THE TRIUMPH OF CONSCIENCE
Cosmos, Evolution, Values and Spirituality
by
Viktor Atman
Smashwords Edition
* * * * *
Published on Smashwords by:
Viktor Atman
The Triumph of Conscience
Cosmos, Evolution, Values and Spirituality
Copyright 2010 by Viktor Atman
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form, or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise) without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.
Smashwords Edition License Notes
This ebook is licensed for your personal use only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with. If you are reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then you should return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the author's work.
* * * * *
CONTENTS
4. The other half of the world
5. Evolution towards conscience
6. Evolution of the conscience
* * * * *
PROLOGUE
Situated in what is called the literature on human development, The Triumph of the Conscience is a book which talks about values, but secular values which can be practiced by anyone independently of their religious affiliation, political party, ethnic profile or sexual preference. The purpose of this essay is to present the reader with a series of reflections on how to improve relations between individuals, peoples and with nature itself.
Precisely because living along side each other in a civilized way cannot be contemplated without values, these are the central theme of this book. Values understood as profoundly held beliefs that lead us to act in one particular way or another. And as without values there is no will, The Triumph of the Conscience calls upon human reason and emotions in order to make of our actions are something constructive and creative.
Divided into nine chapters, the author bases his arguments around four central categories: the creation (where do we come from?), order (what are the bridges between the physical universe and the world of culture?), the conscience (which part of our makeup is spirit and which is matter?, are we dealing with entities that are separate and recognizable or to the contrary, something indivisible?) and morals (what is the role of our conceptions of good and evil in the configuration of the conscience?) This last point is at the heart of the book. How does one shift from what “is” to what “should be”?
Although he does not say so directly, it is obvious that the author situates himself within the tradition of books that lead us towards a rupture with dualism. His book aims to build a holistic vision of history, culture and human psychology. For this reason it draws on anthropology and psychology as well as history, philosophy and the natural sciences. The author himself admits in the introduction that he aspires to leave the reader with “more unsettling questions than calming answers”.
So, across these pages move all the topics related with the literature on human development: the frontiers between good and evil, the relationship between morals and ethics, work, money, pain, freedom and repression, the relationships between the interior and exterior of human beings, paradoxes, the dominion of need, the cosmos as a synthesis of matter and conscience, the retrieval of this other half of the world which is interiority of the subject, the present state of contemporary science and the questioning of it since Einstein, the dynamic tension between the self and the others, the direction of evolution and its links with the maturing of the conscience, the relations between the part and the whole, the impulses of conservation and participation, creativity, the symbolic dimension of behaviour, the shift from I-me to we and the multiplicity and decentering of the self.
Towards the end of the book, Victor Atman shows a clear interest in the “collective consciousness”, that is, the relationship between we and the others. In this way he extends his reflections on the evolution of the conscience to the collective sphere. In this way he deals with the implications of his analysis for social organization both as he does for the level of kinship and the foundational religions. The book ends with a macro analysis of what it means to talk about the evolution of culture and its implications for the development of global structure such as the internet and systems of government. Here metaphysical thought is inevitable for his search for the essences and foundations that can provide an account of the multiple processes that coincide and take place simultaneously.
The Triumph of the Conscience is a book by a who is wise and above all, avid to ask himself questions. This immense question which he throws out to the cosmos reminds us of the gesture of the great teachers from the Babylonian prophets and their clay tablets where they drew the course of the stars, to the light projected by thinkers such as Edgar Morin and Umberto Eco. The chords of a music without a score emerge from his elegant prose from start to finish. I am sure that readers will know how to tune into it and enjoy a renewing and unforgettable experience.
Daniel Gonzalez Marìn
* * * * *
INTRODUCTION
This is a book about values. It deals with human development understood in the only way that I can conceive it: as the improvement of the forms in which humans live alongside each other either as individuals or as peoples, and the encouragement of a more respectful attitude towards nature.
Values represent our deep seated beliefs, the things that interest us, that we search for and love. The sum of these things is the compass that orients our footsteps, is what gives meaning to life itself and can even justify its surrender, it is the motor that activates our will. If everyone were moved by the same aims and these aims were creative, this would represent such a concentration of energy that most of our present calamities could be overcome in one or two generations.
Unfortunately, things do not work like that. Not all aims are constructive or all values convergent. Values stem from many sources such as tradition, laws, religions and the teachings of masters whom we admire, but there is such a diversity of interests, customs, religions and mentors that the panorama of moral criteria turns out to be a mosaic which is not only varied but also frankly divergent and even in opposition to the point of extreme belligerence.
In the face of all this one could ask if ethics is purely a question of personal opinion and cultural differences. Is it only a question of comparative anthropology? Is something that is only resolved by those in possession of most force? Are we condemned to move blindly through a web of interests disguised as justice? Or to the contrary, is it possible to vindicate the idea of the universality of values? Is it possible to find an objective basis on which to get out of this tricky entanglement? What I propose to do this book is to demonstrate that it is in fact possible.
