by
Gernot M. R. Winkler

ABSTRACT

Self development? Yes, because it is most important for us, for our society, and for our employer. It is also easier than improving anything else because we are closer to ourselves than to anybody else. The key is a change in the perception of ourselves and the environment. The problem of motivation is that people think that they are causally determined - by heredity and environment and, therefore, we cannot be free in our decisions. But, while it is an excuse, it is not true: we are free in our decisions if we have a choice. The apparent paradox of this freedom in a causally determined world is most important to understand because if we do then we are indeed responsible. Details of the Mind Body problem are explained, and the logical consequences of its resolution in terms of Bohr's complementarity. We discuss how to understand the Self for much better ways of how to deal with it. What is best for us; do we really know? Life without goals is but a random walk. Specific suggestions on saving time and energy. Intellectual training, strategies for work in organizations. Can we really improve our I. Q.? Can we improve reasoning? Can we improve our character?? Can we be a different person??? The answer to all of these is yes!

SELF DEVELOPMENT

by
Gernot M. R. Winkler

Lecture Notes

The most important thing in the world is undoubtedly my own advance. This must be so because our system is predicated upon the belief that the greatest benefit will come to all if everyone acts in his best interest. The key question is: What is my best interest?  My advance is the easiest thing in the world and it is the most promising enterprise. I have more influence over myself than over any other matter. If I cannot convince myself, if I cannot control myself, how can I expect to do so with others? Yet when we look around we find nearly everybody concerned about others, about society, and few worry about themselves. The following is the result of my worrying about this question for my own sake; and I think that it may also interest others (1).

My advance is the most important thing for me because life is becoming more and more complicated and whatever mental skills I have will help me with whatever I do. Moreover, even in my present job, chances are that I am not really qualified for it. As Peter (2) has pointed out, most people get into a position beyond their capability (estimates are that more than 90% are in this category; that is why there are so many incompetents everywhere, reporters, doctors, lawyers, supervisors, and of course, astronomers) (3). Since I am  most likely incompetent, I feel that improving my qualifications will remove the cause for feelings of insufficiency, feelings which are there even if I do not always admit it to myself.

My advance is the most important thing for my society. Most, if not all, of the ills of modern life are caused by the insufficient application of intelligence. One can easily demonstrate, e.g., that more trained intelligence would provide the ideas and the solid judgments which we need to employ and fully occupy 20 million more people. We mean here not only those who are unemployed because nobody knows what to do with them, but also those who are without guidance on their present job (this is why many jobs are boring and are so poorly done). (4). Unemployment is primarily an intellectual problem, money is secondary because a bank will issue it if there is a promising purpose. Many economists and certainly most politicians do not seem to appreciate that our greatest needs are intellectual and motivational. Indeed, spending  money without good ideas is not only ineffective, it is wasting precious resources.

Finally, my advance is a very important thing for my employer because people who are bored on the job must be paid by him for doing a job that could be much more effective.

For all these reasons we can agree that personal advancement is most important, yet the general tendency is to accept whatever fate brings along. However, if I stop at the point where fate has put me, if I drift under the always changing push of the environment, then I cannot claim to be a person; I am merely a complicated machine. One could say that the degree of being a person is commensurate with the degree of self-control.

Consider this: If one feels bewildered, alienated, frustrated, insecure, helpless, and "atomized" then he has four options, listed in decreasing order of common preference but with increasing probability of success:

1. Do nothing, but suffer and complain.
2. Try to change the things or the people who bother you.
3. Leave (i.e., walk away from trouble).
4. Change your own perception.

As I remember, I have only been successful  if I used policy 3 or 4. And I was particularly unhappy when others tried to change me. If one reads of people "trapped in organizations" then this is nonsense; they are trapped in their own set of mind. In fact, we observe a strange paradox when we compare the situation in our culture with life in totalitarian regimes. Since policy number one perpetuates the state of unhappiness, and two is impossible under such regimes, many try to leave at all cost. The others turn inward and escape this way. Here, on the other side, we see a degree of freedom and opportunity that is unprecedented in history. And yet we see this freedom abused by People who lack motivation. As a result, we see hordes of people who are bored! It must be due, at least in part, to a saturation with consumption. They might suffer from an "information" overload that has made them blasé.

Now, when we talk of self development, what do we actually mean? We mean the improvement of our intellectual tools. Not only the tricks of the mind, but also the understanding of where we stand in the world. How we see the world makes a difference in how we can deal with an unforeseen situation. We want to enlarge our vision so that we can appreciate the far consequences of our actions and of the actions of others. This will accomplish the second, and much more important objective, a change in our attitude. All of this we desire in the interest of our happiness and the happiness of those who deal with us.

How do I start with this important project? How is it that my resolutions usually fail the very next day? How could I overcome this? There are many answers, but people find most of them confusing, obviously not effective (because there are so many who do not work on themselves). They are dependent on a particular religious belief that we cannot use for a discussion involving everybody. However, being a scientist I found a purely secular way of looking at the problem. It was useful for myself and I believe that it contains a good deal of truth: What is needed is a radical change in outlook; my actions will become different if I perceive myself and the world differently.

Now the first thing to note is that as obvious the need for self development is, equally obvious is the fact that many people do not see this clearly enough to induce action. Why? The symptoms are that a large group is somehow depressed. The core of such symptoms is an ambivalence to what we value most highly, progressing even to hidden hostility. This in turn produces guilt feelings. However, excuses can always be found due to the widely accepted thesis that we are the helpless subjects, the victims of the circumstances. If it is that serious, the first suggestion must be for getting professional counsel. But, of course, if we are to lead others there is much more to consider:

AN OLD PROBLEM:

The central problem for civilized life is the question just posed as to whether we are causally determined through inherited traits and the environment and not really responsible for our acts. In the past this only worried the theologians as to how one could reconcile the thesis of creation - which implies a created character and disposition - with personal responsibility. Today this problem is even more acute due to the success of a science for which everything is causally determined. Is there any place for reasons? Are they causes? In that case we would be determined exactly like a machine. What a wonderful excuse that is because now one could let himself go because "we can't help it"!

THE TWO ASPECTS OF REALITY,
the Subjective and the Objective

The answer is that indeed reasons are a special form of causes that determine our decisions but this does not necessarily make us into machines. The resolution of this apparent paradox is that these concepts belong to different world views which we must not mix up. In order to overcome confusion one must get used to a clear distinction of two entirely different aspects of the world: the subjective and the objective view. The subjective view is the object of study in psychology. If I have a tooth ache, this is a subjective experience. The objective view is the field of all sciences. Both views are equally important! As natural scientists we are predisposed to assign reality only to the second aspect, but that is far too limiting for our life. Both views are equally justified (actually the subjective aspect is more fundamental for making decisions). Both are necessary to obtain a realistic view of the totality of experience which is to include the problem of human values. This is distinctly different from the commonly accepted view that reality is only to be granted to the physical happenings outside me, but this idea ignores the origin of all human action.

It must ignore it because objective science relates one phenomenon only to a second, similar one and the observer has to judge their equality or the degree of inequality; he himself drops out. This is the reason for the often praised objectivity of science. But it is strange that one should so completely forget that we have excluded ourselves from the objective picture of the world that we are unaware that we, in the function of being the observer, have as much part of the ultimate reality as the physical universe around us.  After all, I, as a person with feelings and consciousness, I am as much a part of the universe as a star. I am probably the most complicated thing in the universe, so I am important. I am the most important part because only I have choices and must make decisions with judgment, everything else goes on like a machine. Therefore I have responsibility for my acts; stars do not have a responsibility for their gravitational field. It simply is the unconscious result of their existence. They have no choice but I do. If I do not do the necessary, nobody else will be able to do it because only I have the most pertinent facts; that is the origin of my responsibility. I am responsible because I have a choice (5).

