EPUB Ebooks: Free ebook sample of "Euromentality" by Leonardo FAORO

Original Copyright © 2007 by Beniamino Faoro and Ion Marginean. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2011 by publisher “Limitless” Srl.

EUROMENTALITY

INTRODUCTION

Do you remember how the first airplane looked, and how the modern ones look? Writing this book we asked ourselves: Should we give it more years to come as close as possible to a perfect shape, or to publish it in the state of “raw ore” so that more people, better educated than us, should contribute to better and refined variants? Like the airplanes between the first one and the newest? We chose to let it out in the state of a “raw ore” and we consider that by launching a collection of challenges, that should disturb specialists as much as possible, we will encourage many people to produce source-values and to attract other values like bees, values that are being missed.

Together with the proper Introduction, the book has 14 chapters.

This book is neither for simple people, nor for simple executors. It is a book which may be of interest just for those being big bosses, for those conceiving something, no matter what, and for those that transmit knowledge.

This book isn’t easy to read, it is no novel, it doesn’t have a main plot to follow and it doesn’t localize the “clue” somewhere in the end. This book can be read in any direction, from the middle to the beginning or from beginning to end. The only condition is that the sentences be complete. It is like a holographic photo, if you tear it to pieces, you haven’t lost its content, every piece will render the whole (even if at a smaller resolution). You have not to take a whole “mine” a “nugget” is enough and you win if you don’t forget it. It is not a book of curiosities and we don’t recommend you to read more than one page a day, it would be ideal if you kept it near you and read a sentence at the most or a chained succession of sentences at a lecture-session. Then you should analyze what we wanted to say, not necessarily what we said.

We wanted it to be a book of essences, which should accustom you to working with essences, in this world in which the abundance of information rendered in an exhaustive and dilettante manner, surpasses the availability of time of modern man. And then, man must be trained to take the essence from the immensity moreover to transmit the essence when he wants to say something, for he is very accustomed to mistake it for any of the sentences of an utterance, description, structure or functionalities, at emission as well as at reception.

In the first chapters we have asked some questions, which we ask you to answer expressing your opinion, then compare your answer with ours (when you find it) and draw the most constructive conclusions.

We ask you to delete from your mind the habit of getting bored and annoyed at finding a repetition in a writing or a discourse. Who repeats something hasn’t forgotten it, but wants to underline something, he certainly wants something to be kept in mind and the well-intended repetition must be saluted, as a favor, for the mind memorizes certainly just through repetitions, (we haven’t made it that way)!.

We used many of our own definitions in this book, especially by using the systemic conception. Even if they aren’t perfect yet, such definitions were preferred to be imperfect on purpose, but to enlighten and especially to convince. The perfect form....another/next time. Although we are convinced, when you’ll have the perfect form of the definitions, you will prefer the definitions you have now. André Comté-Sponville underlined: “Definitions aren’t important for themselves, but because they allow us to think and to live”. Being very bored of the rigid and fixed definitions from school, mature people must become professional users and creators and passionate of definitions, for they enlighten, convince and make the meaning uniform. We have observed with a pleasant surprise, that in some European laws definitions were also given. We also observed a weird reaction of a journalist, unconvinced yet: “why do these people give me this definition? They consider me stupid. Don’t I know what that means?!” It didn’t cross the mind of that journalist (a former communist one) that rendering of the definition in that law was welcome. The definition included in the law was meant to make the meaning uniform in all languages, to make everybody capable of understanding in the same way what the lawmaker wanted, not whatever everybody wants and can, it didn’t offend anyone and didn’t consider that the people (of Europe) wouldn’t know the object of the definition.

We dared to give the great primordial definitions, from which all people ran away (especially the specialists), like at the 100 meter race. Please take them for granted, at least whilst reading the book, afterwards do as you want. We hope that you won’t give them up and they will help you in your work, the higher – the better.