For a number of years I structured and later presented in lecture form the arguments that I now put into print. During that time I centred my attention on the study of the key elements that make possible the intimate dovetailing of all that exists, both material and spiritual. Without this linking together many of the important ideas expressed in this field by the most lucid thinkers risk being used without an adequate enquiry into their fundamental validity; they were like dry leaves, as from my point of view they lack a trunk and roots, an indispensable sense of over all coherence, of an underlying logic that unifies them.
In the search for this unity I was confronted time and again with four themes in the face of which it is impossible for one not to feel perplexed. These are the creation, order, conscience and of course, morality.
The creation
(Or, if you prefer, origins)
Why is there something instead of nothing? When did the Universe begin if it did in fact begin at some time? Did it appear in time or with time? Did the creation occur in the past or is it occurring now? Is there a will or a blind mechanism behind the Cosmos? If it is blind, what is the human will doing here? Are the answers to this type of question accessible to the mind? Do these questions have anything to do with behaviour or does behaviour belong to a world completely set apart from these ancient mysteries?
Order
What is most admirable about the Cosmos, its magnitude or its coherent complexity? To what should I attribute the harmony of so many and such diverse wonders from the basic energies that move the Universe to the infinite plasticity and variety of living beings? Should I attribute it to God, to an intentional order, or to an order which is without purpose or random? What happens if order is not all pervading but limited to the physical and biological world, leaving the cultural sphere immersed in fancy and confusion? Or even if order is total and thus, in this circumstance culture is inseparable from it, can links be found that connect all forms and levels of being? Is the sum of what exists a cacophony or a concert?
Conscience
Does spirit exist as well as matter? Are things separate or opposed to each other, or rather, different expressions of the same underlying reality? Is the internal experience of sensations, emotions and thoughts the same as the physical mechanisms through which they are expressed, or are we dealing with a new reality that together with the laws of matter on which it is based, adds its own properties? What makes the dust from which we are created capable of feeling and thinking about itself? In what moment did the great leap from inert matter to the appearance of subjectivity occur? Or instead of a leap, was there a succession of gradual changes which through a process of accumulation produced something distinct that obliges us to give it a different name? Is matter transformed gradually until it produces what well call an inner life, conscience, mind, soul or spirit, or does the opposite happen and is it the spirit that through its need to express itself stamps thousands of forms on the material world?
Morality
Do good and evil exist or is it a question of changeable opinions and points of view, of brute force that masks itself in the guise of virtue, or merely the principle of survival? Is the moral dimension only background noise or fleeting dust pushed to the surface by the movement of deeper forces? Is it mere illusion compared to the tangible threads of which physical reality is woven? Faced with the immensity of the Cosmos is the question of human conduct insignificant or is it crucial for a full understanding of what merits being called the Universe?
I propose the latter. Morality plays a role that is more than just important, but in fact central if everything is to acquire meaning. The fundamental thing is to work out how it is possible to move from what “is” to what “should be”. How can these two things form part of the same world? However, the fact is that morality is not just fantasy, nor is it an irrelevant bit of fluff detached from some type of matter.
Let us imagine that someone is given the unlikely task of drawing up a detailed inventory of what exists is in the Universe, galaxy by galaxy, star by star and planet by planet. In some places the meticulous celestial accountant would ratify the presence of matter in the form of elemental energy, in other places he would report thermonuclear phenomena, and in others, would perhaps register the existence of matter in the form of gases, ice and powder. When drawing up the catalogue of what exists on the Earth he would have to note:
“On this planet there is matter and energy in many states, such as light, burning mixtures, solids, liquids, gasses, water and others, but there is also life and that is not all, there are also perceptions, emotions and thoughts.”
The careful scribe’s assistant might say to his boss:
“Sir, I don’t think we should note down the existence of the last three because, as they can’t be seen, they are not really things and if we report them as actually existing, we could be accused of fraud later on.”
Would the worried helper be right? No, of course he would not.
I would not have doubted for one instant, and would have sent the assistant to a celestial refresher course and immediately asked for the appointment of another who was smarter and more up-to-date, and able to recognize the existence of facts of the conscience –morality included– as indubitable ingredients of the Cosmos, this being understood as the total of all that exists.
The inner self exists and, although it is not visible or tangible, should appear in the terrestrial inventory and perhaps even that of other worlds. But from where and how did conscience appear in our lives? What are the links between what “is” and what “should be”? What unites the “inert” stones with the subtle anxieties of the soul? Is it sensible to say that as well as the force of gravity there is also a force of reason and of ethics? How can all this form part of the same world?
This book summarizes the answers I have found to these enigmas and which those who have attended my lectures have repeatedly encouraged me to publish. The question of values is not dealt with here as an isolated dimension but rather as an essential element of a finely linked reality in which both the tangible and the intangible, the objective and the subjective are present. Without the presence of either of these extremes, we cannot succeed in understanding the sum total of what we call Universe.
All that exists is composed of two types of reality. From these two complementary seams everything emerges and to them returns: exteriority and interiority, physical objects and understanding, matter and conscience. In the amalgam of the two we find the wonder of existence. When we deny the importance of one or the other we mutilate reality and are left with half the world which is nearer to nothing: matter without witnesses and witnesses without anything to testify to.