Objectively, however, the picture is exactly the opposite: I am a completely unimportant, the most expendable part of the universe because nature does not care whether I exist or not, there are zillions of other living beings which will replace me in a moment. Nature is wasteful, thoughtless and merciless. I have appeared from nowhere and after a few moments I will have disappeared like a ghost and my role is not more exalted than a microbe's among an uncountable number of other microbes which come and go in every moment of time (6). Moreover, my actions are statistically predictable. This view is the origin for my modesty and humility.

It seems clear that only in combination, as dialectical opposites, the two views can lead to a sane existence. Alone by itself either view would be a disaster. This is the major reason why materialism, either consciously or unconsciously adopted, is such a life threatening and unrealistic idea. If I am only a machine then I can not be worth anything and I am indeed disposable and can be treated like a piece of junk (or garbage as Kurt Vonnegut says). But I refuse to consider myself as a machine which is only subject to the facts of its design and the environment; I know that I can decide as I want. I have free will; if I feel remorse then this is so because I know very well that I could have acted differently. This is what one understands by "having a choice".

Those who explain things only on the basis of the objective view are prone to fall into the trap of ignoring or misunderstanding personal responsibility (7), and then they adopt impossible policies because they cannot see how one could be responsible for an act if one has a nature given by heredity and an environment, and cannot be blamed for either. However, as we said before, this is confusion (even though it is an effective excuse). We are mixing here two different domains. Responsibility is not part of the objective world view. Physics cannot deal with this because it excluded at every step all subjective elements of experience. Only the subjective view can and must deal with it and here the answer is clear: I have freedom of choice and therefore I am responsible for my deeds of commission or omission (if I fail to take necessary action when I should). What objectively is the causally determined result of the interaction of my character with the motives given by the situation, is subjectively the result of my free choice.

The deep reason for this apparent paradox is that I do not know my character, it is revealed only by my action. I do not really know what I am going to do until I have done it, and then I know a little more about who I really am. And I know quite well that I could have acted differently (and then I would be a different person; a person well regarded instead of despised, etc.). I cannot deny that I have this choice because I feel guilty if I did the wrong thing. My character as it is revealed by my actions is then in this sense my own doing and I am fully responsible for the kind of person I am. I could be a different person if I acted differently and as far as I have the choice in each instance, I am responsible for the kind of person I will be revealed to be by my actions (8). On the other hand, we see the "inside" of causation at the moment of decision: it is the creative, free act of my will. In the objective view there is no freedom, as there is no creation; only causality. Subjectively, we know that we decide and by choosing we create the next moment.

This is how even strict causality (which does not exist perfectly in nature anyway, certainly not in quantum mechanics) is entirely compatible with a free will. The two simply belong to different views and must not be mixed up in their application when we try to sort things out. But mixing up is a common error. We even mix metaphors without being aware of it. The two aspects are strictly complementary in Bohr's sense; in exactly the same sense in which we accept the complementarity of particles with the wave picture. Without this realization one is unable to resolve Townes's paradox (9). Incidentally, in the case of the photon one must be equally careful in not mixing the models, e.g., trying to explain the Compton effect with the wave theory, etc.

Moreover, the world is more than just atoms and particles. That is only one picture which explains a great deal of the objective world in terms of other objects, but it leaves me out in the interest of simplification of the picture. This is an excellent technique and has been most successful. A grave error arises, however, when we assign absolute and exclusive reality to the picture without remembering how it was obtained. In contrast to the simplistic ideas of popular science, a more realistic view must assume an infinity of detail which we can never exhaust in a finite amount of data collection. Even the mind, which looks so familiar (and simple) to us, is only the surface. Below this surface there is another world of which we only occasionally get glimpses. Only a vanishingly small part is available for introspection. Similarly, only a vanishingly small part of the objective world can be sampled. Therefore the pictures and models based on these samples are just hints of reality, shadows sufficient for some predictions and orientation but they must not be taken as the Thing itself.

How then does this help me getting my life under control? By clearly understanding these two aspects, and by keeping them in their respective place, we can see our position and what is good more realistically. Socrates has held that if one could only clearly see what is good for him, he could not help but doing what is necessary to get what is really good. In other words, action is easier if we more clearly see the facts as they affect our existence. In this curious way, ignorance is a hindrance and as a first step in our own education we must see what we can do about it. Or, again in other words, we must recognize the overriding importance of truth, of seeing the world as it really is. This is not so easy in our world where appearance is more valued than substance (because lazy, and therefore stupid, sloppy minds cannot, or refuse to, see the substance. They prefer the pleasing appearance).

THE TWO MAIN  LAYERS OF THE SELF.

Subjectively we know quite well that our conscious intelligence is rather helpless when it comes to resist a temptation or to push us into action. We may know very well that we are lazy or that the desire we feel is bad for us in the long run, but the decision is made the wrong way very often and we yield to our later detriment. Why? The reason is that intelligence is only a servant to the life force in us which we call the id. It is deep in our sub consciousness but, by itself, is quite blind and stupid. The objective reason for this is that it was the stomach which developed a brain to get it more food and not the other way around. This is reflected in the anatomy of the brain and in the history of evolution. If we want to deal effectively with ourselves then we are in the often experienced situation of being highly intelligent but having a stupid, egoistic, boss. How does one deal with such a situation? People with experience know! One has to use his utmost intelligence. Use every conceivable motive, explain it plastically and with color to your idiotic boss then he will eventually do what you see clearly that it is good for the two of you. And do not forget to give him his due, but only his due! By this we mean that a complete concept of man cannot ignore the fact that we have a physical basis without which life is impossible. To starve your "id" in any form is not the way to a full, harmonious life ("id" is the Freudian term for the subconscious Self). But there is a vast and important difference between approving your body's essential functions within the conditions of social life and a life which is directed only at these functions. One eats to live and not the other way around. In addition, however, the "id" must be allowed to have some egoistic satisfactions from time to time. But that is exactly why one has to induce it to earn these with accomplishments. Otherwise it will be warped into sick and illusory satisfactions which we can see so clearly in other persons but have difficulty in recognizing in our own case. Lastly we need some very ideal satisfactions. This is the most important part of our needs even though, under the present materialistically oriented conditions this is not much recognized ("man does not live by bread alone"). There is no better way to satisfy these needs than by doing one's best with effort wherever we find ourselves placed by fate.

The recipe is then to make yourself a list of the reasons, invent very impressive scenarios of the consequences and learn them by heart for use whenever the "id" is tempted. And by all means do not expose that stupid id of yours to such temptations for which you know that it will yield. This ought to be a platitude but, judging from practical experience, it is not. It is much easier to make a decision before the moment of choice arrives. The reason is simple: The "boss", being stupid, cannot see things in the future. Therefore you can make up your mind quietly and rationally without his bias trying to influence the decision. This allows you to decide things with the long range benefits in mind. When the moment of execution comes, you do quickly what you decided before and somehow manage to pacify the boss.

Objectively, the situation is as explained by Arthur Koestler in his "Ghost in the Machine" :  we unfortunately have an insufficient coordination between our higher brain centers and the old brain, which is still functioning like the brain of the reptiles. In Koestler's terms, man is the only species which has received an organ from nature which he does not know how to use, i.e. the higher brain, the cortex, a marvel in nature but without sufficient lines of communications to the center of operations to allow it more direct influence (10).