The book has an interdisciplinary character, or else it wouldn’t be able to achieve its purpose, for the truths lie at the crossroads of the domains, just like a localization through G.P.S. is found at the intersection of the signals from at least three satellites, two being not enough!, But one? In the book there are several figures. Please look at them whenever they are referred to in the body of the text. Each chapter has a motto. Not as an entertainment, but as a quintessence of the respective chapter.

In the chapter there is some underlining through bolded characters. They are meant to help those who intend to write ideas down. The underlining is selected in such a way, that it is enough to write them down, for they will describe the content, the other words being auxiliary.

We considered that such a book is necessary, as an impulse that should trigger a torrent from others with the same theme and to make the European citizen a person who is conscious that he or she is on the right way, that he or she is a magnificent creature, being a road-opener towards a society that is worth living in.

Even if the unavoidable temporary transition is hard to be endured by the rich and by the poor…

CHAPTER 1

MENTALITIES – A MAJOR PROBLEM, OLD AND NEW

He who cannot change the very fabric of his thought

will never be able to change reality, and will never, therefore, make any progress" -Anwar Sadat

When a child in the days of ‘why’s, I used to ask my grandfather [1883-1963] questions like:

Grandpa, why does the clock work? And he used to answer:

It has a devil inside.

Wondering, shaking my head in surprise and puzzled, I used to go on asking other questions:

But, why does the lamp give light?

It has a devil inside.

Again, I wondered and was rather dissatisfied with the answer.

But, why does the trimmer cut?

It has a devil inside.

There were many such questions to follow; in fact, I wanted to find out to what questions he gave this stereotypic answer. Only the question:

But, why does the car run? Got a different answer:

That one runs (i.e. it functions) with fire!

I couldn’t do anything but wonder more and more, observing that people of my grandfather’s generation also used to answer in the same manner, every time they were asked about why something works (i.e. functions): It has a devil inside!

Interestingly, the next generation (that of my parents) did not follow the manner of single type of answers about the causes of things functioning (they have the devil). They even were amused about the invariable and strong convictions the whole old generation held as if they had a common agreement. For the women of the old generation even cars ‘had a devil inside.' Thus, my grandfather proved to be ‘generation undisciplined,' by saying that cars run differently (with fire).

If the questions were about a plant or an animal they used to say: it’s how God left it, or it’s God’s will! They used the word ‘devil’ only to discourage asking for details, because they were not willing to discuss what they didn’t know. At that time I didn’t understand the reason people of an entire generation used such a universal answer. I didn’t forget.

After almost half a century, while studying the problem of mentalities, I remembered these answers, funny for the people of today, answers that had a great deal of value in them, though highly hidden – you’ll see.

Question nr. 1: ‘What do you think about that which is made and works - why does it work? (What do the things have that make them function?)’

Searching the literature for a suitable definition of the notion ‘mentality’, we found some things close enough to our expectation, but also we came across declarations of ‘surrender’ facing the problem as being too difficult or even impossible to define (yet!).

The definition for ‘mentality’ that comes close to what we want to say is that of Jacques Le Goff and Carlo Ginzburg: ‘a combination of ready-made ideas spontaneously expressed by the individuals in a certain environment and a certain period of time.’

We remind you the typical explanation given to the functioning of things by the generation of my grandfather. This definition is perfectly confirmed by this example.

It is not our aim to criticize that generation’s mentality. On the contrary we are bringing it to your attention, being something worth remembering, perhaps curious and amusing. Later on we will demonstrate that by simply replacing ‘pip’ with an adequate term, that generation expressed something very advanced, not reached even today. The meaning, not the words used by our grandparents, was important. It is here where this book’s answer to question nr. 1 must be noted: system. Consequently all things that function had and have system, a functional system. This is what grandpa’s generation wanted to express. Why does the clock work? It has a functional system for measuring and indicating time! Please note question nr. 2: Why is that a problem? Give the definition of the notion ‘problem’.

