A BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE!
An early 20th century Spanish-born American philosopher George Santayana has said: “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
I would go further, I would say that human beings have not learned from history, indeed that they have a mental block that does not allow them to learn from history, and, as a consequence the human race is repeating its past, over, and over, and over, again.
What I hope to do is confront that past and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings were driven up the steep incline towards civilization, and demonstrate that there is a viable and very efficient alternative to coercion – if only we could develop the acuity to perceive and adopt this.
That alternative is positive reinforcements; I am proposing that the carrot be substituted for the stick.
To fully appreciate the impact that coercion has had on human culture it is necessary that we compare the evolution of an individual human personality, and the evolution of human culture.
An individual experiences childhood for the first decade of his or her life, followed by a decade of adolescence, followed by at least four or five decades of adulthood - if that individual has an average life span.
Social scientists, after rigorous study of human beings, have concluded that personality is determined in the first few years of the life of any individual.
The evolution of human culture has been very different spatially. The childhood, the ignorant, primitive phase of human history has lasted for a substantially longer period than any other.
That primitive period I would define as the period when human communities could accurately be described as hunting and gathering societies, the period when human beings were predators among larger and more ferocious denizens with whom they competed for the available energy resources.
I wish to begin that period, for the purpose of this study, with the emergence of Homo sapiens, with the emergence of human beings who had developed speech and with it the capacity to learn, as against being animals programmed to act instinctively.
I would suggest, and this is a rough estimate, that this period lasted for, at the very least, half a million years.
Furthermore, this was an era of vast climatic changes, a period of great instability that produced a harsh environment composed of very extreme, pitiless and inhospitable conditions for the human race, an environment in which survival was not guaranteed.
From the information now available to us about human learning; we may conclude that habits learned during this period would be well nigh impossible to unlearn or extinguish.
Further, that the collective personality, the culture of our race, the conscious and unconscious premises for thinking and action was determined at that time – if we accept that as with individuals the collective personality was formed during the initial period of existence.
This epoch ended with the discovery of agriculture, which at a rough estimate, occurred forty thousand years ago, and precipitated what I would describe as the adolescence, the modern component of human history.
What is very important for the development of this theory regarding the evolution of human culture is the understanding that the only available model for social interaction that was available to human beings up to the discovery of agriculture was the relation between predator and prey. Also, that the habit of treating with the other as prey, of establishing and defending the territory required for the survival of the tribe, its hunting grounds, was deeply ingrained during the very lengthy and intense learning environment of the primitive period.
It is clear that this mode of social interaction, to which there was no viable, available alternative, became the basis for human civilizations and formed the deep and impermeable roots of Absolutism.
Coercion became to be the means exclusively relied on to motivate behavior in all surviving social systems.
The brief flirtation with democracy among Greek city states was prompted by the need to strengthen the phalanx that was the means of providing security and preserving the independence of the polis.
A subsection of the modern period began for Western civilizations with the ministry of the man called Jesus; more accurately this period should be defined as that era in human history when ethics began to have an influence on human affairs.
The effect of Christianity produces an example and an appreciation of the impact of all ethical systems or religious dogmas and institutions, an accurate as to the impact of ethics, as to whether these created the behavior modifications, the adoption of modernization ideals, which this piece promotes.
Jesus, I suggest, adopted and practiced the discipline of truth, and was the source of the prescription ‘the truth will make you free.’ However, the degree and extent to which coercion was being applied to individuals at that juncture in human history, a period when rulers had the power of life or death over their subjects precluded the practice of this prescription despite its possible efficacy.
The existing concentration of power in the hands of absolute rulers rendered wholly impractical and inapplicable all ethical prescriptions including the Christian prescription and forced accommodations and compromises that permitted the survivals of these principles in much diluted and ineffective forms. For example, the prescription ‘the truth shall make you free’ became possession by the Holy Spirit, acceptance and experience of which became the requirement to be considered a Christian.
I have used this example because this is the one with which I am most familiar, and with which most of my readers will be most familiar, but the underlying hypothesis is sound – that accommodations and compromises were necessary in a milieu completely dominated by Absolutist regimes, if ethics were to coexist with this world view, and it is obvious that these accommodations and comprises occurred worldwide during this period; a period so significant and remarkable in Western civilizations that the years before this period came to have a separate designation from those after this social and political upheaval.