It is precisely in the task of elaborating a holistic vision that the main sources I have referred to in the search for answers to the questions posed in this book have been put to the test. Amongst those most frequently visited are the various religious languages of divine revelation, the subtle arguments of philosophical abstraction and the exquisite mathematical and geometrical boasts of the sciences. All these sources promise in their own way truth and happiness, but as each one responds to a different human thirst (that of believing, that of meaning and that of measuring), when we limit ourselves to only one and scorn the others, we produce forms of inner starvation which can degenerate, depending on the person, into superstition, intolerance, anxiety, escapism, nihilism, indifference or cynicism; in short, behaviours that produce individual and collective suffering.
As a way of distancing itself from reductionism, this book makes use of arguments, doubts and intuitions of different origins but articulates them in a framework that can be useful to those who ask themselves about meaning of the world and life and about the relevance of love. It does not matter whether these people are believers, agnostics or atheists. What I offer here is an interpretation of existence in which everyone can find thought provoking and enlightening elements that will help them to reconcile the insatiable appetites of the soul with the stubborn call to prudence of the senses.
It is probable that reading this book will generate more unsettling questions than calming answers. If that is the case, it will have fulfilled one of its objectives, that is to activate reflection on one’s own life. A timely and well posed question has a more positive and long-lasting effect than thousands of hurried and superficial answers because it awakens an appetite for truth. This appetite stops the depths of our conscience from stagnating, it gives us the courage to let light fall into the chinks in our prejudices, so as to avoid being satisfied with the imprecision of the commonplace or the sterility of simplifications, and to reject the cowardly escapism of individual happiness “at all cost” which is foreign to any notion of commitment and responsibility.
This book has not been written to enlighten but rather to disturb. Thus, the format is not academic, although some of the provocative statements it contains come from and lead back to the academic world, as it is not the work of a specialist but rather an ordinary person with a wide range of concerns and inspired by a passion for discovering links between apparently unconnected materials and much more interested in the cloth than the loose threads. This brings with it the cost of leaving some scholars dissatisfied, although it may sow reasonable doubts originating in other fields in their minds, as a fresh look, albeit is naive but sincerely based in a love of truth, on occasions illuminates the specialist with new perspectives that a certain blindness, product of excessive concentration, has left unexplored.
On the other hand, this book, despite the complexity of some of its subject matter, uses language which is as clear as possible, keeps technical terms to a minimum and avoids the distraction of footnotes. It has been written thinking of ordinary people who are interested in the moral quality of life and who ask themselves questions about the foundations on which it is based. It has been written for action, to inspire, to imbue optimism and constructive purpose, to contribute to a world where there is more solidarity, populated by freer, more creative, tolerant and generous human beings. It has been written to inspire a joyful and constructive vision of our existence, an attitude of profound admiration for nature and all its manifestations, and with infinite respect for life and the conscience. It has been written thinking of the millions of women and men who believe that in the power of love in spite of everything, to remind them that they are right, that this force is engraved in the staff of the Universe and that there is nothing more noble, just or beautiful, nor more intelligent than always being willing for this energy to use us as its conscious instruments.
If I were asked about how to classify this essay, I would not know how to reply. It dips into psychology, science, philosophy, anthropology, politics, human development and spirituality. There is a little of everything but these topics are not dealt with separately but as brush-strokes contributed by different palates to a single landscape –the Cosmos– in which the tiny figure of the human being gives meaning to the whole picture. In spite of the diversity of the materials, the purpose is single and unequivocal: to understand the ethical meaning of our existence.
The vision I present here is an invitation to recognize that interiority and exteriority are phenomena that cannot be disassociated from each other, in the same way that the individual and the collective are fields that are so intimately bound together that they can only be separated at cost of great unhappiness. In these pages the reader will find many reasons to celebrate life, criteria for achieving harmony and inspiration to act, but in such a way that our action is guided by a holistic conscience in which human beings, being the paradoxical creatures we are, recognize ourselves simultaneously with modesty and grandeur. With modesty, in that we are only a thread in a vast and wonderful weave. With grandeur, because we are also weavers of this cloth, but I would stress that we are conscious craftsmen. Let us weave lovingly, which is the only wise way of doing it. In truth, there is no other secret to achieving happiness.
* * * * *
1. GOOD AND EVIL
Ignorance of good and evil
is that which most perturbs human existence.
CICERO
The worst crimes against humanity have not been committed by bad people convinced of their wickedness but by fools convinced of their own goodness. In the face of this, one can only concede that the venerable Socratic observation that evil is the product of ignorance is correct. Diminish this ignorance, succeed in making sure that these good intentions are right is an unavoidable and urgent imperative. Good and truth are inseparable. It is revealing to notice that the greater the ignorance and prejudice, the more the hatred in disputes increases and with sacrilegious malice, the more the name of God is called upon and degraded.
This happens because the subject of good and evil, along with the idea of the Creation, is the most important enigma that can be posed by the human mind with respect to divine powers. If God is infinite kindness, why do the innocent suffer? If He is the creator of all that exists, why does evil exist? If He is all knowing and all powerful, why does he see evil and permit it? All religions offer a moral formula which is basically a way of saying that they are on God’s side, although in practice the faithful often act as if it were God who falls into line with their demands.
