rests in the belief that if science takes into account all observed facts, the results must be the best and most comprehensive that the human mind can produce. However, current science as used in this context is in a naive state regarding the image of man because it does not properly account for the nature and functioning of our mind. On the other side, the popular traditional position is in the opposite difficulty by being exclusively subjectivist (or even animist), and it is for this reason discounted by science as obsolete. These errors have serious consequences in our culture and we must seek a solution. To wait for a mutual ideological exhaustion takes a long time and we must attempt to succeed quickly in this critical matter. This is a great challenge - to reach a deeper understanding of man in his social environment, and to have it widely accepted.

A change in this understanding amounts to a major intellectual effort because understanding by a few has never produced large social effects [5]. Most important is the morality and the competence of the social leaders in their ability to influence and motivate others in leading them to a more satisfying life:  Not in the future, not by their successors, not in another world - to do it right here at this time when we have to act.  Only a society of well informed and motivated members can provide the means and the spirit that can induce even its less endowed members to a happier conduct. The alternative, a bureaucratic “society” of trained automatons would have only automatons as leaders but no sense (other than greed for pure power), and without individual ethics. The poor would still be with us as Jesus said (Matth. 26,11), because, what they need, the automatons do not have!

We must avoid simultaneously two opposite evils. Scientism as we find it expressed by B.F. Skinner [3] is as bad in its effect as superstition. To be in opposition to modern science is, of course, equally bad. Both extremes can be avoided by taking into full account the rest of the story; i.e., by explaining why, as part of nature, we nevertheless can be responsible persons, i.e., we must restore the individual to its proper position and do it in a scientifically acceptable way. Of course, this needs intelligence which depends to some extent on the intellectual and the cultural climate. The connections are complicated and we must be aware that the cultural climate requires a constructive contribution from every thinking person. It can only be the result of the intercourse of all. But how is this responsibility to be recognized? Furthermore, we must realize that effective mental powers are not entirely a gift of nature, nor are they the exclusive result of the environment.  So, what have we overlooked?
How to be Intelligent

We must begin with a critical review of what we can know.  What is the legitimization of a belief?  What can we believe, is it reasonable and compatible with everything else that we know? Are we really sufficiently rigorous with our tests?  - In these matters that concern ourselves we are far too gullible, and are guilty of group think to an alarming degree (Man is a social animal and his group could now include the whole Western world). Take the question of the intellectual environment. If a good, stimulating environment is one of the important factors for the life of the mind, which it clearly is, it does not improve automatically. We as individuals, and not an abstract “society”, are responsible for this environment in the same way as we are responsible for society at large! The challenge is that we must, with the help of science, add to the range of ideas about man, and include them in the way in which we shape our "positions", or report "advances" and "breakthroughs". These words are in quotation because at this time, so many of them are not exactly what they pretend to be. We need to envision the full range of what we could do better if we understood ourselves better. The deep reason why we cannot right now proceed to more successful actions in the organization of our life is not primarily a political problem; it is that the framework of ideas which underlies much of the global discussion and influences human decisions is too anemic! But, what can we expect if so much of our life is wasted on trifles, gossip, and misconceived, mostly personal pseudo problems?  It is the same situation in principle as with food:  If we eat too much junk food, we can still starve!

A change of thinking in the culture is a long process. It starts with a gestation in the universities and slowly spreads to the media. Accepted paradigms do not change over night. Our mass culture is in many ways arrested in the intellectual climate of the nineteenth century, it is materialistic and still widely infested by real superstition, of the old fashioned and of the new scientific kinds. In management, the spirit is to a large extent still "bottom line" even though superior concepts, at least their names, are cropping up in documents and speeches.  But they are widely misunderstood [6].

Where is this improved thinking to come from? Has it to be invented?  No, it exists as we just implied, but it exists with clear understanding only in the minds of experienced persons at the forefront of our culture, perhaps elsewhere in dim awareness, but rarely in clear abstract and well articulated ideas. To make progress, an improved thinking must free itself from purely verbal debates and from the “group think” of the day; it must include a deeper understanding of what is meant by truth, by causality, and how we can predict anything. It includes an awareness of the need to understand processes as features in systems that are never completely isolated but interacting. It includes modeling techniques and stability analyses in our systems, taking into account the rapid feedback and the magnification due to unprecedented communications. In this, the intelligentsia could remember that what we should aim to do collectively is to promote a more sophisticated way of looking at the problems, in an advanced form of the old, but too simplistic. and too vague, dialectic thinking. Following science, it has to be more involved and more critical. Essentially, we should follow what was demonstrated by Bohr in a technique that he called complementarity [7].

Most importantly, if we really wish to be intelligent, we must know that all great advances in the past have come to a halt, and have failed in the end because the critical importance had been forgotten of the humanistic and moral education of the individual person. It is the basis for everything desirable, particularly in a wealthy and free society. This is why the Renaissance failed, why the Enlightenment failed, and it is where the "modern" mass culture, to the extent it is permeated only by an old-fashioned materialistic spirit, is failing so tragically [8]. Actually, the emphasis in many higher schools of learning is in a way upside down. They are not educating for life in a free civilization when so many students are introduced to mere group think and are being trained solely for specific professions. Blindly maximizing the effort in the educational process has been censored already by Plato, more than two millennia ago.

We cannot deal with the education of a person as we maximize an industrial production.  We must gain the view of the agriculturist who prepares for good conditions in his fields, and then allows sufficient time for the natural growth process to succeed in the presence of Sun and fertilizer. We don't see higher education this way because it is the mass producing factory that is our model. Instead of preparing the "soil", instead of teaching first how to live - in efforts to accelerate maturation - and instilling the drive for a never ending individual development, we prepare for a lucrative career. We are doing this in too many cases by aiming more at numbers than at quality. Of course, the educators might deny this but look at the result! Many critics of the educational process do not understand the problem because in their awareness that something is wrong, they complain about the training and not about education in its original and proper sense. They fail to see that you should not train the young without educating them first to be prepared for life in freedom.

To be clear about this:  training aims at skills for a particular profession; education aims at building the character by inducing positive habits, necessary for social activities including effective learning and the desire to be objective. Moreover, while skills are needed to know how to do things, only an education that gives us sound values can help us to find out what should be done, and in which order of importance. This, it seems, would be most important to learn for anybody, especially for future leaders on all levels.

The great challenge in the modern civilization is always intellectual: to gain new goals and ideas that can deal with the new problems encountered. Ideas matter because it is in the mind where all decisions originate. We have indications that today, in the culture of the Western world, the social life suffers from some kind of a malaise (I exclude countries that have been outside the Western culture and have become successful in technical applications). The so called Political Correctness is well known, but it is only the worst aspect. Already President Carter was severely criticized, even ridiculed, when he talked about a malaise in one of his speeches but he had a point that one must not overlook. In the violent clash of Western culture with the old Islamic culture, cultural health and vigor have become more critical than ever.  A challenge arises here because the core of the problem is deliberately disregarded, if not denied, by the intelligentsia. They think that the matters of the intellect are OK  and concern only the intellectuals; which reminds us to paraphrase the famous word of Clemenceau, that matters of the intellect are too important to be left to the intellectuals.

The fact is that the intellect is a necessary tool, an extremely beneficial tool in most ways, but also a potentially murderous tool. It cannot be left as the master but must remain a servant because it is not fit to decide. It is beneficial and not murderous only as long as it is used by a well developed person. The real challenge then is that, while we develop better tools, we must not neglect the problem of developing better persons who will use these better tools. Yet it is impossible to do this unless we have a more complete and realistic view of our life , a view that can be accepted by every educated person, and that is not at variance with the solid facts that have been found by modern science. The problem is that we are being misled by an insufficiently known science and fail to have a valid idea of ourselves and our position in the world. Can we get more valid information about us from a more advanced understanding?
Can the Scientific View of Man be Complete?