The fact that human beings deeply aspired to practice ethics, to be considered moral beings was the basis for the establishment of religious institutions – albeit in a form that did not precipitate the behavior modifications that would have transformed and civilized human societies.
Human beings unable to practice ethics because of Absolutist Regimes began to pay lip service to these strictures, and there began to emerge a difference between these principles and values which were idealized and venerated in concept, even as they were being ignored and trampled upon in precept.
This dichotomy, I suggest, became apparent in each individual human personality, which was divided into conscious and unconscious compartments between which the conscience or super ego mediated.
This difference between concept and precept also became apparent in the operation of every social institution; ethics and morality became the window dressing that camouflaged and obscured the brutal and primitive acts of human beings.
Even as human civilizations gained more and more knowledge and understanding about the nature of the environment in which they existed, agents and institutions of human culture developed a mechanism, a blindness that allowed them to pursue their interests, wants and desires untrammeled and limited by ethical considerations.
But there was a byproduct of this mechanism, the socially learned drive of guilt. And human beings had to develop means of attaining catharsis of relieving and reducing guilt.
A variety of means were developed to attain this objective, Greeks developed theatre, the acting out of cultural themes during which the audience empathized with the players and achieved catharsis. Other societies developed rituals and ceremonies that had the same effect, for example, the taking of Communion and the marriage ceremony.
What is being suggested here is that at this early point in human history, when these accommodations were reached with Absolutism, the impermeable, intrinsic nature of social reality was created. The thus far unchanging, very resilient and long enduring core of human culture was created.
Accurate depictions of social reality occurred in art, in the literature, paintings and sculpture but documentation of actual experiences were skewed to reflect vested interests.
In fact, a rule of thumb could be applied, the greater the injustices, the suffering and oppression of the majority the more romantic, fantastic and stylized the window dressing that obscured it.
The more gigantic and gaudily decorated the architecture, the cathedrals, castles and other symbols of civilization.
Human beings have developed great enterprises of the mind, philosophy, art and education, and more recently, social sciences, but these have thus far failed to confront and challenge the basic premise that underpinned human societies – the efficacy and moral justification for coercion.
During the two thousand years the distribution of power in human societies has changed.
This has resulted in the diminution and dilution of the power of Absolute rulers, beginning with nobles, and continuing with the merchant class, workers, women, children and minorities; more and more human beings gained access to rights and freedoms, and amelioration in the degree and extent to which coercion in any form could be applied to them.
But these developments resulted from conflicts, which did not confront the basic premise of whether coercion, however efficient, should be applied to human beings.
It has now become imperative that this notion be minutely examined, confronted and challenged; urgently, crucially imperative because of developments and advances in physical science, including weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to the Twentieth century the depredations of the human race had no impact on the ecology of the planet; conflict and wars occurred regularly, even perennially, prompted by the reliance on coercion, but these did not affect the climate or the physical environment. The forces of nature were able to endure and to some degree absorb and overcome the scars and wounds caused by agriculture and industry, the most disruptive and destructive enterprises of man.
The contemporary situation is very different; the depredations of man have increased exponentially both in their scope, their virulence and in the potential for destruction, in the potential for catastrophic destruction; creating the necessity and urgent imperative for an in depth examination of the consequence and implications of reliance on coercion as motivation.
The efficacy of using coercion as motivation depends on the subject learning fear. It also results in reducing the free will and ability to choose of the subject.
Advances in learning theory suggest that the learning of intense drives, and fear is the most potent drive, produces conflicted, neurotic personality.
Therefore, the first and most adverse possible consequence of relying on coercion is that the subject will learn the drive of intense fear, and will become conflicted and neurotic to some degree.
In the hurly burly of everyday existence, this consequence is very, very difficult to avoid; more, because a viscous circle is operating in the life of every individual.
The mechanism that permits coercion to coexist with ethics; makes human beings ‘blind’ as they use coercion; it makes them oblivious of this component of impelling action.
This is a fact, but it is an intangible fact, it is a fact that exists only in the unconscious compartment of the collective psyche.