At any rate, in the modern world ignorance is hardly excusable; in fact, it is  culpable if one is a supervisor, manager or leader of any kind who must take decisions which affect many other people. Every act is in some way a leap in the dark since one can never be sure of the consequences. But action with more information on hand, with a wider view of what could happen, is likely to be more successful than otherwise. To carry responsibility for others is a heavy load indeed because the making of arrogant decisions without having made every possible effort to understand the likely consequences is simply an irresponsible negligence. This evil doing will soon give rise to grave self reproach in those who have wasted their time with frivolous things instead of using every opportunity to prepare, to educate themselves. But, this awe inspiring responsibility is actually shared by every citizen in an effective democracy because they make a momentous decision when they elect their leader. Complaining about the state of affairs is an act of hypocrisy unless every effort is made in one's own yard. Since it is so difficult to remember this, it could be made a habit to stop whenever we find ourselves starting to complain. Stop and think what you would do if you were the deciding person!

To combat one's ignorance is, however, harder than it seems at first sight. To be valuable, knowledge must be as objective as possible, i.e., free from bias and prejudice. But that is exactly the problem because one can not put reliance upon the media or even upon the educational institutions, but must push for intellectual independence. This is nowhere more needed than in our mass society because the media are hotbeds of intellectual fads, i.e., fashions, superficialities and prejudices. But assume we learn how to deal with this, we still must consider a second, even more important point.

Our culture, like any other, is in need of scrutiny and reform. However serious the first, the second cannot be accomplished by an overall design; this has always produced upheavals with results a hundred times worse than what was to be corrected. Remember the efforts of the philosophes in the eighteenth century to educate and liberate their world. The institutionalized result has been the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars; the replacing of the corrupt Czarist regime led eventually to Stalinism; overturning the imperialism in Iran led to Khomeini's medieval terror; etc. Lasting cultural reform can only come from personal development, from the "inside". One can also say that culture must grow, it cannot be designed. In other words, each one of us, as a thinking individual, is responsible for reform and cultural development; institutions can't do this well. Furthermore, with continuing progress in our civilization, the total amount of "know-how" available collectively (in the form of books, and information stored in computers) is steadily increasing in quantity and sophistication, whereas the individual competence is actually declining and more and more restricted to a small minority of those who took the trouble of working on their own education and training. One more reason why we have to worry about the individual's ability to benefit from the wealth of available information rather than just being depressed and discouraged.

Today our problem is not poverty, corruption, poor leadership, etc. These are the results not the reasons. Our problem today is an increasing mismatch of a weakening intellect (in part under the influence of the media where everything is designed for the maximum number of users) with an increasingly complex and artificial world. Norbert Wiener has already seen this problem (11). This mismatch is a major reason for the frequent feelings of helplessness. It is also the reason for our self inflicted catastrophes. Now who is responsible for our education as adults, the President? Congress? Our boss?

THE THREE CHARACTERS.

Our behavior can be explained objectively, i.e., causally, as the result of an interplay of the environmental stimuli with the character, i.e., motives for the character to act. The character is therefore a concept similar to the transfer function in systems theory. Schopenhauer discusses in detail the theory that we can look at ourselves as having actually three features in our character:

a. The intelligible character (Kant's term for the metaphysical character.)
b. The empirical character (as it is revealed by our actions).
c. The acquired character (a set of habits, a pattern of behavior acquired due to our experience of ourselves).

In simple terms we say that a. is what we innermost want to be. We do not usually know clearly what we want to be but there is always an ideal concept we unconsciously try to emulate. It is nearly indestructible, this ideal "concept"! Only the most profound experiences can change it in a conversion or "re-birth". It cannot be changed from the "outside", one can only change oneself. We do not know how it is formed but it seems that early influences play a great role. These influences act by providing models for behavior and standards for judgment of such behavior. But this is a hypothesis, still contended by experts. Moreover, the selection of a model for our behavior is our free choice. It is a fact (from twin research) that even identical genetic backgrounds allow an incredible latitude of choices. Whatever our model for behavior, we would  never question whether our decision was right or wrong, stupid or intelligent, reasonable or foolish, because the "Id" does not allow  questioning because it is indeed a stupid, primitive boss as we mentioned before. At any rate, this "idea" of ourselves (character a of above) is the "system transfer function", the basis for our reaction to the various motives.

While the metaphysical character is the vehicle for converting motives into actions, we can learn only from hindsight what that character actually is. Objectively, the character in conjunction with the motives produces the act; but subjectively seen, my acts do not reveal, they create my character. Only from our actual performance can we see what we are becoming (and then we are shocked or pleased, as the case may be). This empirically revealed character we try to keep somewhat hidden from careful analysis; much to our detriment because only information can lead to betterment. Or do we believe that our fate will improve automatically? Certainly not. Unless I realize, e.g., that I am lazy, I cannot take steps to correct this deficiency.

If, therefore, we do give an account of our actions to ourselves then we become conscious of what we can achieve and what brings us in trouble. This is what over time, we acquire with well considered experience; an acquired character, which is seen by others as consistent, reliable behavior. The only way to obtain it, however, is by weathering experiences. There is no theoretical way, unfortunately, to find out about ourselves. We can find out about our basic behavior tendencies, however. It is in a laboratory setting where an artificial experience in the form of tests is created. If you have the opportunity to obtain professional counsel by a psychologist with considerable experience, this would be most helpful (if you believe and follow his advice). He can indeed discover your basic traits with a battery of tests.

Just to give an example for the importance of this information: Introverts are believed to have a higher cortical stimulation than extroverts (12). Similarly there are many other differences which bear upon the choice of what to do in life. Many of the most creative scientists are introverts. It is clear that for them to become managers is not, in general, a good idea. To realize that before one learns it the hard way would be a great benefit (13). Another fundamental behavior trait would be your preference, or not, for frequent changes vs. routine work. There are many who prefer as few changes as possible. They would be wrong to seek jobs where new problems come up every day. One has to make a choice. Do I want power? (go into politics). Do I want a life of study and problem solving? (become a scientist) (14). Do I want a life of problem solving and creation with others? (become an engineer). Do I want to argue with people? (become a lawyer). Do I want to project my personality? (become an artist, speaker, salesman). If I prefer to work manually and create physical things, then by all means I ought to be a craftsman. This is well known, of course. However, it is not generally observed and many, many people are in professions for which they have little aptitude or liking (15). Suppose now you realize that your development has to start with a change of environment. Good, that may be a fine idea, anyway. Some change from time to time is most stimulating. The obviously important thing is to know in which direction the change should be attempted to match your goals and capabilities so that the second choice is more rational than the first has been.

If we know a little about our strong and weak points, then we can design a strategy for future behavior. A most useful tool is the self training into a set of habits. Habits save you from having to constantly deal with that stupid boss of yours. With a good habit, he will not even be aware that he is being tricked (because we deal only with blind desires they should, like dogs, better be left sleeping). Habits will develop almost automatically if you firmly adopt some principles of action.

WHAT IS BEST FOR US.

First a clarification. By best, good, or bad, we use the standard of ultimate utility. A reaction is good, or healthy, if it helped us in the long run. A friend once objected to this and said that there was no generally accepted standard for deciding what is healthy or good. There is a confusion behind this rather frequent comment. There is no question that there are different customs, different concepts of health, but everywhere there is some standard, some concept of health. For our purpose it is sufficient to consider an act good for us if its long range consequences will continue to please us. We are healthy if we can cope effectively with the world. In the design of a strategy for better behavior, we must first solve a real problem. We must sort out what we really want. That may be the most difficult problem when we are young because we don't yet have an acquired character. One thing seems clear, we want to become happy. But what is that happiness? We cannot hope in these short notes to achieve more than just scratch the surface of this question which is as old as conscious existence. But those who are happy, know it; and those who are not, know it also. So let us ask those who give the appearance of happiness. Then we find that happiness is quiet rather than exuberant. So we must not confuse happiness with ecstasy. Ecstasy is wonderful but it cannot possibly be sustained. After ecstasy there is always a period of recuperation to normalcy.