Two main principles have guided the development of modern science. The principle of objectivity in that no valid results can be expected of any investigation unless a totally objective view is assured without bias and interests.  Pure science tries to go further:  It tries to exclude and to disregard the observer, any observer, altogether.  It does that by basing everything on relations between phenomena with the observer taken out of the picture.  At least, this has been the situation that brought about the creation of classical physics and the other physical sciences during the three centuries after Galileo. That this total objectivity cannot  always be achieved has been, for many scientists, a disturbing discovery of quantum mechanics, and it has not yet been generally recognized in all implications. It has a serious implication for our problem, too.

The second principle is that for understanding, we have to separate the problems from each other. Science dissects in order to understand. Before Galileo and Descartes, the puzzle of the world was attacked by the scholastic theologians, Saint Thomas Aquinas foremost, in a single grand scheme. In contrast, modern science has isolated the problems and it has concentrated on the details, with enormous success. Science has abandoned the search for a global, universal solution. This allowed it to discover a vast number of facts on which modern technology can depend for the creation of useful things. We should always remember to separate the issues because the world is much too complex for the human mind who can model and somehow understand particular aspects, but not the whole thing. Therefore, society as a whole can also not be treated too rationally. Not even a small group of individuals, as Kenneth Arrow has discovered [9].

The last century has changed science in its foundations - with serious implications.  A paradoxical result of the breathtaking speed of progress is a diminishing regard for science because the public notices that sensational reports are contradicted by newer sensational reports only a few months later. However, these disappointments must not change the awareness that there is an enormous amount of solid knowledge that we have collected, which will not change. It is the basis for our modern life and technology. It is also a solid basis for a realistic view of the world and of ourselves in it.  What is this view of ourselves, is it compatible with our traditional world view? Yes, I believe it can be seen to be sufficiently compatible! We must only understand, how we have to approach two apparently incompatible positions: We are natural systems and part of the material universe, we cannot deny this. Yet we have a free will, albeit with inclinations, but we are not programmed machines. To accept both of these ideas, we must be more sophisticated regarding our ideas of cause and effect and consider the details. We shall see that, for an analogous reason as it has been discovered in quantum mechanics regarding the behavior of quantum particles, the understanding of ourselves can never be “complete” in the classical sense of Einstein's “EPR” determinism [10], because what we cannot account for so simplistically, is our free will! Where does it come from?
The Freedom of the Will

It is generally assumed that a world of necessity would preclude freedom. Are we not physical systems that are completely determined by heredity and environment (upbringing)? The answer is a firm NO!  Not completely. We have a large domain where we can decide freely if we are prepared for doing it. Certainly, the basic range of capability (and temperament) of the individuals is derived from “nature and nurture”. We have hard limits, it is true, but the range within these limits is very wide, it can be changed somewhat by training, and most individuals who make their decisions, do not use anything near the full range of their dormant capabilities. Furthermore, an extremely complex organism, such as a human person, cannot be exhausted by explanations with specific causes that act on its reactive properties (motives that act on a given character) with a predictable effect (which is what determinism means). To be clear about this, we are not concerned whether we can do what we want - that is the question of individual freedom; here we need to know whether we can want freely or whether all our wishes and preferences are programmed in advance by “nature and nurture”. In this latter case, we would be automatons, but not persons.

Most mental processes take place subconsciously and in the process of growing up and learning, the brain processes a vast amount of information. As Schrödinger has pointed out, these processes are taking place in the synapses all the way down to the quantum level and are subject to indeterminacy (Question for the next neuron: "to fire or not to fire?"). Therefore in principle, already at this point, it is impossible to use causality in the way of classical physics to explain (and possibly to predict) a particular decision. We must consider the mind as a half closed system that is predominantly determined by internal processes that are not accessible in detail (e.g., mood swings of which we are not conscious) and are not predictable. Nevertheless, we can make statistical predictions.

A mind with its inclinations is not created all at once, but it develops gradually in the awareness of having choices and taking them. This is a bootstrap process for building up habits and preferences, a process that can be supported or hindered, but cannot be created from the outside. Therefore, a mature system with firm values is the achievement of the growing person who, by making a myriad of individual decisions according to his own desire, himself gradually fixes these values and preferences. Without granting him this freedom of what kind of a person he wants to be, we have no justification for holding him responsible for his deeds. Since this person is not a total creation from the outside (by nature or God who plants a seed), he must be given credit for having made his character himself. Therefore, the assumption of a process that becomes gradually self aware and autonomous (identified as the soul which includes character and memory) in response to events can, now compatible with a scientific point of view, be justified and used as the basis to hold this person responsible for his deeds because he is, in this respect, his own achievement. If he would be created and determined in every detail by the outside, no justification could be used to hold him responsible. Holding him responsible is, however, an indispensable necessity for any free society because freedom and responsibility go hand in hand!

Now look at it from a seemingly very different side. The reason why so many physicists refuse to accept Bohr's explanation of quantum mechanics is that they are too fixed on Classical Realism, or strong realism, where things have inherent properties that will determine their behavior in respect to a future experimental situation. The new understanding is for the quantum object to have only relational properties, specific to the situation, and not inherent properties.

Surprisingly, a very similar situation exists when we consider the human mind. As is well known in judicial circles, many people are very poor witnesses; they develop their opinion about details while they speak! When called as witnesses, most do not know exactly what they are going to say, they just answer specific questions and more details come out in response to more searching questions; but these are details of which they themselves might not have been aware that they would talk about them or that they even knew them! Of course, this can be devastating to their counsel who did not know of these details.

Here is the crucial point; They behave just like a particle in Quantum Mechanics.  It is reasonable to assume that both, the particle and the mind of the witness, are complicated, semi closed systems that have only occasional interaction with the outer “reality”, but in the meantime have continued internal (“amorphous”) developments (e.g., mood swings) of which we cannot have any idea because they are in flux, below consciousness, or in the case of particles, cannot be observed between interactions. These details do not exist in the mind (or the particle's system) in a concrete, i.e., fixed way before the searching question forces the person to “take a stand”, which only at this moment crystallizes the internal process in respect to the question (and momentary disposition) and fixes the subconscious fluid “feeling” into abstract knowledge valid at the moment and expressed in words. The situation can be more clearly seen in the example of a person who grimaces all the time. So, if you ask an observer what face he displayed at the last party, the answer can refer only to certain moments, e.g., of a photographic exposure. At the moment of the shot, he had a definite face, but not without specifying the exact moment of observation. Therefore, the Copenhagen view is a deep insight that is not in conflict with a realistic world view. We have to refine our intellectual dealings with extremely complicated processes that are only at times accessible and cannot be represented on the basis of meager spot wise information. We find that here is also the explanation for the extreme sensitivity of the response to the exact wording of a question in the so called “scientific” opinion surveys. They try to measure a detailed opinion which, however, does not exist in detail before the question is posed, to specific details to which it responds.

The Soul has a non material autonomous existence - it is a process that is the core of the person. This operating system is due to the electro-chemical processes in the central nervous system (CNS). Allocating parts to heredity and the rest to the environment is insufficient even regarding the physical characteristics of the individual, because these also depend, the same way as the mind, on activities due to subjective decisions (training). Invoking only genes and environment is totally misleading when we try to explain how our actions come about. Assuming a supernatural soul is part of major religions, but it cannot give a scientific explanation. For science, the soul is revealed in the stream of consciousness, it is a process that is the controlling part of the person. It is not a thing, but must be envisioned as “growing up”, exactly as the body with its brain grows, and developing with it.