It can only be observed in the impact it has on human affairs. How else can we explain the fact that coercion, the use of corporal punishment, was extracted from the classroom, without any consideration given to an alternative form of motivation, the fundamental cause of the failure of the education system in the United States of America?
How else can we explain high divorce rates, which I suggest was precipitated by women attaining democratic rights, including the skills necessary to earn a living?
How else can we explain the failure of governments, successive democratically elected governments of every ideological hue, to make progress in the resolution of social problems?
The fact is, the inescapable fact is, to apply coercion, to apply deadly force like that applied in the Crusades, in the Spanish Inquisition, in the Middle Passage, in the Shoah, at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or daily and perennially by criminals and policemen, required that human beings not know what they were doing. This capacity is not available to a minority of human beings but is a characteristic of all human beings; it is embedded, deeply embedded in human culture.
I feel constrained to point out, at this point, that I have no academic or professional qualifications that would make me an authority on this subject. In fact, if what I am saying is true, if these ideas are adequate to the existing reality, there are no experts on this subject because this ‘blindness’ effects all human beings, it is the fundamental prerequisites to survival in human societies.
What is clearly observable is that the social system that was created by the evolution of culture from a ‘state of nature,’ produces individuals who are to some degree neurotic, who are conflicted, who are afflicted by intense socially learned drives, guilt, ambition, acquisitiveness, to name a few examples.
The other negative consequence of applying coercion is that it reduces the free will, the capacity to choose for themselves, of the subject. This I suggest is the major source of conflict, of conflict between individuals, of conflict between organizations, and, of conflict between nations.
In effect the war in Iraq is consequence of the United States of America attempting to impose its version of democracy on the Iraqi people. The hate that sons have for fathers was never a sexual tension; it was precipitated by the authority, the absolute authority that the male parent imposed on his child.
Human beings have a strong desire to choose for themselves, and some will defend that right even it results in their death.
This is, and has been, since time immemorial, the fundamental and enduring cause of conflict between individuals, between groups and organizations, and between nations, in a world in which might has been considered right from the beginning of the human story.
I suggest that there is an alternative form of motivation, positive reinforcements, which have none of these negative effects. If reward is substituted for punishments in the learning circle, the subject will not need to learn any degree of fear to achieve the necessary behavior modification, nor will his or her freedom of choice be curtailed or infringed on.
To change, to conclude that positive reinforcements is a greatly superior means of motivating action than coercion, the individual must decide whether coercion should be applied to any human being, he or she must decide whether any human being should be considered prey?
A predator, any predator, has no such qualms of conscience; prey is a means of sustenance without which it cannot survive.
Human beings were once predators, and became habituated to considering others as prey, and built social interaction and social systems on this premise, having no available alternative, but is it a valid premise, this is the question each and every human being must answer?
It is, I suggest, the very essence of civility.
I raise this issue at a very appropriate time for Americans, who this following Monday will be celebrating Memorial Day; they will be remembering and honoring those American who have died in battle.
I deem it even more appropriate to rehearse at this juncture this extract from a famous piece of rhetoric:
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate --- we cannot consecrate --- we cannot hallow --- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it will never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the full measure of devotion --- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain --- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom --- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The conundrum I pose is the very essence of democracy, the very essence of the great task mentioned in the foregoing quote; does any human being have the right to use force, of any kind, to impose his or her will on another human being, to treat another human being as if they were prey, an energy source?
I would suggest to every human being to take a few moments on this Memorial Day weekend to reflect on this issue.
This introspection might begin with considering which motivation you rely in your relations with other human beings; a second issue that might be examined is whether you have the right to decide how other human beings act, and, lastly you might consider the fundamental issue that I have raised, whether one human being has the right to treat another as prey given the fact that there is now a readily available alternative?
This issue not only goes to the basis for social interaction; it is extremely relevant to the issues that bedevil us today.
What should be more important, the profits of oil companies and motor vehicle manufacturers or the effect of burning fossil fuels on the ecology? In a rational world the answer would be clear; in the irrational world that we live in that answer is obscured by the economic power of these conglomerates, might is right.
The goal of the invasion of Iraq has been transformed by the not too subtle machinations of spin doctors from the initial claim of finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, into creating a stable democratic society in that country; the first justification having proved to have little or no foundation in reality, a second has been constructed to save the political fortunes of the Bush Administration?