Aristotle teaches that happiness is the state of an individual in which all the capabilities can be most fully utilized. Friedrich v. Schiller's idea is Happy is he, who to enjoy does not need to do wrong, and to do the right, does not need to sacrifice. In contrast, I for myself say that happiness is having found "a fitting station in life". A misfit can be either too demanding or too frustrating. But it seems to me that real happiness is not available without being in a state of peace with the universe. This is mainly a question of attitude which one must reach but it is also necessary, in addition to some other things, that we see the "automatic" justice in the world. By this we mean that everything has its necessary consequences which come "automatically" because of an inner necessity. It amazes me over and over again when I observe people as they eventually, but unavoidably, reap the fruits of their actions. This is a natural law just in the same sense as the physical laws which we know from physics or chemistry. When we bring two different substances together, e.g., then we will get the same reaction, each time. The same thing happens with people of different characters. (Each one is still free to change, but then he will be a different person, a very, very rare occurrence but possible. The lawfulness and predictability are therefore only statistical). Out of this structural necessity comes the justice we mentioned. One gets what one has prepared, but because our intelligence is too limited, we do not see that in advance. Wiener (11) tells the story of the monkey's paw about the unintended consequences of what we wish. But for the most beautiful exposition I know, I can only refer you to Emerson's Essay on "Compensation" where he explains in detail the justice in the world in the way in which things develop out of their own inner nature.

Humanity gets what it has prepared. We are not sufficiently aware of the incredible brutalities, irresponsibilities, ignorance, laziness and greed to see the origin of the suffering clearly. We also are not aware of the “punishments” which do come. Everything is done to hide those. But punishment does come, there are countless proofs which show that those who violate a "divine" rule, have to take the consequences. The Greeks already knew: these laws produce the consequences out of an inner necessity. On the other hand, many rewards are ineffective as motives for action; the best rewards come only as fringe benefits. The reason is the deep principle that complicated things have the tendency to turn the effects into the opposite of what was intended. We all know of the rich who spend their wealth in the vain attempt to fill the emptiness of their life, or to cure the disease acquired in collecting the wealth. One must remember, the "justice" is not a human one. It is inexorable, merciless and very often, strange and unintelligible for us. If one misses rewards, then one has not done the right thing, or too ambitiously, because the way to happiness is not direct. The pursuit of it cannot be done at 60 miles per hour. One has no claim on it. It rather comes as a fringe benefit for benevolent, rational, and dutiful behavior. Emerson's essay is worthy to be studied and so is History. In doing so, one gradually develops at first an intuition, and later the clear vision for the far and inexorable consequences of all human action. It is from this vision, from deep understanding, that genuine morality comes: A morality which dictates action when necessary, and restraint when action would only serve frivolous purposes. This is the right way to happiness, to whatever happiness is available to us, but it can't be found without an effort to acquire that vision and understanding; at least it can't be found without some self sacrifice. Even those who suffer without cause of their own, if they accept fate, reach that state - but in this case, may be, it should not be called happiness but salvation.

So, if I want to develop my potential to the fullest, how do I go about it? By many very small but persistent steps.

LIFE IS A RANDOM WALK,
 unless guided by a firm character.

We make hundreds of decisions every day. Without a plan and consistency in our behavior, our life is a random walk. Any consistency, even partial consistency, brings direction into our life. Where we will find ourselves ten years from now is the result of the principles which we adopt for action.

The most important of these principles seems to me is a decision to wake up. There is hardly a question that most of what goes on during the day is not the result of clear, conscious decision, but is the action of sleep walkers; many may be rushing about, but there is no time or energy left for thinking; many never seem to be really fully awake. Watch yourself and determine the degree of conscious involvement, the degree of alertness during your day. If you are honest with yourself, you will be shocked (before you fall asleep again in the absence of firmly established habits). One can and must train oneself to be fully alert at every moment. The reward is a much more intense life experience in addition to success in the job.

A more serious kind of sleepwalking is the routine execution of chores with thinking turned off. That is the filling of a job for the sole purpose of earning money. It is not quite a novel situation that people feel this way. In the 19th century it was accepted as norm that a young person would try to find out what his "calling" was. It was realized that the profession is, next to marriage, the most important factor for the eventual provision of happiness in life. Today income potential is becoming the overriding factor. Again, my objection to this is that it is based on two unfortunate errors. First, by choosing a profession which is not necessarily to one's liking one foregoes the all-important advantage of the motivation for quality. Second, the over-emphasis and concentration on money is a hindrance to happiness rather than a useful goal by itself. By following the opposite approach, by following one's "calling" one is predisposed to give the utmost with the material results following naturally.

Work is the largest segment of our life, after sleep. Yet do we go through the day fully alert? Don't we observe many people in an automatic performance with all energy saved for the hobby? But where should we invest our energy? In the hobby or in the profession? It seems to me that having selected a career we have made the decision at that time to invest all of our energy in the profession because to be, in any way, in any measure, successful as a professional requires a total commitment. Otherwise we simply cannot remain competent, cannot keep up with the essential literature. In the most harmless case, a lack of energy, due to commitments elsewhere, causes that over specialization, that almost ridiculous narrowness of outlook which is so frequent, but should not be typical for professionals. Actually, most people do not even have an idea about how much energy and psychic reserves they would have available if they really tried. The pool of talents in our population is vastly greater than what actually is permitted to develop and come into the open. Each age has been particularly conducive for the development of some talents. The most outstanding example is, of course, the Renaissance with its tremendous output of high art. But the talents cannot have disappeared, they must be in existence at this time also, we just do not expend an effort to promote them. This is a great pity, because each fully developed talent is a source of human happiness, for the gifted individual as well as for his society. Instead of exploiting the almost limitless opportunities available today, we see the sorry picture of millions who do not know what to do. They complain of boredom because they are not lucky enough to be associated with friends or supervisors who can suggest worthwhile things to them. Again, a failure of thought because thought has been pre-empted by frivolous things. This is the real reason why frugality and temperance are desirable attitudes.

As stated before, I am convinced that an improvement in individual competence is as important for each one of us as it is essential for our employer and our whole society. Because where we stand, as a community, is determined by nothing else but by the sum total of everything we do. If we do it well, then everybody profits (some more than others, that is to some degree unavoidable). All the current talk about our competitive position means that we do not collectively do our job well enough (which includes the many wrong judgments that lead to waste). That raises the question that in our world where the profit motive can still act in the majority of situations, that this motive is insufficient or has become ineffective. One reason seems to be that more and more of our energies, labor and interest are wasted in petty struggles coming from shortsightedness and, to be candid, from a deterioration of our character.

Unfortunately, we cannot rely upon the intellect to make wise decisions; it can only guide us into smart decisions. The decision making part of us, i.e., the Self must therefore also be educated. But can we do that? Yes, indeed we can do that. The best way is by example, i.e. by looking at models of behavior. In the Western world we have an excellent model in the concept of the gentleman and the gentlewoman ("Lady" carries a different connotation which is not meant here). The gentleman is the prototype of a fully developed person. As Letwin (16) reminds us, the gentleman (including the gentlewomen) accepts responsibility and strives to become a full person. He cultivates such virtues as calmness, simplicity, courtesy, truthfulness and courage. By doing so he achieves integrity of character, he becomes a whole person. By this we mean that his behavior is consistent to himself, i.e. he does what is necessary not out of fear of punishment but in truth to himself.