During the slow mental awakening, with time and under the impact of experience, we adopt values on the combined grounds of subtle preference, examples, and prior impressions, and we form habits of behavior. All this continuously influences what and how we experience more. It happens in reaction to preferences that are, in part, temperamental and in part developed under the influence of attractive role models and environmental opportunities (that may or may not be used) - in other words, we go through an exceedingly complex convolution of all these factors in the presence of quantum indeterminacy. This is best seen as the origin and growth of a new person in a bootstrap process that should remind us of organic growth, but it goes beyond herbaceous growth since it does not depend passively on the environment; the growing person seeks it with growing awareness, selects from the environment, and influences it in turn.

We say that the soul is an emerging phenomenon that, by achieving self-awareness, can become (quasi) autonomous. As a process, it is not material in the sense that a performed symphony is not material, but it depends on a material system to carry it. Similar to the symphony, which cannot continue after the orchestra leaves, but ends before that, the individual mind process stops when the underlying physical system stops working.

By advancing from the emergence of the conscious mind to an emergence of a mature soul, a person can achieve a second stage in the decoupling of the individual from the direct sense inputs. This decoupling is so radically effective that it breaks the direct connection of the external causes with what we do. There is still some connection, but extremely tenuous; it would be hopeless, totally misleading, to apply the deterministic reasoning of cause and effect. Subjectively, by adopting habits and values, we decide what kind of a person we want to be. It is not a single decision but the growing person does this progressively and by doing this, he gains freedom. The soul, by becoming autonomous, can now act even against the commands of its body. It is free in a large domain of potential actions.

Scientifically we have the problem that the exact causes of human action, due to the described radical decoupling effect, cannot be uniquely identified in a reductionism fashion, even in retrospect. We can only say that heredity and the environment provide a range of fundamental potential capability - a range within which the individual develops, and eventually operates in full creativity. But with a recourse to creativity, we are back in the subjectivist arena.

Objectively, everything happens with necessity because, with Aristotle we say necessary is what cannot be otherwise. The problem is that usually we cannot precisely identify the causes. We cannot do this for two principle reasons: We cannot get all the information because of technical problems (as in the explanation of the Heisenberg Uncertainty). We call this an epistemic uncertainty. The second reason is that a specific reactive behavior of a highly complex system may not exist separate from or before a specific case. Properties are relative to situation and time, and do not exist before the occasion arises (because the subject keeps changing). The consequence is an intrinsic (ontic) uncertainty.

Now we come to a further aspect. Every event, we say, is caused by other events, that precede and influence what happens later. When we flex our muscles and throw a ball, the cause is intimately known to us. The effect of the flying ball was caused by our will to flex our muscles. This objective cause is directly known to us as the force we exert and in this respect, forces are subjectivist concepts. Objectively, the force can be defined according to Newton's second law of dynamics. However, in other phenomena, if we want to apply our familiar concept of a cause, these causes are not directly known to us and can only be inferred theoretically because we can see only the effects. Temporal succession is necessary but not sufficient in a cause because we always envision some interaction, or information, as the causative agent. However, these concepts are constructs of our mind, and our theory must assume several factors that act together on a complex system, with the system response resulting from all of them convoluted with the system properties (its structure, character, etc.). Such a system could be a person, our organization, or a society, because we can take the concept of a system most generally.

We say that an event is determined in advance, if the causes can be known, together with the system properties that allow us to predict what will happen. In the case of mechanical systems, such as the planets, the system property (the masses and the orbits) is well known and has been shown to remain very constant over long periods of time. This enables the astronomers to predict with great accuracy where the planet will be at a future date. The success in doing this so well, induced people in the past to believe that this could always be done (Laplace’s famous statement is typical). This is the origin of the philosophical systems of Determinism and others of this kind which went into the right direction, but too far.

Scientism originated with Herbert Spencer as the main exponent of scientific determinism. He favored science education as far more important than classical humanistic education. In going this far, he was an extremist, but it would be a great mistake to discount the ideas of Spencer. They have been a great advance over ignorance and superstition, and they contain much truth. However, Scientism is too simplistic. We find that with highly complex systems with internal processes - people, organizations, societies - it is impossible to identify and separate the various causes. No individual predictions, only statistical predictions can be made. The reason for this is that the system “state,” i.e., the reactive properties of hyper complex systems (the character is an attribute of the person, it is his reactive property) is not fixed, is not inherent, but relational in respect to the specific input and time. We have only a range of implicit potentialities. They evolve inside the system (a quasi independent entity) in response to the actions to which the system has been exposed. Only after an observed system reaction can one infer a “property” after the fact (in the wide sense as explained) for the explanation of what just happened (in retrodiction) and then we may assume that this property stays constant for a prediction of the next interaction. But this constancy is a pure assumption that is usually not valid in semi closed systems with internal processes, such as a mind.

When we speak of the character of a person, we mean the overall disposition which together with the circumstances of the occasion including the memories, will produce the decision. But we cannot define the details of this character nor his evoked memories and the momentary emotional state that act at the moment of decision in any detail to be able to predict the decision other than with some probability. We are forced to deny the existence of a precisely identified character state as an inherent property that exists prior to the external stimulus. It would be a very misleading concept if it is taken in the above precise sense because man is not a mechanism, he is far too complex and as a semi closed system, almost totally subject to his memory with chaotic internal processes that produce the unpredictable emotional swings which can override all reason.

Seen subjectively, the situation is different. We are certain that when we decide, we do not have to follow our inclinations, or the dictates of the environment, as long as we have a choice. Then our decision is free. But the situation is still more complicated. Our decision is strongly influenced by the values which we have adopted, which is part of the creativity with which we shape our lives. Of course, there are basic inclinations, but it is our choice what we decide to like, to admire, or desire to emulate - in other words what kind of person we want to be. This decision is made gradually by the growing person; in the details, it is not determined or fixed in any sensible way. This power of our reflective ability to control our inclinations in combination with the memory is what makes us human. With all justification, one can say that only in case we do reach this control, can the concept of a person make sense. If we do not rise to this performance, then strictly speaking we are not a person because we are too directly subject to the effect of the accidental temptations. For this reason, animals cannot go beyond this; they cannot develop an autonomous core, except perhaps in a rudimentary way in the highest species - in primates, dogs, cats, elephants, horses, whales and porpoises. And indeed, animal lovers will tell you that they have observed rudiments of individual character. This is due to the cerebrum, which is very large in man, while it is of relatively more modest size in most animals (there are additional factors due to man's endowment with voice and hands, which influence substantially the growth of the brain).

Therefore, to extend the idea of an objective causal determination from the simplest cases, where it is extremely useful and justified, into the subjective world of decision making in the fashion of scientism is clumsy and harmful. It cannot possibly do justice to the subtle and seemingly arbitrary nature of the process that is, at bottom, taking place in the huge number of individual synapses with the triggers for the firing of the neurons, which are subject to quantum uncertainty together with an adapting but forgetting and selective memory.

A causal determination is in this case a deficient explanation because it fails to account for the all-important role of the person with his self awareness and self adopted values and preferences. Without these principles and values, our decisions are indistinguishable from animal responses and we do not engage the mind in ways that merit to be called human. To ignore this distinction means to ignore the person and this has been the core error of Behaviorism. It explains the misplaced concentration on tests with pigeons and rats. The pure, classically objective world view of scientism is far too primitive for dealing with this human mind and its decisions - it is philosophy arrested less than halfway and, in its misleading effects, as a firmly held ideology, it is worse than superstition because it comes with the uncalled-for arrogance of being scientific. The domain of human decisions requires a much more profound approach. It is clear that a society that treats its individuals on the basis of scientism or materialism, which is what the socialist systems like to be doing by dogma, has a pronounced dehumanizing effect. Discounting the importance of the individuals destroys them, their morale, their creativity, and their motivation. The history of the last century has given us too many tragic examples that we must not overlook.