The question is whether this justification is any more valid than the first? It is not.
Democracy, because of its intrinsic nature, as I have tried to describe and communicate, cannot be imposed on any body politic; those who contemplate and seek to justify such an imposition are consumed by hubris and self serving opportunism.
This sequence of events raises an even more fundamental issue, whether there is a functioning democracy in the USA?
The failure to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration, the criminal excesses of this Administration proves beyond doubt that there in not a functioning democracy in this country.
To function, democracy requires that a bare majority of the populace achieve civility; which begins with the appreciation and realization that no human being should be treated as prey. It requires that a bare majority become adept at using positive reinforcements in their relations with other human beings.
This intellectual growth has not yet occurred in the USA; in this nation democracy is still a notion, around which has been constructed the forms of democracy, window dressing that obscures the core of coercion based culture.
The excesses, the criminal excesses, of the Bush Administration and the failure to limit and curb these excesses, have proven beyond doubt that a functioning democracy does not exist in the US.
Once it is accepted by a bare majority in any social system that no human being should be treated as prey, as an energy source; there will follow, as night follows day, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
A society in which this initial enabling development occurs will inevitably become a model for every nation on this planet; one that demonstrates the effect and efficacy of positive reinforcements on production and productivity in the economy and the governmental bureaucracy, on social relations, education and family life; this change must and will produce national consolidation.
I feel constrained to record the codicil that this development may be far advanced in Norway and other Scandinavian countries that I have insufficient information on.
Unless and until this occurs there will be no future for humanity, just the past happening over, and over, and over, again.
I ask again this question of every human being everywhere, should any human being, whatever their sex, age, race or national origin be treated as prey? Should they be subject to coercion in any form, overt or covert, as they seek life, liberty and pursue happiness?
On the answer to this simple question, turns the future of the human race?
William E. Virtue
Copyright Retained
Web site: voiceofpeace.net
Email: vox_pacis1@msn.com
Memphis, TN
I would go further, I would say that human beings have not learned from history, indeed that they have a mental block that does not allow them to learn from history, and, as a consequence the human race is repeating its past, over, and over, and over, again.
What I hope to do is confront that past and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that human beings were driven up the steep incline towards civilization, and demonstrate that there is a viable and very efficient alternative to coercion – if only we could develop the acuity to perceive and adopt this.
That alternative is positive reinforcements; I am proposing that the carrot be substituted for the stick.
To fully appreciate the impact that coercion has had on human culture it is necessary that we compare the evolution of an individual human personality, and the evolution of human culture.
An individual experiences childhood for the first decade of his or her life, followed by a decade of adolescence, followed by at least four or five decades of adulthood - if that individual has an average life span.
Social scientists, after rigorous study of human beings, have concluded that personality is determined in the first few years of the life of any individual.
The evolution of human culture has been very different spatially. The childhood, the ignorant, primitive phase of human history has lasted for a substantially longer period than any other.
That primitive period I would define as the period when human communities could accurately be described as hunting and gathering societies, the period when human beings were predators among larger and more ferocious denizens with whom they competed for the available energy resources.
I wish to begin that period, for the purpose of this study, with the emergence of Homo sapiens, with the emergence of human beings who had developed speech and with it the capacity to learn, as against being animals programmed to act instinctively.
I would suggest, and this is a rough estimate, that this period lasted for, at the very least, half a million years.
Furthermore, this was an era of vast climatic changes, a period of great instability that produced a harsh environment composed of very extreme, pitiless and inhospitable conditions for the human race, an environment in which survival was not guaranteed.
From the information now available to us about human learning; we may conclude that habits learned during this period would be well nigh impossible to unlearn or extinguish.
Further, that the collective personality, the culture of our race, the conscious and unconscious premises for thinking and action was determined at that time – if we accept that as with individuals the collective personality was formed during the initial period of existence.
This epoch ended with the discovery of agriculture, which at a rough estimate, occurred forty thousand years ago, and precipitated what I would describe as the adolescence, the modern component of human history.