In this way a complete person is the basis of social order and not at all in conflict with it. It is simply not true that social order demands leveling and uniformity. The precise opposite is correct because leveling as such can only be done downward. This ruins every social order and destroys the value of the individual (see note 6) People often wonder why it is that our civilization was able to reach the moon but that it is obviously not yet able to create a more acceptable society with less suffering. The answer is that this is due to the imbalance of our times which have created an unprecedented collective technical capability, but have neglected to pay attention to the development of the individual. That would have required an effort commensurate with the vastly increased power we have, but it has not been done. We do not even understand the need for it. In fact every tendency is now to destroy the individual in favor of the collective. That is the deep meaning of the struggle between two social systems, the individualistic and the collective, in the modern world. And it is also the meaning of the struggle within each of these systems. Indeed, to turn that tendency around is the real challenge of our times. It cannot be done with "organization", with money, with politics. These are only helpful and necessary to a degree, but not sufficient to achieve a real cultural advance. That requires that we encourage each other to work on ourselves, i.e., we need ideas and models. Interestingly, that we are engaged in a gigantic intellectual struggle has been recognized by an intellectual in the collective camp (Antonio Gramsci). Gramsci, the founder of the Italian Communist Party, was convinced that the struggle for the minds of modern man would be decisive for the fate of the culture. He was mistaken only in which way it should go to bring humanity to a more advanced social life.

WHAT IS TO BE DONE?

I suggest a few helpful techniques: Gain time by not doing things, at least, by not doing the less important things. A most obvious time waster today is, of course, TV. But the same is true of most of reading. Magazines, newspapers, and many books on the market are not worth the time to read if they are written by rather opinionated (biased) people in haste. They are an unreliable, a misleading and confusing source of information (there are a few great exceptions, as always). The quality of this "literature'' tends to improve with the time available for its preparation, i.e., weekly or monthly magazines tend to be a better investment of your time than the daily paper. In any case, most are produced for the sole purpose to make money. This is not a good motivation for quality - it is certainly not sufficient. On the other hand, by restricting yourself to the very best (on the basis of judgment of competent people and your own) you can, by reading little, become very well read.

Managers at all levels waste time by not knowing how to make decisions. This wasted time is not only their own but everybody else's in their staffs. This can be cured but first, it must be clearly recognized to exist. Even greater is the waste of time caused by every unnecessary regulation, i.e., by bureaucracy. Under the pretext of money savings, the bureaucratic environment extracts an unbelievable waste of manpower, particularly scarce expert manpower. The best one can do is to avoid bureaucratic entanglements as much as feasible because to take all of them seriously would kill every remaining productive enterprise. In other words, because it is already impossible to do everything which is actually required in mostly forgotten rules and regulations one must use judgment and do only the indispensable.

To contribute to this excess by calling for, or causing even more rules and more structure is more objectionable than to use bureaucracy as an excuse for doing nothing. One reason for this situation is misplaced generalization. Single infractions are to be cured with education and corrective action and not with more general rules which contribute to the jungle, and will, in the long run, do much more harm than the individual infraction which had to be corrected. If all the people who are so busy writing rules and laws for others, if they, I say, would spend their energy on their own development, a paradise would arrive. The rule makers do not see this, naturally, because they themselves, in their sub consciousness, feel most urgently the need for these rules. And often they are the first to break them. The same can be observed with fanatical moralists who worry about others because they are so unsure of themselves. If greater insight cannot break this rule making orgy, it is inevitable that the essential laws will become as meaningless as the thousands of unnecessary laws, a certain road to chaos and complete lawlessness (see note 21). Therefore, before creating restrictions of any kind, please scrutinize the need for it and look for alternatives, especially education and training.

Much time can be gained while others waste it with small talk. I usually carry notes with me with material to occupy my thoughts. During the preparations for meetings (and often during these meetings) I refer to my notes and jump into action only when it is time. After a while you will become very time conscious and will feel sorry for those who waste it. From many observations in government and elsewhere, I estimate that the average white collar worker wastes more than 50% of the time, of his/her life time! And quite a few reach over 90%. Whenever you think about it, the thing to do is to do something immediately, e.g. work on your journal (your notes) or grab the phone to place the call you planned to place all morning. Or do something else immediately. If you do this habitually, doing something immediately whenever you observe yourself doing nothing, you will note that it takes energy to act swiftly.

Gain energy by not wasting it. Waste comes from taking the unimportant things too seriously. This could be even exercise, as necessary it is to do it regularly. Much energy is wasted whenever you allow yourself to be drawn into petty conflicts. This is a real problem in America because a large part of the people seem to suffer from "litigitis", i.e., they have the silly belief that the courts must decide everything.

Energy is also wasted by doing things haphazardly instead of methodically. Here again, sound habits are helpful. But most energy is wasted by having too little sleep and too much poison (alcohol, tobacco, coffee, noise, etc.). Contrary to general belief, alcohol is not so much a danger for the liver as it is for the brain, especially if you work with the brain. This effect comes in several, mutually supportive ways. First you lose drive, by becoming too sleepy to remain intellectually active after a meal with any amount of alcohol. But second, there is a cumulative effect on the brain itself. Unfortunately one cannot see this oneself, but others notice it (17). The brain is an organ just like the muscle. If not used, or neglected, then it will whither away and one could be en intellectual cripple at the age of forty (18). What a pity if this happens; the brain is the flower of life, without it there is at most a dim awareness of existence but life is helpless against the vagaries of the environment. That is the state of the plants. Commensurate with the development of the brain and with its use, life has acquired more and more independence. For us the full use of the brain is indispensable for reaching freedom. Without having reached that intellectual freedom one is still enslaved. One is enslaved by the opinions, biases and superstitions of the environment without ever becoming aware of how solid these "chains" are. This is the reason why travel, if done with open eyes and ears, can be so educational. But people who do not want to leave their mental surroundings behind see only a different scenery. The exact opposite is less costly and more beneficial: stay at home but change your intellectual environment and perception. After one has learned doing that, travel expenditures will be much more effective.

The full development of one's mental capabilities is solely a matter of self motivation, and people who can't motivate themselves can hardly expect to motivate others. Therefore, self development is the first step in any education for management, far more important than anything else.

Despite the obvious importance of self motivation for one's own good, it is a curious fact that scientists and engineers as a class are deficient in this (if one considers everything outside one's too narrow specialty). In an editorial (El. Design, Sept. 29, 1983, p. 11) we reed:

"We are almost forced to the conclusion that the very habits of mind that make a person a good engineer (and scientist) may mitigate against his taking proper care of his own interests."

They mean financial interest, yet how much more is it true for intellectual and spiritual interests. The reason, in our view, is the decline of a basic "liberal" education without which it is extremely difficult to be a truly independent, responsible person (that is the sense of "liberal", an education for a freeman, a gentleman). In short, what we need, today more than ever, and modern professionals as much as other people, is a deliberate widening of our mental visions and capabilities.

There are several different, yet closely related, aspects in intellectual training. We mean the abstract reasoning techniques, the intuitive - judgment - mental alertness side, and the ability to communicate. The first factor, training for abstraction, is almost never realized deliberately. Abstraction is an aspect of correlation: the common elements in the subjects are subsumed under a concept which has only these common features and nothing else. There are many levels of abstraction: They originate because the structure of concepts gives rise to another, higher level abstraction which has only this common structure end nothing else. This way, by multiple level abstraction (correlation) we can deal with an enormous amount of information. That is the reason for its success and the high regard which our culture has for it. It is the origin of every effective use of power, it is our prime tool.