Another, perhaps the most practical way of looking at the problem is that nobody can know how he is ultimately determined (if he were determined, what we deny), and the only way to find out is to make the decision, to take his choice! This argument alone makes the old argument irrelevant that we cannot help it if we are determined by nature in our individual endowment. Because, without actually deciding and doing we know nothing. Moreover, in the theory as explained, it is really the other way around, and not only because of basic indeterminacy. Therefore, we say that with every one of his decisions the individual creates his character in contrast to scientism's view that the decisions only reveal the character, which is wrongly assumed to be determined in advance by Environment and Nature.

We recapitulate, beginning with the original idea of Kant and Schopenhauer [12]: the freedom is ideally in our choice of who, what kind of a person we want to be. We decide this not in a moment, but the decision is made gradually, in a bootstrap process with every choice we face while we are growing up. Commensurate with our growing independence from the momentary environment, thanks to our brain with its selective memory, we become aware of ourselves. A machine could not reach this level, not only because of the different degree of the neural correlation, but more essentially because it lacks the sensing ability of each neuron as an integral part of the whole system. This is what makes us into a human being. Much later, as a mature adult person, when our behavior is entrenched, we are quasi determined by the adopted values and habits, i.e., by a personal character which is now largely our own deed (but still with some uncertainty in every single decision). This semi permanence justifies the study of character types and psychological testing. We can change as a person, but it is very difficult after a character has been firmly entrenched. To have this “rebirth” we need to be under very great stress and it happens only rarely, but it can happen, and if it does, it happens because of better insight. In any case, the idea that we are beings that are predetermined with our decisions is wrong and it creates pernicious effects. This must be corrected. The error goes to the core of human life and has no justification. It is a left-over from the 19th century materialism and we need to correct it.
Thoughts About the Modern Society

That economics as science is in a problematic state seems beyond question, even though it is a major tool for guidance in our society. But why is that? Could one not expect that this science should enjoy all necessary publicity and support, given its enormous practical implications? Yes, but this is exactly the great problem. A vision of delicate connections is impossible in the presence of pressing applications with large capitals at stake. One can't serve two masters, the mind becomes clouded in the moment we see our own fate influenced by the observed facts and envisioned actions. Where judgment is required that involves ill defined and poorly known parameters, objectivity can only be expected to be used by minds that feel no pressure and  no interest other than understanding [13]. Socrates recognized this when he refused to accept money for his advice. 

Although what is seen by advanced economists can be said very quickly, it requires a great deal of intellectual adjustment before it can be understood in depth. Society is a system of interacting minds. They motivate each other, and themselves indirectly. It is true that a primary motivation of the people is the desire to satisfy needs for food, sex, shelter, and security.  But beyond these, a major  motivation emerges for the accumulation of material values, for luxury, power, and the mere possession of things that are not at all necessary. In fact, as soon as the primary necessities are secured, this secondary motivation becomes the dominant one and can grow without limit. So far, everybody knows that.  What is not appreciated is that this system is primarily a system of interacting minds, with hopes, changing expectations, and changing values; where money and materials are in a secondary, albeit necessary, role. We know societies that became very wealthy while they had almost no, or very poor, natural resources or capital of their own (Switzerland, Singapore, Japan).

All right, so we have once again arrived at Adam Smith's conclusions about the Wealth of Nations. Of course, it is the labor of the people that is the creator of their wealth. But the real source is motivation, with imagination and courage as the critical mental powers which have to unlock and stimulate the physical effort. It is definitely not the oil, or iron ore, or coal, nor is it the fertile soil that creates wealth except in a secondary role (They are beneficial, often necessary, but never sufficient).  For a proof we need to look only at undeveloped countries where people starve, while their oil or other riches are being exported with the profit going elsewhere. Why can't they exploit their assets themselves?  Why did the Soviet Union, a paragon of planning and central direction, have to import food for years during the middle of the last century when before 1914, Russia was the grain producer of Europe? Why does poverty exist in the midst of the most advanced societies? The answer is that the system of interacting minds is disturbed, if it is not seriously out of order. Experts who think that money or, in general terms, capital alone can change this condition are mistaken and when they infuse capital into such countries, and do nothing else, most of it evaporates without effect.  This is particularly true for the mega projects that are so popular with large banks.  These investments are most likely going to be disappointing if the local authorities will be incapable to supply the necessary support.  By far the most efficient way to help these areas is to educate all those who show the interest. The disadvantage is, of course, that this is a long term effort.

That this is true also for the domestic poverty is beyond question.  Money alone cannot cure poverty, it usually makes things worse. It makes them worse because it diverts attention from the real problem which is the necessity for a change in culture, values, and habits. To attack this problem in developing countries has been one of the ideas behind the Peace Corps. Instead of bringing money, bring competence and, if you can, motivation and role models. Assist, with a better functioning of the system of minds by example, good rules and ethics, and by more thorough and more widespread knowledge. Unfortunately, now we send too many of our helpers overseas where the effort is too diluted to remain effective for long, instead of a concentrated approach in our own centers of civilizational decay.  Of course, an additional infusion of capital would often be helpful but too much and too sudden material interference is dangerous for the long term well-being of the delicate system of interacting minds. In other ways, one can say that a too rapid infusion of a different culture will brutally destroy the existing culture before it can adjust.

Therefore, the core long term economic, as well as the social problem concerns culture, not money. Now let us take one step further. What is the major reason why our societies are undergoing such cataclysmic changes? There is no doubt that we must seek the main driver in the horrific technological advance, but a major direct reason is to be seen in the confusion and clashes in the intellectual culture because the Western intellectual culture has become seriously damaged and the main contribution from the intellectual world is now more, and not less confusion! This confusion has been magnified in importance by the massive changes, the dominant influence of the media and politics, deficiencies in education, and differences in our material culture. We would perpetuate Marx' error in assigning the major cause to the material side rather than seeing it both ways and actually more the other way around. This is so important because the modern situation has profoundly changed the way how the minds interact in the social system - with deep impact on our material conditions. Modern information technology based on discoveries and inventions affects everything now immediately, with feedback loops of very little delay, and this can happen with the most remote events and the most crack brained, pernicious ideas. In systemic terms it means that through this rapid feedback magnified by signal “gain” (the media emphasis), our society, global and domestic, has become much less stable than ever before and it is in a very dangerous condition. A typical example was the deadly turmoil in Afghanistan as the immediate result of a single wrong report in Newsweek in May 2005.

On the other hand, we envision more massive and critical applications of advanced technology in society. Consider the old dispute about the proper role of government. The enduring political confrontation has been between those who, disgusted by the chronic inefficiency and failures of government, want to replace it wherever possible by private initiative - and those who want to enlarge the role of government because they are worried about the problems that arise with insufficient political control. In consequence, two very different ideas concerning the role of government alternate in power whenever the balance changes in the thinking of the electorate, often about entirely unrelated subjects. The effect is wasted time and effort whenever the new rulers try to revert to the situation before they lost power the last time.

It is possible, however, and has been actually proposed by the former Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, to radically improve the operations of the government. He would delegate the actual execution of most services of the government to contractors who can operate by using the new technical capabilities as being done by existing large operations such as American Express or the United Parcel Service. The highly automated yet flexible way in which these services operate, would produce a fundamental improvement in the efficiency, timeliness, and scope of all government services. In our view this would be not merely desirable - it will be necessary given the new and vastly increased requirements of a very large population. However, we must not forget the rest of what has to be achieved. But first, why could this not be done by an improved government as it is organized today? 