What is very important for the development of this theory regarding the evolution of human culture is the understanding that the only available model for social interaction that was available to human beings up to the discovery of agriculture was the relation between predator and prey. Also, that the habit of treating with the other as prey, of establishing and defending the territory required for the survival of the tribe, its hunting grounds, was deeply ingrained during the very lengthy and intense learning environment of the primitive period.
It is clear that this mode of social interaction, to which there was no viable, available alternative, became the basis for human civilizations and formed the deep and impermeable roots of Absolutism.
Coercion became to be the means exclusively relied on to motivate behavior in all surviving social systems.
The brief flirtation with democracy among Greek city states was prompted by the need to strengthen the phalanx that was the means of providing security and preserving the independence of the polis.
A subsection of the modern period began for Western civilizations with the ministry of the man called Jesus; more accurately this period should be defined as that era in human history when ethics began to have an influence on human affairs.
The effect of Christianity produces an example and an appreciation of the impact of all ethical systems or religious dogmas and institutions, an accurate as to the impact of ethics, as to whether these created the behavior modifications, the adoption of modernization ideals, which this piece promotes.
Jesus, I suggest, adopted and practiced the discipline of truth, and was the source of the prescription ‘the truth will make you free.’ However, the degree and extent to which coercion was being applied to individuals at that juncture in human history, a period when rulers had the power of life or death over their subjects precluded the practice of this prescription despite its possible efficacy.
The existing concentration of power in the hands of absolute rulers rendered wholly impractical and inapplicable all ethical prescriptions including the Christian prescription and forced accommodations and compromises that permitted the survivals of these principles in much diluted and ineffective forms. For example, the prescription ‘the truth shall make you free’ became possession by the Holy Spirit, acceptance and experience of which became the requirement to be considered a Christian.
I have used this example because this is the one with which I am most familiar, and with which most of my readers will be most familiar, but the underlying hypothesis is sound – that accommodations and compromises were necessary in a milieu completely dominated by Absolutist regimes, if ethics were to coexist with this world view, and it is obvious that these accommodations and comprises occurred worldwide during this period; a period so significant and remarkable in Western civilizations that the years before this period came to have a separate designation from those after this social and political upheaval.
The fact that human beings deeply aspired to practice ethics, to be considered moral beings was the basis for the establishment of religious institutions – albeit in a form that did not precipitate the behavior modifications that would have transformed and civilized human societies.
Human beings unable to practice ethics because of Absolutist Regimes began to pay lip service to these strictures, and there began to emerge a difference between these principles and values which were idealized and venerated in concept, even as they were being ignored and trampled upon in precept.
This dichotomy, I suggest, became apparent in each individual human personality, which was divided into conscious and unconscious compartments between which the conscience or super ego mediated.
This difference between concept and precept also became apparent in the operation of every social institution; ethics and morality became the window dressing that camouflaged and obscured the brutal and primitive acts of human beings.
Even as human civilizations gained more and more knowledge and understanding about the nature of the environment in which they existed, agents and institutions of human culture developed a mechanism, a blindness that allowed them to pursue their interests, wants and desires untrammeled and limited by ethical considerations.
But there was a byproduct of this mechanism, the socially learned drive of guilt. And human beings had to develop means of attaining catharsis of relieving and reducing guilt.
A variety of means were developed to attain this objective, Greeks developed theatre, the acting out of cultural themes during which the audience empathized with the players and achieved catharsis. Other societies developed rituals and ceremonies that had the same effect, for example, the taking of Communion and the marriage ceremony.
What is being suggested here is that at this early point in human history, when these accommodations were reached with Absolutism, the impermeable, intrinsic nature of social reality was created. The thus far unchanging, very resilient and long enduring core of human culture was created.
Accurate depictions of social reality occurred in art, in the literature, paintings and sculpture but documentation of actual experiences were skewed to reflect vested interests.
In fact, a rule of thumb could be applied, the greater the injustices, the suffering and oppression of the majority the more romantic, fantastic and stylized the window dressing that obscured it.
The more gigantic and gaudily decorated the architecture, the cathedrals, castles and other symbols of civilization.
Human beings have developed great enterprises of the mind, philosophy, art and education, and more recently, social sciences, but these have thus far failed to confront and challenge the basic premise that underpinned human societies – the efficacy and moral justification for coercion.