The confusion experienced when faced with these theological questions is further complicated when we descend to the sphere of the profane and become conscious that our capricious ways of understanding good and evil create a confusing array of opinions and interests that divide and even confront individuals and peoples to the death.
Ethics is an issue central to a full understanding of the human phenomenon, our survival and happiness. It is one of the most passionate subjects that exist and perhaps the one of the most debated throughout history. It is present in our lives from childhood and accompanies us to old-age. It is the essence of transcendent issues but is also present in apparently irrelevant arguments and matters. It is the driving force behind laws and those who oppose them. It is the reason why courts exist, at the heart of customs, of individual disputes and of wars, the objective of many mystical searches and the central element of political struggles. It is a ubiquitous subject, as old as it is up-to-date and is always a burning concern. It is what is most important for human existence.
Today it is common to hear that we are going through a crisis of values, and on the other hand that that many of these values have been lost and that it is urgent to retrieve them. I accept the first of these two statements but not the second. Let’s see why.
How can we deny that we live in the midst of a crisis of values when every day we receive news of war, terrorism, crime, abuse, deceit, corruption, extreme economic inequality, damage to the environment and many other aberrations? This produces the sensation of living in a particularly important and even crucial epoch. However, this feeling is not exclusive to our times. Humans have always shown an inclination to exalt the transcendence of their own time as they consider it to be the most important ever.
Let us imagine the state of mind of the early Christians who thought that the second coming of Jesus Christ was imminent, and that with it would come the end of time. Did not this idea bring with it the sensation of living at the most significant moment in time imaginable? Let us also think about what was going through the minds of both Muslims and Christians at the time of the crusades, of the Aztecs and Incas when their cultures were cut short by a sword from an unknown world, or of the creators of the splendors of the Renaissance. These are only a few examples of how each civilization has seen itself poised at a decisive point in history. There is some truth in this, as for those who live at a particular time it is in effect the most important. We could call the phenomenon the “watershed syndrome”.
Objectively, each historical cycle is unique in itself but none of these cycles can be considered the culmination of history. Is not contemporary society labouring under the same naive and vain illusion that our own epoch is something exceptional and has reached a pinnacle?
In all the periods that have preceded our own we can observe two common elements: one is the limited reach of their actions and the other, the use of tools that are not so very different from each other in order to overcome challenges. From the point of view of our epoch, there are in fact a number of innovations that profoundly distinguish and affect the points of reference essential to human existence. We will look at four of them below.
The globalization of information
Today’s means of communication make a sort of reciprocal ubiquity possible; the whole world in everybody’s home. What happens in the far-away places on earth and even outside the planet –as is the case with space expeditions– comes into our rooms at practically the same moment it is taking place. Magnetic recordings mean that we can witness, both visually and with sound, many past events. It is amazing, but the most interesting and apparently contradictory thing about this phenomenon of global communication is its pulverization as the messages do not come from a single source but from many. Not everyone is subject to a single loudspeaker listening to his master’s voice. In most countries, in spite of the archaic temptation in some to centrally control mass information, today people can choose between an array of television channels, radio stations and printed publications. Thanks to the mobile phone, anyone can communicate instantly with whoever they want from wherever they are, even though they are on the other side of the world. A very good example of this mix of globalization-individualization is the phenomenon of the Internet where, it is correct to say, everyone can “navigate”, as if they were on the open sea, whenever and wherever they please and stop doing so in the same manner. All this is a novelty of our time. Nothing like it had ever existed before.
Biotechnology
In the hope of improving the types of domesticated animals and plants with the highest yields, and by means of selective cross-breeding and grafting, many years ago human beings began genetic manipulation without having the slightest notion of genes or the laws of heredity that were proposed by G. Mendel (1822-1884) in the mid-nineteenth century but which remained unknown until the early twentieth century. This primitive way of proceeding was simply empirical and carried out through the union of fully formed organisms, in contrast to what happens today when genetic techniques can be used to intervene at molecular level, that is to say, directly acting on the basic of building blocks of life.
Knowledge in this field promises amazing things short term: personalized medicine based on genetic configuration, individual therapies for illnesses still considered incurable today, the possibility of making life longer and even intervention in the orientation of biological evolution. These promises may be the cause of enthusiasm but they also bring us face to face with questions intimately related with human dignity, and in consequence, with ethical problems that were previously unimagined. There are the delicate issues of cloning, of stem-cells, of the manipulation, destruction and commercialization of human embryos and again the issue of eugenics that has been rid of its old fascist and authoritarian uniform to be presented today under the guise of liberty, offering parents the possibility of designing their own children. In this programming we can observe two tendencies in the face of which it is not necessarily appropriate to assume the same stance. One is preventive and the other promotes certain modifications. The former is irreproachable as it is oriented towards avoiding predictable illnesses and unnecessary suffering for children. In contrast, the second will give rise to some fierce debates as it involves cultivating and conditioning in the offspring characteristics or aptitudes specially desired by the parents but without the consent of those who will find themselves to have an important part of their lives predetermined by others.