We can see the reason when we observe how a relatively unproblematic feature, such as the new Medicare drug program, ended up as a bureaucratic nightmare. The  problem is in the different balance that a private as opposed to a government organization seeks to have. Economy and efficiency with a maximum of local decisions on one side, and detailed policy considerations with central management control on the other. Fortunately, the Gingrich proposal can combine the advantages of the two approaches without having to take their disadvantages, provided that sufficient interfaces exist and the thinking in the basic legislature changes: we must accept the principle of maximum simplicity for laws and rules as overriding other considerations.

It is necessary to elevate this principle to a clear recognition of its high priority because the excessive complication of everything that is touched by government (or other large organization) is not only caused by the across-the-board propensity of everyone for micro management, but more importantly by the failure in the staffs to understand that simplicity in the basic rules must, by necessity and principle, be rated as more important than the attempts to completely satisfy the never ending collection of requirements, which becomes the origin of the notorious loopholes and special provisions. This points to yet another shortcoming in the present social system, the limited ability to make sound judgments and the general level of education (the ability to self-control) in the population at large.

Inevitably, as long as only the results of the current training and education exist in the population, we must expect the problems that invariably tend to appear, of which the large scandals at the beginning of the century have been a typical example and foretaste of more to come. In other words, we will continue to meet as the fundamental and limiting problem in all of our designs the human judgment and trustworthiness. Life in a free society is more demanding than we like to admit, it requires its citizens to exercise discipline and “common” sense, commensurate with the freedom that is granted.

That this requirement, while understood in principle, is vastly underrated in importance is a great problem for us. It prevents us to take effective steps to prepare the young so that they are sufficiently prepared for their life in freedom. The inadequacy of their preparation, and the absence of a code, or recognized standard of behavior that is accepted by all, will continue to bring problems that we may hope to forestall, at least in part, with a much better intellectual preparation. Therefore, our discourses must include the social advance that we can expect from an effective conditioning of the young, and how to achieve it, which brings us back to what Plato told us when, two and one half millennia ago, he pointed at education (in the sense which we mean by conditioning) as the core problem of human society.


Conclusions

If we wish to draw lessons, then what we need today more than ever, is intellectual discipline. We are free, but must give priority to thinking over talking. We must not say what we wish without thorough soul searching and a thorough consideration of the possible consequences. The First Amendment has not been intended as a license for people to say irresponsible or stupid things. It was needed to prevent Government interference with the social dialogue. This does not remove the heavy responsibility for the consequences of our sayings. It does put a most serious obligation on whoever speaks in public or writes for public consumption because it influences the common fate; and sooner or later; but surely eventually, we all reap the results of our doing.

The second immensely important lesson to learn is the danger of overdoing. Even the best idea, even virtue and goodness, becomes a social poison if overdone. The great majority of today's intellectuals do not realize this, they are not even aware of the need for, and the use of, a sound scale of values and priorities, and we see the proof of this everywhere [14]. To protect us from making disastrous mistakes requires, here again, discipline!

The third thing we must always remember when we see that people do not think: They have to be told by those who do think! It has to be said a hundred times that the best way to improve things is not by relying on a different system, or by making changes in the structure of society, by delegating problems to others, to the state, or with more money – some of which is perhaps beneficial, ---  but nothing will work well if it leaves the same actors with their unawakened rationality and poor awareness of responsibility. The great social advance that we all wish must be gained by each member changing his own thinking! This is accomplished by doubt and asking each time, is this all that should be done? An absolutely necessary condition for improvements is, again, that we clearly recognize our own responsibility. As long as we take the easy excuse that “society” is at fault, we see this society from the wrong perspective and preclude all hope to improve it because society does not exist by itself, it is only the result of the actions of all of us.

Up to now, it was assumed that the immense wealth of our natural resources would not necessitate much worry about details, and the national mood was one of “generosity” (waste). However, conditions have changed and now, such generosity in the wrong place is a costly mistake. The best leader is the one who watches over the details and does not tolerate neglect anywhere. The same thing is true in the nation, except it is so huge a task that it must be taken up by every thinking person. We must advise, suggest, note the opportunities for improvement, and fulfill our unique role as defenders of the eternal values of mankind, i.e., truth, justice, and objective reason - because nobody else does it!
NOTES AND LITERATURE

[1] My aim in this essay is to contribute to a more balanced thinking concerning the assumptions that are in the background of our intellectual life. Our decision making is not as rational as we should wish; it is subjective and has emotional roots. In other words, Decisions are strongly influenced by the murky world of subjective forces that are, in turn, influenced by conscious thinking and change with it in close interaction. However, our basic opinion about all this is very often exclusively influenced by a science that, with considerable success, tries to find the secret of our existence in genes, education and environment. It does this, as science should, as objectively as possible via correlation, the performance of monozygotic twins, etc. A great overview of psychological research in this direction is available in Camilla Persson Benbow & David Lubinski (editors) (1986), Intellectual Talent. Psychometric and Social Issues. The Johns Hopkins University Press, (CPB). These essays by some thirty contributors are a treasure chest of facts and challenging ideas. The central part of my essay - the one that deals with the freedom of our individual decisions in the face of an assumed “determining” influence of genes and the powerful modern social environment - uses this work as a typical background, in addition to its numerous literature citations. We must acknowledge the evidence for the influence of the genes and the rest, but it is statistical. However, the individual motivation, an immensely important subject, cannot be understood statistically. For the connection of causality with statistics see, e.g., the excellent discussion by Wm. R. Dillon & M.Goldstein in Multivariate Analysis, Wiley 1984, ch. 12.1.1 (p. 431).

As demonstration for the needed extension in our views, we can model the efforts of a strict educational system to an attempt to change from the outside the temperature of a device that has a thermostat built in. This thermostat is the sum of the desires and interests of the young person who seeks his own experiences to fit his interests. What is being imposed from the outside will, if it does not meet his inclinations and depending on his strength, be left unused by the student, contribute to his frustration, or it can even have an effect opposite from the intended. Hence subjective aspects are indispensable as part of many theories, e.g., of how the environment can act in the “Experience Producing Drives” (the EPD, see CPB).

To bring illumination solely from the objective side into the psychological details is an exceedingly complex undertaking as is well documented in CPB.  It is clear today, that we have to credit the genetic factor with roughly 75% of the total observed variations. So, is the rest then due to the environment? Well, not quite; if it cannot be statistically pinned down, spurious numbers must be interpreted as accidental. But what is the origin of these variations? Just remember that all these numbers are statistics. In each specific case, a free (within limits) personal decision makes the difference. Their overall effect must show up as spurious variation.

It is difficult, but necessary to make clear the fact that most of what we experience subjectively, can in its effects be established objectively only by statistical investigations. One obvious reason is that a single subjective “fact” is worthless for science which must see consistent phenomena. A deeper reason is that the objective and the subjective world produce different aspects of basically the same things. These two play a role similar to what has been explained by Bohr in his principle of Complementarity [6]. It will, therefore, be often found that what cannot be explained well with one view, becomes clearer and can be better treated with the other. Our problem of making good decisions cannot be understood only objectivistically. A pure objective approach, as indispensable as it is generally, is here not much more than a groping in darkness.

Of course, critical minds can say that my aims are a rehash of the old New Humanism of the early 20th century. Well, my target is the same, but a century later, with the breakdown of Western intellectual culture much more obvious, it is more urgent to repair the damage. We have now more aspects of the problem in our view, and more ways to do deal with the problem.  On the other hand, the intellectual corruption may be more entrenched by having been accepted as an unavoidable part of our culture.