During the two thousand years the distribution of power in human societies has changed.
This has resulted in the diminution and dilution of the power of Absolute rulers, beginning with nobles, and continuing with the merchant class, workers, women, children and minorities; more and more human beings gained access to rights and freedoms, and amelioration in the degree and extent to which coercion in any form could be applied to them.
But these developments resulted from conflicts, which did not confront the basic premise of whether coercion, however efficient, should be applied to human beings.
It has now become imperative that this notion be minutely examined, confronted and challenged; urgently, crucially imperative because of developments and advances in physical science, including weapons of mass destruction.
Prior to the Twentieth century the depredations of the human race had no impact on the ecology of the planet; conflict and wars occurred regularly, even perennially, prompted by the reliance on coercion, but these did not affect the climate or the physical environment. The forces of nature were able to endure and to some degree absorb and overcome the scars and wounds caused by agriculture and industry, the most disruptive and destructive enterprises of man.
The contemporary situation is very different; the depredations of man have increased exponentially both in their scope, their virulence and in the potential for destruction, in the potential for catastrophic destruction; creating the necessity and urgent imperative for an in depth examination of the consequence and implications of reliance on coercion as motivation.
The efficacy of using coercion as motivation depends on the subject learning fear. It also results in reducing the free will and ability to choose of the subject.
Advances in learning theory suggest that the learning of intense drives, and fear is the most potent drive, produces conflicted, neurotic personality.
Therefore, the first and most adverse possible consequence of relying on coercion is that the subject will learn the drive of intense fear, and will become conflicted and neurotic to some degree.
In the hurly burly of everyday existence, this consequence is very, very difficult to avoid; more, because a viscous circle is operating in the life of every individual.
The mechanism that permits coercion to coexist with ethics; makes human beings ‘blind’ as they use coercion; it makes them oblivious of this component of impelling action.
This is a fact, but it is an intangible fact, it is a fact that exists only in the unconscious compartment of the collective psyche.
It can only be observed in the impact it has on human affairs. How else can we explain the fact that coercion, the use of corporal punishment, was extracted from the classroom, without any consideration given to an alternative form of motivation, the fundamental cause of the failure of the education system in the United States of America?
How else can we explain high divorce rates, which I suggest was precipitated by women attaining democratic rights, including the skills necessary to earn a living?
How else can we explain the failure of governments, successive democratically elected governments of every ideological hue, to make progress in the resolution of social problems?
The fact is, the inescapable fact is, to apply coercion, to apply deadly force like that applied in the Crusades, in the Spanish Inquisition, in the Middle Passage, in the Shoah, at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, or daily and perennially by criminals and policemen, required that human beings not know what they were doing. This capacity is not available to a minority of human beings but is a characteristic of all human beings; it is embedded, deeply embedded in human culture.
I feel constrained to point out, at this point, that I have no academic or professional qualifications that would make me an authority on this subject. In fact, if what I am saying is true, if these ideas are adequate to the existing reality, there are no experts on this subject because this ‘blindness’ effects all human beings, it is the fundamental prerequisites to survival in human societies.
What is clearly observable is that the social system that was created by the evolution of culture from a ‘state of nature,’ produces individuals who are to some degree neurotic, who are conflicted, who are afflicted by intense socially learned drives, guilt, ambition, acquisitiveness, to name a few examples.
The other negative consequence of applying coercion is that it reduces the free will, the capacity to choose for themselves, of the subject. This I suggest is the major source of conflict, of conflict between individuals, of conflict between organizations, and, of conflict between nations.
In effect the war in Iraq is consequence of the United States of America attempting to impose its version of democracy on the Iraqi people. The hate that sons have for fathers was never a sexual tension; it was precipitated by the authority, the absolute authority that the male parent imposed on his child.
Human beings have a strong desire to choose for themselves, and some will defend that right even it results in their death.
This is, and has been, since time immemorial, the fundamental and enduring cause of conflict between individuals, between groups and organizations, and between nations, in a world in which might has been considered right from the beginning of the human story.
I suggest that there is an alternative form of motivation, positive reinforcements, which have none of these negative effects. If reward is substituted for punishments in the learning circle, the subject will not need to learn any degree of fear to achieve the necessary behavior modification, nor will his or her freedom of choice be curtailed or infringed on.