We do not have space to go into these questions in depth, but it is interesting to point out they are not trivial and that in the long run no-one will be able to avoid the need to assume a stance with respect to them and face of the fact that the aspects of this technology that over time are deemed acceptable, should not be restricted to those who are economically privileged.
Along with this, we should also add that the life sciences have lavished invaluable benefits on humanity through of vaccines, antibiotics and many other resources, but they have also made possible the production of chemical and bacteriological arms of mass extermination. None of this existed before.
Cybernetics
Humans have always manufactured tools which can well be considered authentic prosthesis that both substitute and augment our natural organic capacity. The telescope, the microscope, X-ray machines, magnetic resonance systems, television, radar, the telephone and many other instruments lead our senses of sight and hearing much further than they could reach on their own. At the same time, our possibilities of locomotion and cargo increase fantastically through the use of great ships, railways, cars, planes, etc. All these are quite singular to our epoch in comparison to the previous ones, but a new capacity “extender” has come into existence over the past few years that on its own has permitted more profound qualitative changes. Here we are dealing with cybernetics or in plain language, computers.
The storage, memorization, reorganization and retrieval of data, the handling of complex statistical calculations, the simulation of scenarios and a thousand other things that require great mental effort are tasks that are being increasingly delegated to these machines. By trusting a machine with the more routine jobs, the human brain is being freed to occupy itself with other tasks in a more creative, systematic, subtle and above all, more promising way. Human advances have always been associated with means of freeing ourselves from the toughest jobs, such as when we stopped depending on our own muscle power, first through the domestication of animals, and later through the use of mechanical inventions. Now, computing techniques make more important changes possible because what they free is not only muscular energy but also time for thought and specific capacities related to it. The new “extenders” are mental. Correctly employed these techniques can contribute to raising our level of conscience immensely and guide us to improve the connection between reason and emotions, the I with the we, and develop a more harmonious and generous outlook. Perhaps this is what will happen, although there is no guarantee. The only thing that we do know is that this new instrumental capacity never existed before.
Energy accumulation
The energy used by the first human beings was, as we have just noted, limited to their muscular strength, and in consequence, was minimal. It has been calculated as being two thousand kilocalories per head a day. From then on, usable energy increased at the same time as other forces of nature like beasts of burden, the wind, running water, steam, hydroelectric and geothermal power, fossil fuels and nuclear energy were harnessed. In the twenty-first century the average world energy generation has reached a level thousands or millions of times more to that of early times. The productive forces have never before been equipped with such a powerful trigger.
However, the increase in creative possibilities, which should be viewed with the best of hopes, has a dark side to it because of the stubborn human tendency to use energy not only to build but also to destroy. The energy accumulated for military purposes since the middle of the twentieth century is immensely superior to that of all previous historical periods put together.
The atomic bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and that in an instant cut short the lives of around 150 thousand people (200 thousand if we count the nuclear after effects), was only 13 thousand kilotons or the equivalent of 13 thousand tons of dynamite, which today is almost nothing compared with the new generation of nuclear arms. Nowadays, a two megaton bomb (equivalent of two million tons of dynamite and which might be considered average) has a destructive capacity equivalent to all the explosives used during World War II. It is good to know that there are thousands of war-heads aimed at their targets. Today the destructive energy of these weapons is superior to the 10 thousand megatons capable of killing 150 thousand million people in a few hours, although the world only has a population of about six thousand million. If we could all be resuscitated, there would be no difficulty in disappearing us 25 times each, together with the rest of the Earth’s living species. This demented and terrifying possibility of total suicide and the disappearance of most animal and vegetal life is also something that never existed before.
In view of the above, the old adage “there is nothing new under the Sun” cannot be applied lightly in our time. The reality is that the Sun never stops being surprised. The advances in communications that make emotional and rational affinities possible without the need for geographical proximity; genetics which has proved to be capable of manipulating and mixing the basic elements of life of all species including our own; cybernetics which frees mental time and space and the energy capacity that can be more creative than ever or send all to the devil at a stroke, are things which together with their global reach, never existed before.
The above data is not included to suggest in any way that our epoch is somehow at a high point. Of course it is not. It is only one more phase in technical and cultural evolution, but it has some ground-breaking features that bring with them previously unimaginable moral challenges. Reflection on the contemporary ethical crisis is now more important than ever given the global and far reaching nature of human capabilities, as what is at risk is not now the triumph or defeat of one group over another but the very survival of the human species.
With respect to the nostalgic belief that many values have been lost and that the best thing we can do is to return to them, it is enough to remember some criteria of value of the past to realize that they are not worth reviving.
Peoples rightly appreciate traditions because they contribute to their sense of identity. However, the type of behaviour validated by custom or tradition is not necessarily redeemable in the present. Although it is true that nothing can be created out of nothing, nor is it possible to create things by clinging to pure repetition. Not everything in the past was better, neither with respect to objective data –like average life expectancy– nor concerning moral judgements. For example, let us think about the way in which some peoples considered the most exalted and dignified way of honouring their gods; offering them human sacrifices, often children. Practically any contemporary believer would be horrified to consider this form of worship. Let us also remember that until not so many years ago, the executions of those condemned to death on the cross, by burning, by guillotine or on the gallows, were truly public spectacles attended by the population that lacked other forms of “entertainment” or a better way to “kill” time. Although these customs became part of the cultural tradition in some societies, it would be an aberration to try to revive them.