[2] In place of the well known concept of the I.Q., Factor Analysis in large scale psychological testing produces a variety of measures of cognitive ability. We can also understand intelligence, and model it, as being composed of factors such as memory, attention span, judgment, ability to derive general ideas from experience - but also energy of living, size of the vocabulary, speed of thinking, etc. However, psychology went beyond such concepts and the most objective method to arrive at estimates is based on the performance of the test subjects in a battery of tests which tax the mental abilities in as large a variety of problems as possible. Such test systems could consist of more than 100 different tests as used in Assessment Centers of large commercial efforts. When we conduct these tests on a large population of subjects, a huge system of performance numbers is the result.  Such a system can then be investigated as a set of numbers that are organized in the matrix of persons vs. test performance so that the mathematical analysis of its structure can reveal the existence of abstract factors to represent ability that go beyond the list given above. Unfortunately, they also go beyond our ability to attach an easily understandable meaning to most of these factors. We must remember that the meaning is only introduced through the choice of the tests and not through the mathematically derived factors of observed variance.

This development in psychology went into a direction opposite to the original idea of  Spearman (1904) who found a single factor, “g”,  denoted General Intelligence. His idea, a great advance at the time, became the unfortunate origin of much mischief committed in the practice with the notorious I.Q. One cannot reject applicants on the basis of a single abstract parameter that has no clear connection with the future job requirements. It goes against our humanity and the law to do it. It is very important that this be understood by the public. The essential idea we want to support strongly in this paper is that the intelligence we are seeking is a highly complex concept that cannot be measured simplistically and expressed in a single number.  See, e.g., Cattell, R. B. (ed) (1966), Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago. What is needed is a refinement and enlargement of the system of the primary concepts that refer to good judgment as a critical social ability. The numbers to represent it must be obtained on the basis of these concepts and the tests to be used for their measurement.

[3] Skinner, B. F. (1948), Walden Two, McMillan, New York, NY.  This description of a modern utopian community and its problems was followed later by another analysis of the modern social problems. This second work presents radical, shocking conclusions and even the title caused controversy: Skinner, B. F. (1971), Beyond Freedom and Dignity, Bantam Books, N.Y. The book is ingeniously conceived and is an outstanding example for the logical consequences of an extreme objectivist view (which is typical for scientism).  Skinner’s branch of psychology, Behaviorism, largely a creation of Watson and Skinner himself, has been cleverly criticized by Arthur Koestler in The Ghost in the Machine, on different grounds by Noam Chomsky, the MIT linguistic expert, and extensively by Aldous Huxley (1958), in Brave New World Revisited, Harper, Chapter XI. And yet, we must not ignore what is true in Skinner's impressive contribution and must search for a synthesis that takes into proper account what we can learn from the extremes.

[4]  Problems of Understanding.  In any population, one can, of course, see many different divisions. One basic division is due to the different preferences of people for the style, or mode with which they cope with their experiences. I see this behind many, if not most, of our political and social debates, including the "Warming" debate. They are grounded in the struggle of two different temperaments. Our opinions and positions when they are guided by basic attitudes cannot be changed so easily (if at all) and are not resolvable solely with reasoned arguments. We can see this problem across the total culture. The first temperament used to be the standard Male, and the second the Female attitude.  However, our modern culture, during the last forty years, has to a large degree confused the original distribution.

The first style was and is the driver of the old Faustian culture of going out, exploring and doing - it is the Active Preference. We say that if our technology leads us into trouble, we must improve it, i.e., we need more and better systems.  If we do not like our environment, we must change it or leave and seek a better one. If we see poverty, we try to educate people, improve their chances and increase the total social product. (And we should give good tips for good service!). Naturally, this attitude likes to depend on individual initiative, and liberty is much desired. The Active Style has brought Faustian man to America, to everywhere else, and even to the moon. It has also liberated Europe, it created unheard possibilities, better health and a much longer life.

Winston Churchill was a typical representative.  But it also requires sacrifices and has bad effects if people abuse their liberty. It brings hate to strong persons of this kind, not only because they are feared and might get us into trouble, which is frightening to weak persons. Churchill had been a much hated person before the war. He was called a war monger and considered arrogant. But he saved England and Europe, and not by mincing words. The Active Style is also behind the desire to strike preemptively. Let's not wait for the trouble, do something in time.  Fortes Fortuna adiuvat  is the old keynote.

Diametrically opposed to this is the Defensive Attitude or the Protective Style. While the source of the first is a feeling of strength, the basis for the second is fear, uncertainty, confusion and a perceived weakness. Approval, even love by others is therefore very important and becomes a goal by itself. If our technology is not working right, we should cripple it, or eliminate it as a danger to us, if we can. If our environment does not suit us, we complain and try to have the government change it, protect us and if necessary, do it by forcing the others. Of course, we fear war and should make war impossible by crippling our defense. If the others love us they will not attack us, and if we are being attacked, we must have done something wrong and negotiate quickly to yield. Moreover, the UN will protect us. Do nothing to antagonize the world! If we see poverty, we should take the money of the rich who must have gotten it by fraud anyway, and give it to the poor.  But, of course, we do not want to spend our own meager resources, because it is the function of the state to make everybody happy.  Preaching to the world is going to make it a better place. We will also be very cautious and will not help others because this would be too risky and get us involved. It is the function of some official body such as the UN to protect the weak. Since it is believed to be a scientifically supported attitude, man is considered the product of nature and nurture, therefore he is not responsible for his deeds or omissions which must be due to a bad "society". Of course, the "defenders" detest the death penalty, even though this is not very logical. (You can re-cycle a poorly performing machine.)  It would be the mission of the Protector, to brake excessive activity, i.e., to protect from excesses. But, unfortunately, the "Protector" is often braking and hindering the necessary and real progress because he is (deep inside) afraid of change, even if he likes to speak and demand it.  Real advances cannot be expected from him.

The fundamental problem of many leaders of this second type is that their weakness seduces them to ignore the old prescription for action, fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. Instead of acting firmly in the substance, but mild in the style of execution, they are mild, i.e., weak and yielding in the substance.  They cannot distinguish execution from the style of acting, and so cannot many of the critics. Exactly the opposite error, but for the same reason, is committed by leaders of the first type when they act with brutality, and needlessly antagonize people. Weakness also seduces people to avoid facing a problem because they fear too energetic an action will unleash worse things. The typical example is President Johnson's fear to unleash World War III.  However, no action is also a reaction with consequences. One has to take a stand, if one does not, one will be dragged into the problem with less influence than if one had take up the problem when the opportunity offered itself. WWII was in large measure caused by the reluctance of the Western leaders to confront Hitler when he first broke agreements. Later, the war became inevitable. America did not declare war, it was declared by Japan and Germany.  It was not a question of choice for the peace loving part.

The "Protective style", is exemplified presently by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Williams, who is willing to make any concession to preserve the social peace. It was also well represented by Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of Great Britain, who conferred with Adolf Hitler successfully by giving him everything. It is considered by its representatives to be the civilized attitude, compared to the first, which they call a barbaric attitude. The others call the weakness leftist and see it as typical for a decaying culture. But, as we saw, we may be confused - one has to differentiate style from substance!

It is easy to recognize how the two temperaments are at work and where they are represented, albeit not everywhere in a pure form. It is very hard, however, to find political approaches that can serve both, be effective and pacify the people so that we can have a more peaceful life.