Curiously, the "educators" (i.e. the managers of schools) do not want to admit this as an effect to be considered in policy decisions. They are pre-occupied with a direct utility of the material to be learned and not much with the training of the mind. The symptom of this is the almost ridiculous over specialization at the universities which degrades them to trade schools. The "educators" do this because of the need to "sell" their schools end they judge it as hopeless to educate the public to a better understanding of the purposes of education. Some educators, indeed! In other words, utility is a necessary consideration in many cases but not in all. It is the blind application in all decisions which creates problems. One must recognize that in some applications the concept of utility has no . . . . . utility!  Algebra, operator theory, geometry, old languages, etc., should be learned not because they are useful (they will not be useful for the majority of the students) but because they train the mind, are intellectual tools and enlarge the vision. Languages also open vast treasures of literature of different worlds. Wilhelm von Humboldt said that with every language we gain a different soul. I have indeed noticed in my children quite different behavior when they used their second language. (One factor in this particular case is that they did not have the same treasure of ready made slogans in the second language, a lack which induces self thinking).

Again, direct utility is the worst selector in education because it will arrest the minds at the present state of society, and make no preparation for future needs which cannot be seen in detail before they actually arrive. The recent emphasis on pure utility (I am talking about the effects of the rise of "utility" minded management 50 years ago) has given the wrong intellectual preparation to many and it has affected by now the general thinking which is less brilliant, enterprising, and sloppier than it still was in the past when Jacques Barzun alerted us to this development in his excellent book "The House of Intellect" (19).

It is indispensable that a person who likes to see himself regarded as educated know certain things and have some command over a second language. Without having learned or somehow acquired a second language, one does not know the first and is therefore a cripple when it comes to communicating or even to conceive ideas. English (as well as French, German, etc.) is a non consistent language. Kurt Grelling's paradox (search under Semantic Paradoxes) demonstrates this. In such a Language anything true or false can easily be proved. Our language is therefore a necessary tool but not a simple utility; it must be cultivated. Peculiar to each language is a system of abstractions and views of which one is not aware without knowing another language. Take just one example, the word virtue. The almost identical words in Latin, in Italian, in French, mean quite different things (Machiavelli uses Virtú exclusively in the sense of valor). The use of several languages is therefore not only a key to other people's ideas, it is a most important training for the intellect. In this it is entirely different from the effect of training in mathematics. Language training helps to improve judgment, while mathematics trains logical thinking. This is certainly one reason why so often mathematical scientists are stronger in logic than in judgment and humanists stronger in judgment than in logic. Unfortunately in the course of so many reforms of the curricula in the interest of ''relevance" and "utility", many influential professions have not experienced either, languages or mathematics. Today, jurists hardly ever read Latin as they used to do; managers know at most some arithmetic (which does not train logic); scientists and engineers think that Language is an unnecessary intellectual baggage and, as a natural consequence, have become nearly illiterate; and history, which is unique in its capability to teach about the human fate as it has befallen others, has given way to "social studies" with the implied purpose to instill current Idols of the marketplace.

Possibly the most useful intellectual tool to acquire is the facility to think dialectically. The proper way of doing this, however, is not to fall from one extreme into its opposite but to keep both extremes firmly in view simultaneously so that your mind widens and accomplishes the synthesis. However excellent this method is for your own understanding and judgment, do not try to use it to explain things to others. They will think (and your friends will tell you) that you are schizophrenic. For a full mastery of the technique you will extend the method beyond the use of a dialectical couple of opposites to the consideration of a synthesis of all perceived possible attributes of the subject, or of all possible states in the development of a system.

But again, it would be totally wrong to look at intellectual work and training as the sole purpose of learning something useful as such. The knowledge and the pleasure of assimilating it are very welcome fringe benefits. These pleasures will eventually become the overriding motivation to continue and intensify intellectual work The reason is that it removes us from petty egoistic worries and anxieties However, the best fruit of self education is the change of attitude coming from this experience. What we have to learn is how to think effectively and independently. Recent history of governments and industry has ample examples for the disasters that come from being attached to conclusions of other people's thought, i e., dogmatism, rather than being attached to self thinking according to the needs of the occasion. To give just one practical example for the importance of intellectual training over learning: The job rating should not depend on how well one knows the regulations but on how well one can use the mind in unforeseen situations. This affects assignments that one can receive after having shown ability to do more. And this leads to the famous "growth on the job".

SET GOALS.

Concentration is the secret of all success and without having specific goals our efforts lack focus and will be diffuse and scattered. It is therefore necessary to set goals not only for the long range but for every week, possibly even for parts of a project within a day. It is decisive to pace the work and it is the same technique which is used by long distance runners. By having always a short term goal close before one's eyes the temptation to waste time or to scatter efforts is reduced. However, it is also true that one should work on several projects with a mix of short and long term goals. This way you can switch quickly if you run out of steam on one project.

One needs some self training for work in any organization. First, social life of any kind requires the acceptance of power end force. To disregard the need for power centers is naive. Second, we must learn patience. There is no use in arguing and becoming upset over the failure of the other side (your colleague or boss) to understand your point. A very important thing to learn is the proper understanding of the very limited power of individual intelligence. We mean everybody's intelligence, including our own. But this realization must be coupled with a confidence that things can be explained and that the other is smarter in his own affairs than you think. Therefore patience is called for. It is inevitable that we become associated with people who are immature, even childish and insecure. That means that we must be prepared to absorb some injustice and offense gracefully. In addition, part of the problem may be really ours. Without some self observation one is always tempted to blame others instead of first blaming oneself for having failed to succeed. Try to understand that everything you say, each one of your words and actions, will operate in a feedback loop and will always come back to you, delayed and transformed in a form which is so different that you do not see that it is the effect of your own doing. The most helpful thing is to impose upon oneself the habit of "just forget about it" meaning the adverse things coming every day. This produces a damping factor and eliminates the feedback affects. One also has to accept some irrationality as unavoidable. Kenneth Arrow has shown why irrationality is unavoidable in groups (20).

Another aspect and justification for this advice to walk away from trouble is the often experienced fact that by fighting an enemy one ends by assuming his character and methods. Therefore why oppose something if the price of victory is that we become indistinguishable from our enemy? The strategy to use is not surrender but constructive initiative, completely independently of our adversary. By bringing out the best and strongest in us we immediately put him into the defensive. If we do not follow this precept then we will forever be the reactive part, never the creative, the leader. And instead of seeking to impress others (with few benefits for us other than vanity) it will be better to cultivate our self-image because this is our ideal which we want to improve by appropriate efforts. The best we can achieve is the satisfaction that we have acted as a mature person. But this satisfaction will be denied us unless we consciously and with determination enlarge not only our views but our soul! Magnanimity is the virtue of the nobles and pettiness the mark of the worthless. The choice is ours, in every act.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION:

If we do not take the initiative to work on ourselves, then the environment will do it for us and we will remain its slave. As the Romans said: Fate will guide the willing, it drags the unwilling (ducunt fata volentem, nolentem trahunt). Liberty is but the ability to do the necessary. Our own education and discipline are therefore indispensable for a fulfillment of our life. That fulfillment is in the quality of doing things, not in quantity. This is based on our attitude to life and only we can establish our value as a person by how well we do things, how consistent we have formed our life regardless of our station. The materialistic custom of referring to the "worth" of a person in dollars is nothing but a  barbaric misconception.