Confining ourselves nearer to the present, our recent ancestors had notions of how to live along side others that are not worthy of being resuscitated. Most of our forefathers were irredeemable machos. Privileges were for men. The economy and power were made for them to manage. For earlier generations, the woman was a companion subject to the whim of the man, a helper in domestic tasks, and, above all, a being whose main virtue was biological: a child-giving womb. Not a producer but a reproducer. Not a creator but a procreator. It never occurred to men to think of women in terms of equality either mentally, legally or in the workplace. They considered the fact that women aspired to take part in the world of work, politics and culture on equal terms with men an indecent affront. Frankly, although one respects the memory of our ancestors and understands the historical context in which they lived, today it would be immensely foolish to share the way they grossly undervalued more than half the human race.
I know that it is not right to judge the events that occurred in a period before our own using modern day criteria, and I do not suggest doing so, but nor is it wise to uncritically translate criteria applied in former days to the present.
Not everything that was at one time a well-loved tradition is worth reviving. There are notions of value that have been eclipsed and that is how it should be. From this point of view, a modern analysis of the subject of human values would have to go much further than the etymological roots of the word moral (from the Latin, mor, moris) that alludes to custom, for the simple reason that mere repetition slows stifles creativity.
When morality is defended solely on the basis of custom or tradition, it is limited to appeals to return to the fold. It demands adaptation instead of personal growth capable of opening new horizons. In the face of this reality, which of the things we have inherited should we keep and which should we throw out? To which sources should we turn to in search of clues to find an objective moral base with a universal vocation?
Many people find the answer in their religious faith. It is here that they find inspiration, guidelines and a restraint that no other language can inspire in them. However, what is to be done with those who have a different religion or who do not have one? What is to be done with the agnostics and the atheists? Shall we again encourage wars with religious undertones whose vestiges of intolerance still strike deadly blows today?
Others, who are more pragmatic, settle for the idea that it is enough to obey the law. On average, if all of us did this things would progress a lot, but this is not enough either as there are unjust laws in the face of which the only ethical thing to do is to fight them. There have always been mistaken legal dispositions that have inspired the most elevated consciences in all periods of time to struggle against them. Where have the combatants got the moral energy for these battles from? This force can come from anywhere except from the laws that they are trying to fight.
Finally we have those with a more short term view, those that depend on the criteria in vogue, as if moral issues were the same as the fashion in clothes. Having this attitude, they are easy prey to commercial seduction and passive victims of stereotypes, ranging from the stupid to the terrifying, which the mass media tend to popularize.
As can be appreciated, moral criteria can reach an infinite variety, a variety that puts painfully in crisis the old longing to be able to depend on a set of absolute values. This is a dream that refuses to abandon the human soul. Truth, justice, beauty, loyalty, tolerance, etc. are words whose mere mention evokes and summons up the best in ourselves and in others, precisely because they have universal resonance. They are ideas which in every time and place, can claim respect in their own right, without depending on the circumstantial adjustments of economic or political forces, or the fickle personal opinions.
However, in opposition to these inspiring abstractions arises the multiform army of ethical relativity made up in real day-to-day life of the true, the good, the just, the beautiful, the loyal, the tolerable, etc. as a tangible expression of concrete things. True, from what point of view and in what epoch? Beautiful, according to whom? Just, who for, according to what laws, in which country and in which period of history? Loyalty to what or to whom? We should not forget that without a minimum of loyalty amongst criminals there would be no organized crime. Tolerance, extendible to the intolerant so that in the end they prevail? Examples of ethical relativity are endless.
This relativity of values pursues us everywhere until we feel bewildered. There would appear to be no one firm point for us to grasp onto although we desperately need and long for one. Because of this, it is healthy to stop on the way and review the philosophy that is behind our in every time and place. All individuals have something of a philosopher in them. It does not mean that they are dedicated to the academic discipline of that name and from which they would run as if it were the plague. But even so they are philosophers without knowing it as they have deep-rooted basic ideas and beliefs that, right or wrong, are reflected in the way they act. This is applied philosophy. Actually, the best philosophers are ordinary, sensible but consistent people, who have hit on basic truths that guide them and with which they are happy, while there are probably many professors of philosophy who lead really disastrous lives.
Reviewing and questioning our philosophy, these deep-rooted ideas about the world and life, is what makes the difference between opting for a passage through life that is guided by routine inertia as opposed to consciously choosing a route. It is the difference between living and surviving, or what is the same, experiencing existence as if you are in a ship that has gone adrift or taking control of the helm. There is nothing more necessary or gratifying than doing the latter. The prize is the inner happiness or peace that is reached to the extent to which we think and feel is the same as what we say and do.
This need for consistency is relevant to all areas of activity. What is moral cannot be confined to the intimate, to family relationships or to friendship where what predominates is not self-interest, separating it from the world of work and production with the excuse that in the affairs of the market and politics a different logic prevails, one of ruthless competition and fierce rivalry. When acting on to this premise, the same person acts according to two opposing visions of values which logically produce two contradictory ways of behaving. One takes up one set of morals for workdays and another for weekends.