Some difficulties in understanding can be overcome by deliberate efforts. To be able to see several different sides of a problem or situation is a great gift which, to some degree, can be awakened and improved! Jacques Barzun in his great opus From Dawn to Decadence (2000), calls it Double Vision. He also cautions that this gift can lead to “shilly-shallying” in the double-viewer’s course of action (see B’s discussion of Walter Bagehot, who did not fall into this trap). To be clear, this must not be confused with a pathological mental disturbance, such as Schizophrenia.  We must not only regard the problems from different sides (which every competent reasoner must be able to do), but in addition to alternate looks we hold both (or all) sides as true, and try to integrate these views into a whole. This is totally different and opposed to a pathetic schizophrenic disturbance of the observer himself. I prefer to understand it as (attempted) "total" view. It is an invaluable tool for deep understanding. For more on this see [7].

[5] The Freedom of the Will as a philosophical problem has been debated since at least Saint Augustine. In Christianity, between the two extremes of Pelagianism and the reformers Luther and Calvin - the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) has struggled with this problem longer than everybody else. The RCC takes somewhat of a middle position; presumably they felt that a pure Pelagianism without qualifications would be incompatible with the teaching of Original Sin, and with the palpable existence of evil in the world that was created by God. Pelagianism is the belief of the ability of man to see Good and Evil (due to eating from the Tree of Knowledge - eritis sicut deus, scientes bonum et malum, as the snake said to Eva), and to make free decisions. The responsibility for his choice is solely his. The reformers, on the other hand, claimed that the human soul is inherently flawed by original sin (which itself is not explained by this), and can only be saved by the Grace of God. God decides who will receive this grace, and we cannot complain about its absence or sue in court. It is vaguely believed that worldly success might be an indication for having received this grace (which becomes an unexpected ground for great motivation instead of short-sighted fatalism. It is the presumed source of Max Weber’s Protestant Work Ethic). The RCC, on the other hand, teaches that while the Divine Grace is indispensable, it must be accepted or can be rejected by the sinner. Therefore, it does return the ultimate responsibility to the individual (and we have no problem with explaining Original Sin which was an act of disobedience).

Naturalistically, we use the subjectivist concept of motives. In the mind, when it is torn between conflicting motives, the decision is influenced by leaning more one way instead of the other, as caused by preference, habit, and adopted values. The grace mentioned above appears then as a surge of mental power that brings into consciousness additional motives, or the clarification of an existing one, so that we can see a more valid aspect that can win us over. This surge cannot be related to any of the elements that are usually cited as parts of the genetic endowment or of the environmental influence. It is more realistically seen as coming randomly from the chaotic processes in the brain. However, training and habits are certainly a most important component. An influence can also come from external events such as good leadership that explains things. For each person, it means that he should take advantage of opportunities to receive such guidance.

Both sides in the debate have been taken with fervor:  strict determinism as well as perfect freedom have been stated by many secular thinkers. Our exposition is based in parts on ideas of Kant and Schopenhauer [12]. It is also influenced by the new way of looking at causality that has been forced on science by the results of the physics of atoms and elementary particles as dealt with in Quantum Mechanics. The ideas about relational qualities are a part of Niels Bohr's Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. They are revolutionary and have not even been accepted by many physicists who reject Bohr's view as incompatible with Realism. However and until now, all experiments have verified Bohr's ideas.  For more on this, see the essay "Why are polls .(..more)..".

[6] An example of how difficult it is to change many minds (unless we become prophets and ignite mass excitement with wild promises, a technique that has been used also by charismatic politicians), and for the frequent misunderstanding in management circles, is the fate that has befallen W. E. Deming's “Management Crusade” in the United States. People listened to him, often with great and enthusiastic assent, but when they returned to their job, most did everything the old way which showed that they really did not understand. The proof of a change of mind is only in new actions, not in the words, or the applause. Cold reason works only with gifted minds who have the burning desire to understand objective reason.

[7] Complementarity:  Niels Bohr used the complementarity principle in Quantum Mechanics. It bears upon our theme because in the examination of complex semi closed systems, we meet problems that are different from what conventional thinking would suggest. We can seek to describe the behavior of a system, by using complementary (opposite or incompatible) concepts as the basis of separate, complementary theories. The prime example is the use of complementarity with two models which are used to describe the phenomena of light: waves and particles. Phenomena such as the photoelectric effect can be described by using the particle concept, while interference is a typical wave phenomenon.

In a human example, imagine an individual, Jones, who is loving and competent with his wife, imperious and arbitrary with his children, courteous and conciliatory with his customers, but meek and indecisive with his superiors. These character features must be taken in a complementary sense; each in its domain of validity, because taken by themselves they are contradictory. For a description of Jones' "objective" attributes we must state them all, together with the conditions under which each acts. Therefore, fixed definite attributes do not reside as such in Jones because they are only relational. The various descriptions are appropriate tools of our intellect to describe and predict the behavior of the incumbent and we say that they are evoked by the specifics of his situation. (from Henry J. Folse, 1985, The Philosophy of Niels Bohr; The Framework of Complementarity. North Holland, Amsterdam.)

[8] The original spirit of socialism is scientism in the attempt to improve the poor man's fate in the context of 19th century materialism. With J.J. Rousseau, man is held to be good;  only society in its present (capitalist) form, makes him bad and must receive the blame for problems. In this, the ideology is mistaken in the basics and ignores what scientism ignores - our human core with motivation and values. A further mistake is to believe that a simplistic science can give all answers. By being exclusively objective, science cannot know how we make individual decisions. Unless we admit a subjective domain in which we are free, we are unrealistic and achieve the opposite of our goals. An exemple is the problem of alienation of the worker from his work due to the excessive division of labor caused by the capitalist concern with profits. Marx has actually pointed out this problem, but in the socialist realizations, the emphasis was moved entirely to the distribution of goods (as it still is in the propaganda of the neo socialists today) with a disastrous neglect of the resulting motivational problems of production. Even more important was a fundamental practical problem. By insisting on the central role of the state in social questions, the states where this has been achieved in a total socialist system, all have failed because the people who came to be the rulers, have not performed in an acceptable fashion. This is to be expected and is almost by necessity so. Centralization, I believe, is beyond the human capacity to manage. Socialists still refuse to realize this in spite of the experience of history which shows the scandalous failures of the communist regimes in the 20th century who left behind their countries as the worst polluters and in grinding poverty, while their military expenditures have been enormous. North Korea is still in this situation. They make nuclear weapons, but the people starve. The defenders of socialism explain these failures as due to the poor quality of the leaders. But this is exactly the problem. As long as we refuse to realize that the basic social problem of man is not one of organization but is right in the people themselves, we will not gain a better society. The latest example for the failure of the socialist spirit in a socialist country is in China. For the purpose of unprecedented aggrandizement of their state they spent 44 billion Dollars, not for the poor, not for social betterment in a people that has seen the most desperate poverty. No, this enormous sum was spent by China for the Olympic Games 2008!

[9] That some irrationality is unavoidable in social systems was demonstrated by Kenneth Arrow when he showed (1951) that rationality cannot necessarily be maintained in settings of human interaction. In a simple example, suppose a committee of three has to rank three projects, a, b, and c, by priority and sequence of execution. Suppose the three members select the following sequences of the projects to be abc, bca, and cab, respectively. By taking the relative rankings of all pairs of projects, one can then obtain the paired sequences ab, bc, and ca as the majority preference for the sequence of execution, each pair having been chosen twice. But this violates transitivity and is irrational! And yet it is the result of a rational procedure. If we insist that pair preferences must be obtained in a rational way, majority rule cannot be used. As alternative we can insist on majority rule and accept the irrationality of the outcome at the price that it will make us vulnerable to accusations of being irrational. This would be a serious problem because of the need for compromises. The project may even have to be canceled. People do not accept irrationality because they equate it with managerial incompetence.