LITERATURE AND NOTES:

1. Ignace Lepp (1966), L'art de vivre de l'intellectuel. Editions Universitaires, Paris. In addition, I used Otto Tumlinz (1937), Psychologie der hoeheren geistigen Berufe. KG. Payer & Co. Oesterreichischer Wirtschaftsverlag, Berlin-Wien - Zürich. Most recently, I have discovered the excellent book by Albert Schweitzer (1925), Verfall und Wiederaufbau der Kultur. C.H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung Muenchen. I am impressed that Schweitzer saw clearly the problems of our culture one half century before it became obvious to every educated person. His genius saw a development before the various ideologies took their fateful course. The problem continues because of the spiritual vacuum in the mind of modern man. The only way how our culture can be rejuvenated is by individual effort. Unless one knows his purpose in life, one is vulnerable to the spurious purposes of the collective. Socrates is still right; the unexamined life is not worth living.

2. Laurence J. Peter and Reymond Hull (1969), The Peter Principle. Bantam Books. This work must be taken seriously because it applies to everyone.

3. Kenneth Kenniston (1964), The Uncommitted. Delta, NY. See pages 209 - 240. Is human obsolescence a contemporary problem? The opposite side of the development is that more and more leisure becomes available thanks to automation. This, and what is done with the additional time is discussed in Joffre Dumazedier (1962), Vers une civilisation du loisir. Editions du Seuil, Paris. Vol. 29. ISBN 2.02.000604.9

4. Charles Fenyvesi (1983), Secret Lives. The Washington Post Magazine Sept. 4, page 12. An excellent document for one of my points: that many jobs are so undemanding that an interested, motivated person has no choice but to seek self fulfillment elsewhere; in a hobby, in civic activities, etc. The thing to see here is the failure of management to stimulate, to induce their people to see more in their jobs, to use more of their gifts. But this requires ideas and where should they come from as long as the good manager is used to thinking in terms of organization, i.e. mostly in constraining terms, but has never developed his mind? There is also the opposite point of view, equally important. Having selected a technical profession has created, for the employee, an altogether different situation because this profession is by nature open ended; there is no limit in the knowledge and skills one can build. Therefore, for a professional to have strong commitments outside his career amounts to a tacit admission that he does not understand what it means to be a professional. At any rate, the choice of the career has been dreadfully wrong; almost as wrong as for someone to become a priest because of hope to have a lucrative career or to play a role in politics. Unfortunately for everybody, such cases are not rare. "I work strictly for the buck!" That seems to be acceptable in our society, but it does not make it a wise attitude. It is most unfortunate that the management employee relationship represents a mutual feedback loop which has a tendency to deteriorate unless both sides make extra efforts.

5. The freedom and ability to chose is also the criterion for the judicial determination of responsibility.

6. Nature and evolution are concerned only with the species, not the individual. Civilization is concerned only with individuals. Any progress in civilization can only be achieved as a progress in the individual. The implications for societies which are based on issues are obvious. They are not steps to a higher culture. This will become clearer if we consider the problem of responsibility in this context. Full responsibility can only come from a better understanding. The question is really one of seeing clearly our dialectical situation: that in one sense we are all-important, and in another sense nothing at all. We are all-important in respect to responsibility, we must act, nobody else can do it if we find ourselves on the spot where we see the problem. But we are nothing in the eyes of nature which is not impressed by numbers. Life is of no value other than in human systems which must first be secured by our actions; i.e. duties come before rights. To insist in rights without first serving is not only immoral. It is stupid because without the human system, without the civilization, we are really nothing. But this is hard to see for people who have never been exposed to this nothingness in isolation from civilization. In fact, it may even be better not to insist on rights even after serving faithfully.

7. It is no accident that the tremendous advance of objectivistic science has destroyed the understanding of the natural basis of ethics. To the degree that I deny the very existence of everything subjective, to this extend I am left with a purely zoological ethics, i.e. pure egoism is the natural thing. But such a regression is only a consequence of the loss of balance, there is no "natural" need to ignore the typical human part of us, the ability to have choices. Conversely, however, it is also true that an emphasis on individualism is useless if these individuals have no worthy goals in life. Keeping up with the Jones's is not a worthy goal. It really seems that this lack of goals, of wishing, is another one of the effects of the imbalance mentioned.

8. Those who think this is sophistry should pay more attention to the words "as far as I have a choice". To that degree the world does impose limits on us, but wait! It also means that as soon as I do see a need to act I am obliged to act. Many intellectuals seem to feel this way and they are right in that feeling. They only err when they become "activists" because that is not the way to change the world to the better. At best it causes noise and harmful turbulence. As a rule, every man-made calamity and suffering has been caused by "activists" who wanted to improve the world by trying to force the others. To change it for the better, one must work on oneself, in his domain of responsibility wherever that is. And now, since you understand this point, it has become your duty to work on yourself; the choice is before your eyes.

9. Townes's Paradox: The Nobelist Charles Townes formulated it by saying that "It is imminent that the scientists will claim credit for the neurophysiological discovery that causal brain mechanisms underlie all thought processes, - including the discovery that causal brain mechanisms underlie all thought processes - a wish to take credit for a discovery which destroys the basis for taking any credit (Boulder, 1966 August). It destroys it, unless we understand the thesis of the two complementary views of the world which must not be mixed up but must be used as complements. This is a modern version and result of Kant's theory of phenomena vs. noumena. It took 300 years from Descartes to Niels Bohr to develop this thought into a form that it can be used to educate people. It must be understood because science without this clear understanding exerts a barbaric influence (best seen in some popular science texts).

The objective - subjective complementarity thesis goes beyond the so called identity hypothesis of the body mind problem which assumes that the brain and the mind are the same thing seen in different ways. Complementarity carries an additional sense: The two concepts are models which may overlap depending on the particular aspect; models which are quite imperfect. What really exists is not exhausted at all by either concept or any combination of them.

Other major theories in this respect are: Epiphenomenalism which claims that the brain is the real thing with the mind just an epiphenomenon, i.e. an accidental additional effect. All causal relations concern the brain. Materialism (there are no mental states), Dualism (mental events are irreducible and completely separate from the brain). Berkelian idealism (there is no matter, everything is only because it is perceived by a mind; "esse est percipi").

10. Arthur Koestler (1967), The Ghost in the Machine. Hutchinson Ltd. ISBN 0 330 24446 9. In chapter Xl Koestler brings out the role of purpose in life. It provides for a flexible, creative approach to the environment. It is the origin for the strange non randomness which is not predictable because it is creative. The great value of the book, however, transcends this issue. I do not know how much Koestler was influenced by idees such as the "triune brain". It must be said that in contrast to most popular proponents of this hypothesis (such as Sagan, see the recent article in the Washington Post Magazine, p. 7, February 12, 1984, by David Holzman), one must use this as a model in the abstract sense of system theory. This avoids the implication that one could in a principle way clearly separate the functions in the brain physically.

11. Wiener, N. (1964), God and Golem, INC. MIT Press. ISBN 262 73011 1. As Norbert Wiener has seen it, our ever increasing rationalization will give us a world which "will be an ever more demanding struggle against the limitations of our intelligence" and not, as is commonly believed, "a comfortable hammock in which we can lie down to be waited upon by our robot slaves" (p69). The same idea is in H.G. Wells remark that history is more and more a race between education and chaos (Introduction to his "History"). A second point in Wiener's book is the danger of wishing without a clear understanding of the consequences (p.58). This is elucidated with his story of the Monkey's Paw. A third point, and very important for us, is his exposition of the ever increasing need to formulate human purposes clearly (p.643). Which lends to the question whether there is some objectively recognizable criterion for the merit of the "game" of our life?  Without such questions clarified we can hardly expect to make rational decisions, only vague emotional ones. However, W.'s idea about sending a human being over a telegraph line is an unfortunate crackpot slip (p.36). Yet this was picked up by Carl Sagan. W. could not have been serious about it but Sagan apparently is (see my Introduction to Systems Approach, p.3 of the 10th. PTTI Proceedings).