To change, to conclude that positive reinforcements is a greatly superior means of motivating action than coercion, the individual must decide whether coercion should be applied to any human being, he or she must decide whether any human being should be considered prey?
A predator, any predator, has no such qualms of conscience; prey is a means of sustenance without which it cannot survive.
Human beings were once predators, and became habituated to considering others as prey, and built social interaction and social systems on this premise, having no available alternative, but is it a valid premise, this is the question each and every human being must answer?
It is, I suggest, the very essence of civility.
I raise this issue at a very appropriate time for Americans, who this following Monday will be celebrating Memorial Day; they will be remembering and honoring those American who have died in battle.
I deem it even more appropriate to rehearse at this juncture this extract from a famous piece of rhetoric:
But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate --- we cannot consecrate --- we cannot hallow --- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it will never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us --- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the full measure of devotion --- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain --- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom --- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
The conundrum I pose is the very essence of democracy, the very essence of the great task mentioned in the foregoing quote; does any human being have the right to use force, of any kind, to impose his or her will on another human being, to treat another human being as if they were prey, an energy source?
I would suggest to every human being to take a few moments on this Memorial Day weekend to reflect on this issue.
This introspection might begin with considering which motivation you rely in your relations with other human beings; a second issue that might be examined is whether you have the right to decide how other human beings act, and, lastly you might consider the fundamental issue that I have raised, whether one human being has the right to treat another as prey given the fact that there is now a readily available alternative?
This issue not only goes to the basis for social interaction; it is extremely relevant to the issues that bedevil us today.
What should be more important, the profits of oil companies and motor vehicle manufacturers or the effect of burning fossil fuels on the ecology? In a rational world the answer would be clear; in the irrational world that we live in that answer is obscured by the economic power of these conglomerates, might is right.
The goal of the invasion of Iraq has been transformed by the not too subtle machinations of spin doctors from the initial claim of finding and destroying weapons of mass destruction, into creating a stable democratic society in that country; the first justification having proved to have little or no foundation in reality, a second has been constructed to save the political fortunes of the Bush Administration?
The question is whether this justification is any more valid than the first? It is not.
Democracy, because of its intrinsic nature, as I have tried to describe and communicate, cannot be imposed on any body politic; those who contemplate and seek to justify such an imposition are consumed by hubris and self serving opportunism.
This sequence of events raises an even more fundamental issue, whether there is a functioning democracy in the USA?
The failure to curb the excesses of the Bush Administration, the criminal excesses of this Administration proves beyond doubt that there in not a functioning democracy in this country.
To function, democracy requires that a bare majority of the populace achieve civility; which begins with the appreciation and realization that no human being should be treated as prey. It requires that a bare majority become adept at using positive reinforcements in their relations with other human beings.
This intellectual growth has not yet occurred in the USA; in this nation democracy is still a notion, around which has been constructed the forms of democracy, window dressing that obscures the core of coercion based culture.
The excesses, the criminal excesses, of the Bush Administration and the failure to limit and curb these excesses, have proven beyond doubt that a functioning democracy does not exist in the US.
Once it is accepted by a bare majority in any social system that no human being should be treated as prey, as an energy source; there will follow, as night follows day, a government of the people, by the people, for the people.
A society in which this initial enabling development occurs will inevitably become a model for every nation on this planet; one that demonstrates the effect and efficacy of positive reinforcements on production and productivity in the economy and the governmental bureaucracy, on social relations, education and family life; this change must and will produce national consolidation.
I feel constrained to record the codicil that this development may be far advanced in Norway and other Scandinavian countries that I have insufficient information on.
Unless and until this occurs there will be no future for humanity, just the past happening over, and over, and over, again.
I ask again this question of every human being everywhere, should any human being, whatever their sex, age, race or national origin be treated as prey? Should they be subject to coercion in any form, overt or covert, as they seek life, liberty and pursue happiness?
On the answer to this simple question, turns the future of the human race?
William E. Virtue
Copyright Retained
Web site: voiceofpeace.net
Email: vox_pacis1@msn.com
Memphis, TN
posted by voiceofpeace at 9:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home