At first glance it would seem comfortable to have this double set of morals, but the truth is that the result is individually and socially pathological. It is not possible for the same people to be guided by opposing values without such disharmony provoking a veritable schizophrenia, a divided personality, a split inner life. As the individual and the social are things that can not be separated with impunity, when individuals behave within this logic of schizophrenia, reality takes it toll sooner or later in different forms of personal disorder and social chaos.
The healthiest thing to do is to get rid of the double set of moral standards and act in every place and at every moment according to the same deep motivations. This seems to be obvious but what happens in reality is that the obvious is hardly put into practice in spite of the fact that consistency helps us find a broader and richer meaning to life and to contemplate our work in a new light that transforms the cruel burden into a creative niche of joy and self-fulfillment.
The word toil (hard, back-breaking work), comes from the vulgar Latin in which tripaliare meaning torture in a sort of press made of three crossed stakes or wooden poles to which the prisoner was tied. From here the Italian word trabaliare meaning travail or toil was formed. It is interesting that language associates the notions of work and torture. Millions of people all over the world prefer not to “have” to “work”. Any furrow, street, workshop or office that serves as a workplace is seen by them as the precise opposite of paradise. However, work can also be, and indeed should be, conceived of as an act of pleasure in so much as it is an act of creation. It represents the prodigious capacity to make something appear in the world that would not emerge if it were not for our own actions. Work is what irradiates our power of expression, is a means of fulfilling ourselves and is a real path to transcendence.
Certainly a lot of people in today’s world have arrived at their habitual occupations due to factors unrelated to vocation and consider their work merely as a source of subsistence and not as an opportunity for pleasure. This does not mean to say that the positive alternative is forbidden. All that it shows is that our collective organization is still so imperfect that it impedes the harmonious and full expression of individual capacities. It is to be hoped that social changes will gradually correct this, but it is also desirable that each person should take steps to find pleasure in the experience of work. And it would be better for that to occur, as regards the work that we carry out there are two alternatives: exchange one job for another, which for an infinite number of reasons is not always possible, or keep it. If this is the case, again we have to choose between two attitudes, enjoying it or merely putting up with it.
The number of hours that we spend in work-related activities occupies a long period of time each day, and put together, of our lives. Ultimately, as we do not own anything except our own experience, in other words, of our life-time, it is a lamentable waste not to take advantage of every instant of labour and even worse, reach the point where we see it as a hardship that has to be gone through in order to survive.
The positive effect that carrying out our tasks with pleasure has on our immunological systems is widely documented. A number of surveys have shown that many heart attacks occur on Monday mornings, as well as being twice as frequent during the first working hours than during the rest of the day. What does this data suggest to us? That many people suffer from stress at the very idea of work for the simple reason that they hate it. When they are doing it they are only thinking of the end of the shift when they can escape. However, for some this escape is in vain because when faced with their free time they are faced with emptiness. So in order not to die of tedium or to avoid domestic problems, they end up wanting to go back to work, not for the love of it but as the result of the need to get away again. They get tired of work and are bored when they rest. What is it that these people do not like? What they do not like is life! They do not know how to be at peace with themselves or anyone else. They have an internal void. They do not know what they want. They are strangers trapped in their own existence. They live with a sort of gap in their souls, always stuck at the entrance to life, waiting for something to happen by itself but that will never occur on its own.
What is to be done? Unless one can live without working, which is no guarantee of happiness, the most positive attitude is to find the agreeable side to our tasks or exchange them for others as soon as possible. In this way we do will not waste precious hours on things we hate nor will we turn into dysfunctional elements for society. It is more helpful not to get in the way.
In contrast, it is a great lesson to take a look at the energy that emanates from the people who really love what they do. They are the best proof that the two ways of confronting life already mentioned are possible: putting up with it or enjoying it. They are the living proof that work is not synonymous with discomfort and pain but that it is creation and can be converted into the reason for living. Let us think, for example, about some artists who experience a different sensation of time, something like almost mystical ecstasy during their performances or during the process of creation. Some sports-people comment on having felt something similar at the peak moments of their efforts. Let us note the radical commitment to truth on the part of many scientists, amongst some figures in political life who are inspired by a genuine will to serve and to justice and in the noble piety of the tireless defenders of species in danger of extinction.
In all these cases there is a consumption of physical energy that can be very intense, exhausting and even physically painful. However, it is balm on another level, as the search for something out of conviction often cures, restores, revives, acts as the motor of our existence and dignifies it in our own eyes; it is the guarantee of inner peace. Values learned from memory taste insipid. In order to stretch the fundamental springs of our being and put the fibres of our will into action, one needs conviction. This ingredient provides happiness and is the source of efficiency and with it, success.
The great generals in history knew very well the difference between fighting with any army of mercenaries and an army with high morale, inspired by deep convictions. The combatants that were convinced of the justice of their cause proved to be more committed. If the combat got difficult, the soldiers motivated only by their pay had less difficulty in opting for retreat than those who were defending their lands, their belongings, their families and their cities. The latter, of whom there are many examples in history, would fight to the death. Having some reason to give up your life dignifies and gives meaning to life itself.