12. Robert Borger & Frank Cioffi (editors) (1970), Explanation in the Behavioral Sciences. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-09905 6.  This is a very educational text, a confrontation of many conflicting views. See particularly Eysenck's article.

13. Gaston Berger (1971), Charactère et Personalité. Presses Universitaires de France. A  concise characterology which distinguishes three fundamental factors (emotivity, secondarity and activity) and six additional factors (such as range of intellectual concerns, intellectual passion, tenderness. "greed", etc). There are, however, many other factors (or dimensions) which can be used descriptively. Examples would be the well known extra introversion, contemplative practical, and fixed changeable dispositions. It is a fascinating field. One must note, however, that actual applications require objective tests end experienced professionals. Nothing can be done by amateurs, particularly not for oneself. (As an amateur, I find it tempting to estimate two parameters which seem to be meaningful: "Distance" of vision, i.e., intellectual horizon; and "Volume" of the soul.)

14. Sinclair Lewis (1925), Arrowsmith. The character of the scientist as depicted has lost credibility. Too many have become scientists for the wrong reasons. See also Nicholas Wade (1983), Madness in their Method. Eastern Review, Sept. (p. 31). From The New Republic, Inc. An enormously important article to read for every scientist. I am afraid, most of it is realistic. On the other hand, it should not be surprising that this fine profession is not also affected by the general inflation and loss of values.

15. Three major factors are involved. In addition to preference which we discussed, and aptitude (including behavior tendencies), there is the need for inspiring models or "heroes". While our civilization is uniquely conducive to the full use of factors one and two by providing almost limitless opportunities and freedom, we suffer from a chronic shortage of "heroes". They have been systematically destroyed by the equalitarians. But superior people do exist and they are indispensable. One more reason to study history!

16. Shirley Robin Letwin (1982) The Gentleman in Trollope. Individuality and Moral Conduct. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Mass. An interesting book even if one must entirely disagree with Letwin's defense of the need for a hereditary aristocracy. There is no such need. On the contrary, it leads to injustice and demoralization because it brings to power too many unworthy. Letwin is also less penetrating in her analysis of the gentleman as a type than Ortega in his comparison of the gentlemen with the "hidalgo", the poor nobleman of arid Iberia. The purpose of emulating either type is not to be, in turn, a model for others but to lead a superior life. Properly understood, nobility is synonymous with a life of effort, ever set on passing beyond what one is. This is the exact opposite of being a heir. Jose Ortega y Gasset (1940) History as a System. Norton N122, N.Y. ISBN 0 393 00122 9. See pages 127-134. "....few laws; for the law, once it is written, turns into a reign of pure words which, since words cannot be fulfilled to the letter, necessarily results in falsification of the law and governmental dishonesty. A nation of gentlemen needs no constitution!" (See notes 20 and 21).

17. The purely physical effects of regular (daily) alcohol consumption are at first insidious. It stimulates the pancreas, thereby causing hunger with resulting increased food intake. In addition, its narcotic effects reduce drastically the so necessary physical activity, the start of a real devil's circle. By the time the effects in weight increase and appearance are obvious, a dependence has developed which prevents the victim from seeing his situation clearly. For this reason the indispensable first step to regain control must be a complete abstinence for at least ten days. By that time the dependence can be deflected into a habit of drinking water or soda beyond the feeling of thirst. Ten days are also sufficient to restore a general feeling of well-being which comes with a resumption of regular exercise. If you cannot manage this yourself then you must seek professional help. The only alternative is an increasing unhappiness over a wasted life. It is simply not true that one must be useless at 50.

18. O. E. Egan (1983) Retrospective Reports Reveal Differences in People's Reasoning. BSTJ vol. 62 fl6 part 3 (July-August), p. 1675-1697. This important study gives strong support to our claims that:

a. The simplest "three-term series" problems are difficult for many people. (Example: Rich is happier than Dot. Harry is sadder than Dot. Is Harry happier than Rich?).

b. Abstract reasoners have a significantly lower error rate in such tests than concrete properties thinkers.

c. Reasoning is not a fixed ability in which people differ by the amount they have. On the contrary, all the evidence supports the theory that 1) Reasoning can be improved by practice, (2) Reasoning can be improved by learning better techniques. - That efforts in this direction are utterly necessary and would be extremely salutary for the whole society is shown by the comments made by the majority of the callers to the call-in TV shows.

19. Jacques Barzun (1959) The House of intellect. Harper - Brothers, NY. LCC 59­6300. See p.122  Contemporary concerns are a poor preparation for life: they are hard to assess, but are popular subjects for marginal teachers. Barzun foresaw a development which, in the meantime, has born fruit and continues without change. One has to make oneself independent from the "Zeitgeist" because it is manufactured by minds who are too much absorbed by the superficial but fashionable idols of the marketplace as Francis Bacon put it. After all, the product must be sold to the public. Barzun also stresses that while one ought to cultivate his individual intellect, for society to do so has always been a disaster. He contrasts the intellectualistic French ruling class with the "stupid" British who were wise in being stupid where it was appropriate (p.156 and 487). The deep reason for this is implied in our notes 20 and 6, i.e., we must not ignore the supreme role of the individual in civilization. Rationalist structures can endanger that role because they become easily oppressive.

20. Arrow, Kenneth J. (1951), Social Choice and individual Values, Wiley, NY. Suppose a committee of three has to vote on the order of priorities for Actions A, B, and C. And suppose the votes are ABC, BCA and CAB respectively. It is clear that the vote will establish the group preference for AB, BC and CA (!) which is not compatible with rationality. Therefore in principle the idea of a "rational" society can only be a dream. See also (21).

21. P. W. Bridgman (1959), The Way Things Are. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. SBN 674-94830-0. See p. 272 for a discussion on the Mini-Max principle for codes. A minimum number of codes must be found which will be accepted by the maximum number of people. This will assure a minimum coercion and allow a maximum opportunity for individual happiness. Note that we have no right to happiness, only a right to pursue it. Conversely in an organization, a minimum of coercion is required to enable its individuals to make maximum contributions with their high talents (of course, a slave society can always extract slave labor with coercion but this suppresses every opportunity for constructive contributions from the slaves). Unfortunately, a majority of managers, supervisors, law-makers and executives do not seem to know this; that is why things go so badly in most places. But the few exceptions, those who are competent in their position, the exceptions to Peter's principle, they do know the mini-max principle for codes; they use inducements and do not deal with their associates with more coercion than absolutely necessary. The same conclusion can be reached from an abstract point of view that sees human systems as General Systems. Every imposed condition, however innocuous, forces the system into a more distorted state. It increases entropy, it wastes resources in the inevitable circumvention of these conditions, it amounts to putting sand into the gears of civilization; not helpful for the accomplishments of the higher goals of the community. Remember, however, that "acceptance" is the key to on understanding of this. It is entirely possible to increase structure if it can be accepted by the individuals as necessary. This is certainly the case in a military situation in combat.

22. John W. Gardner (1961), Excellence, Can we be equal and excellent too? Harper Row, New York, LCC #61-6194. See also John W. Gardner (1965), Self-Renewal, Harper  Row, New York, LCC#63-16509. 

Both of Gardner's fine books support the main thesis of these notes. The responsibility for the fate of our civilization rests with each of us. See also the Henry James quote on page 119 of "Excellence" about the worship of money and the worship of intellect. Both must remain subordinate to a disciplined will (a superior intelligence is needed to foresee the consequences but it is very rare).


 Copyright © 2002, Gernot M. R. Winkler .     Last Correction 02/08/2008