We must accept the consequences of Arrow’s conclusion and need to approach our management and political problems in ways that are much more sophisticated than engineering problems, i.e., by reaching agreement about the procedure as the first thing for management to do. Kenneth Arrow's committee example seems strange and we wonder why this irrationality must be expected. This finding is devastating to anointed rationalists because it reveals that their fundamental concept of the world is wrong. Irrationality grows as the system grows in complexity because, as obvious in Arrow’s example, it is the individually independent and mutually inconsistent valuation which causes the irrationality. Such votes cannot be consistently averaged. A human society is a huge system of minds, each of which has mutually inconsistent individual drives, and engages in actions which cannot be forced to agree without violating freedom and all kinds of rational principles.

If we meditate about the world at large by following this thought we realize that we cannot hope to create an overall rational picture of the world - it is beyond reason at large. Even worse is that any control of a social system by using strict rationality extracts a price in the form of additional irrationality in the system - akin and related to an unavoidable increase of Entropy in thermodynamic processes. This is also the reason why metaphysical, or political systems to the extent that they try to explain, or to control (!) too much of the world at large, become unavoidably irrational. Hence, rationality cannot be driven very far in human systems.

Of course, if ever (we hope not!) a totalitarian force would dominate the whole earth (as it seems to be the dream of the pacifists), there would be peace, but also no freedom, only absolute force, total irrationality, and total injustice. We should keep this in mind if we seek to improve things in an overall, centralist way. We face a problem in principle. Genuine social improvements are only possible with a maximum of individual freedom and those who try to improve social conditions mainly by systemic means, instead of being saviors of mankind, will always in the end create a human hell with greatest injustice and loss of freedom.

Looking at it in another way, we can see that a perfect bureaucratic system, as a social system that is operated rationally according to strict inflexible rules, cannot work. Every rule requires for its practical use an interpretation to take care of the details which, again, requires additional rules (M. Polanyi). All of which eventually, and due to the gradual, mutually independent growth of rules and regulations - by itself a process without end - becomes a totally inconsistent, an irrational system. Finally, a state of affairs is reached when the outcome of a decision (abstractly, the system response to a stimulus) becomes dependent upon purely accidental details, and can be completely different in nearly identical cases. Therefore, our social system is chaotic!  Cases are rarely clear cut in our judicial system of many applicable laws of various origins and inconsistent purposes. Often, in the face of various different precedents the outcome depends on individual accidental choices, interpretations, personal preferences, external settings and, most important, the amount of money available to the contestants. Therefore, justice cannot be reached with ever more and stricter laws, quite to the contrary - the results of individual cases become more and more irrational. The more complicated such a system and the stricter the laws, the more injustice is the consequence. This wisdom is ancient and is a case of the general Reversal principle:  Summum ius, summa iniuria.

[10]  EPR  refers to the famous paper by Einstein, Podolski and Rosen in which they argued that a complete description in the sense of Realism required that the speciffic reactive property reside in the object even before the experiment. This has been shown to be incompatible with actual experimental results which support Bohr's view (see [7]).

[11] Limitations of our mind. We need to be suspicious in our analyses. The world has an enormously greater variety than what we can imagine. Certainty is not helpful; it leads to intellectual arrogance. On the other hand, insecurity is a crippling weakness. To find your way between these two requires a trained character with fortitude, strong and secure enough to persist with questioning. And we must remember the severe limitations of the individual mind. These come into play particularly in all cases where we deal with ill defined concepts that have not been, or cannot be, put into mathematical form. We face three major problems.

Our mind can produce only a one dimensional experience (a succession of vague “images”). The world is four dimensional. While we concentrate on one thing, an infinity of events takes place - everywhere!

A second problem is the link of our “old” brain with the cerebrum. This makes our judgment vulnerable to emotions and colors the relative weight we give to the various factors, in a totally uncontrolled way.

A third limitation is that we can only compare a few items in the mind at any one time. We must return to each factor over and over again. Only the one that is momentarily present, has a high weight that is still influenced by emotional factors.

[12] Immanuel Kant, by separating the problems, solved the puzzle of a freedom of the will that seemed incompatible with causal necessity. He postulated for this purpose two different characters: the Intelligible (metaphysical) character that we have by deciding who we want to be; and the Empirical character as it is revealed in the deeds during life. Only the basic choice is our free decision, because on the basis of this decision, our actions are then the necessary consequences of the character that came about because of this decision.

This solution, to place the freedom into our existence and maintain necessity for the deeds, while ingenious, seems artificial. But it is true, everything we do follows the same necessity as the rest of nature, while who we want to be is our free decision. This is on a different level, has (nearly) nothing to do with causality and is not an action.  Neither Kant nor Schopenhauer are clear, however, how we decide this (it is placed into metaphysics, outside time). We also have to deal here with Kant's somewhat misleading nomenclature. Arthur Schopenhauer developed further and more clearly Kant's thought which was also obscured by a difficult and ancient style. In contrast, Schopenhauer's brilliant writings, especially his Preisschrift über die Freiheit des Willens, are an outstanding exposition and indispensable for the study of the problem. It is advisable, however, to read his work by updating in your mind some of his concepts and wording. An improved understanding is possible today on the basis of the work of Niels Bohr, Heisenberg, Wigner, Schrödinger, and other pioneers of Quantum Theory. The objects of this theory and our soul are semi closed systems with internal processes that are inaccessible between interactions with the external word, which causes similar difficulties of understanding and description.

Our key idea has to be the gradual growth of the person in the presence of quantum indeterminacy. This, with self-awareness and the selective memory, takes the problem radically out from all determinism and opens the door to freedom. Finally, we postulate the soul as a quasi stationary process that grows into freedom and, because it has self-awareness, can be held responsible for its decisions. Together, these ideas replace the sharp, but unrealistic dichotomy of the concepts “free” vs. “causally determined” - with a process that, while complicated, can incorporate both seemingly incompatible aspects, each where it should be.

[13]  An excellent discussion on Economics is in Wikipedia (Economics).  The ability of the human mind to be taken in so easily by group think is of overriding importance. If one observes the scenes at the stock exchange, one cannot resist the belief that these people are infected by a truly pathetic hysteria in their efforts to make more and more money. Theories that assume any kind of equilibrium in the economies of the world are just too unrealistic. The process is chaotic and subject to avalanches of sudden reversals caused often by transient news of minor importance. The instantaneous communication and increasng global integration are, here again, potential sources of danger. I believe, therefore that the psychological aspects are of predominant importance and that the ideas of the Austrian School are particularly pertinent (Austrians).

[14]  Many of the paradoxical Consequences of Excess are well known:  Excessive concern with utility leads to waste in the Paradox of Utility. -  Actions to liberate people by giving them more freedom, if not checked by laws and traditions, lead to an excess of freedom. This brings about a tyranny and is known as the Paradox of Freedom.

Too much tolerance in the Paradox of Tolerance leads to loss of tolerance. By being tolerant with the intolerant they will, as soon as they can, suppress the tolerant. In order to preserve tolerance, we must except from tolerance those who, by preaching intolerance, put themselves outside the community. (No rule can have total and unconditional validity!).  - The Paradox of Democracy arrives when the majority, in the immature belief that they can decide anything, decide that a tyrant should rule, who promptly abolishes democracy.

The all-too-frequent habit of bright people to force their intelligence in frivolous or cynical ways in order to attract attention instead of using it productively with discipline, produces the Paradox of Intellectual Impotence.

Experience teaches that those who aim directly at happiness do not find it; but those who follow a purpose apart from happiness may find it as a “fringe benefit.”  This is the noted Paradox of Hedonism.

Finally, too many laws lead to lawlessness and greatest injustice, which has been known since antiquity as summum ius, summa iniuria.

 Copyright @2005 by Gernot M. R. Winkler       Last correction, augmented in the notes  11/06/2009