There is another revealing fact. The names of one of the coins that were used in a certain time and place to pay the mercenaries were known as soldi and soldada. Their association with the word soldier is obvious but it should also be known that another very important word in romance languages is derived from it, the word for wages (from the Latin solitatus and solidu, in modern French, solde, in Spanish, sueldo). This shows that the idea of a mercenary not only corresponds to the military sphere nor to remote historical events. Any one of us can be a mercenary if the only thing capable of moving our hearts and our wills is money.
Money is not in itself cursed nor the source of all ills as it is often said to be. To those who think this is so, it should be suggested that for basic consistency, they ought to give up everything they possess. Money is only a symbol of society’s productive energy, of work and of creative talent. If it is considered in this way, money is sacred. The problem lies in the way it is obtained, spent and above all distributed. So that evil is not to be found in the symbol of exchange but as is the case with all other evils, in the human heart. This deformity presents itself when material needs –naturally satiable– are elevated to the rank of spiritual needs that are insatiable by definition as they are centred on immeasurable riches like happiness, the desire for knowledge, aesthetic pleasure, love, faith and such like. When these two extremes are confused, the permanent lack of satisfaction becomes an inevitable fate. An infinite thirst cannot be quenched with finite riches.
We all need economic wealth to be able to live. Without the satisfaction of elemental needs one cannot get very far, however, human essence demands our going beyond mere survival. Examples of two basic needs suffice: what do we breathe and eat for? In order to live, of course. But what do we live for? The second question cannot be answered in a circular manner by stating that we live in order to breathe and to eat given that although we are living organisms, we are also more than this. We are more complex beings, capable of assuming conscious purposes and of asking ourselves individually “What do I want life for?” In the face of this questioning there is no-one we can go to who can provide us with an answer, as it is the question is directed towards us individually. Each person has to answer it for themselves. In doing so and in reflecting on their acts, each one sketches their moral profile.
When we do something, we are always faced with different courses of action and values. Each situation is a road that splits and obliges us to choose. The paths are not the same. We know this but which is the correct one? Is there really a right one and wrong one? Should we give in to the complete ethical relativism which is capable of finding a justification for even the most absurd acts? Is it all the same? Is the behaviour of a murderer, a torturer or a rapist really the same as that of a missionary, a teacher or a hardworking doctor? It is all a question of power as some tell us, as it is the strong that dictate the rules? And if that is so, do the tyrannies and the armed assailants embody moral law? Or finally, is it simply to do with the cultural differences between peoples, or worse still, of mere personal preferences? We know only to well this is not so, but why? Why do we decide that some actions represent good and others evil? The great question is, why? It is there that the essence of the problem we are trying to solve is found as in the answers to this “why?” that justifications dwell, that contradiction reappears and the heat of conflicts is revived.
Is there data here, in this world of time and space, that can offer us grounds for objective and solid answers? Are there clues that speak to us of an underlying staff that links material, life and conscience like notes in a single song? Only if this data and this underlying unity exist is it possible to rise above moral relativism without having to resort to force or the languages of metaphysics as the only way out.
The truth is that these clues do exist, and following them permits us to shift from the dark labyrinth of our instincts, emotions, opinions, whims, conveniences and dogmas to a space where the atmosphere is transparent enough for the unifying function of reason to do its work. Of course this indispensable transition demands a method very different from advice and sermons. Advice tends to be useless because the old no longer benefit from it and the young take no notice. Sermons, on the other hand, can be useful when educating the young at school or at home, but not when one is trying to inquire into the “whys” of things.
The starting point for moral didactics is that some people know what is right, often citing divine revelation, and they teach it to others who are ignorant of it by means of instructions and rules. The path we follow here is very different. It is not didactic but instead, investigatory. It (aims to) provoke autonomous reflection, that is, the reorganization and revision of our knowledge or news of the world. Our method is committed to the identification of objective data and the search for the ties that connect everything coherently in the framework of a Universe that is in evolution. Freedom opposed to necessity, the physical world opposed interiority, and the individual opposed to society are apparent contradictions which become complementary when they pass through the clarifying filter of the language of evolution.
The data that will be presented in the following pages aim to provoke reflections that will permit us perceive the world in a way that is not static but rather, dynamic and progressive and to act in it with more lucidity, escaping with to a certain extent the collective hypnosis that plays itself out in each culture, which, through their symbolic messages, end up anaesthetizing us. For this reason it could be said that acquiring a new way of looking at both the world and our inner selves is the equivalent of an authentic awakening.
Let us suppose that all our activities for a week or a month were filmed and that we then saw them projected in high-speed camera in the space of a few minutes. There we would see with great clarity how many things we do repetitively like automatons. We would notice that we spend a great part of our time running from one place to another without stopping to think where we are really going in such a hurry and with such anxiety. For example, a person who buys a faster car to compensate for certain frustrations does not realize that they will only be able to enjoy it if there is harmony in their life. If this is not the case, then the car will only serve to arrive faster to the sources of their misfortune. For the navigator bound nowhere in particular, there is no propitious wind.