Today, as ever, the universe of definitions is and has been an indescribable chaos. In fact, even today, people are not preoccupied with defining things or with the content of notions. Only in schools are definitions dealt with, but in a formal manner, without success and without the aim of memorizing them for life. People are unable to give precise definitions to almost nothing. No offence! We study, we do research, we demonstrate, we collaborate, we convince! Try this: ask anyone you meet: what is that…and say a word or a notion and listen to the answer. Notice and keep the answers in mind, then try the same with other questions (if you are allowed, because people will feel offended by you questioning them). Be patient and explain that you are really interested in their opinion (therefore the questions).

You will reach the conclusion that people know but can’t define, they are not able to transpose into exact words what is asked in different situations. This problem may be explained shortly as follows: PEOPLE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH AT MASTERING SEMANTICS! (the meaning of words).

The problem is not a new one, it has been a characteristic of almost all the people (to be strict, excepting the Lord also called God-The Word), but we refer now to common people.

Korzibski-the founder of general Semantics-came to consider that all the diseases and social evils are “semantagenous”, rooted in an unfortunate language use. He considered Semantics to be “a universal therapeutical technique”. Was he right? We will demonstrate that yes, he was! Doesn’t everything start because of misunderstandings? We ourselves noticed the vagueness of word usages in formulating ideas some time before knowing about Korzibski. We admit that it comforted us to learn that even the founder of Semantics expressed what we wanted to say. He has been of great help and proved us right though he passed away to “eternity” some time ago.

If Europe is “something” that takes a start now, that builds something new, then it is her duty to faultlessly conceive her deeds just for the simple reason of this unique chance: to make something new, to construct a new type of human community.

One basic step in this pioneer work of conceiving a new type of community is in our opinion: THE CREATION OF EUROPEAN SEMANTICS GROUPS, for establishing the semantic conditions towards a better understanding among people. The definitions given by these groups of “specialists in notions and word definitions” will be the documentary basis for: institutions, schools, professional and political training centers, and through the Internet and the mobile phones for every interested citizen.

The most common type of mentality shared by human individuals, historically speaking, was “the warrior mentality”. For thousands of years to attack or rather be attacked seemed to be everyday events. Usually, your neighbor was at the same time your enemy. Do you notice that already such thoughts are quickly abandoned? Although the systemic processes of forming big communities are only at the beginning, there are very few people of national communities who still think it very patriotic to “strongly wish” to knock the heads of neighbors’ heads of the country across the hill or the river. In the mentalities of the near past, battles were the best “source” of glory for both leaders and fighters.

The most common causes of war were the borders. During the last centuries, also other causes for war emerged: the trade markets and, in the 20th century, the spheres of influence. But even here the reason was the same: the borders.

It is really encouraging and it gives a motive for great expectations, the fact that a concept of a future peace era is conceived by those magnificent scene designers who work and don’t blow the trumpet. Even the idea of unifying Europe is a gigantic “work” of such real “demiurges” (world-creators). Don’t be afraid, it is not forbidden. Even religion calls some (the chosen ones) the same way: <<I have said: you are gods>> (John 10-11). We hope you noticed we didn’t overstate, we wrote with ”g” not “G”. We didn’t mention the Holy Trinity, but still, it means something to be a demiurge! Few “mortals” have this privilege to create worlds and their laws. The feeling of satisfaction can’t be taken away from these “superhumans” (for the utility of what they created).

Some mentalities, still too many, connected to what is gone and not to what is to come, are not favoring the idea of vanished borders as a condition for war-free unified territories. Such mentalities wish peace but are not yet willing to establish its basic condition: the disappearance of borders.

To use the words of a great Romanian playwright (I. L. Caragiale): “Revision, I accept, but nothing shall be changed. I accept no revision, but then some changes have to take place, here and there, where it is essential.”

It is true that reasons exist: equalizing living standards between those with different work productivity rates and those with different resources is not wished. That is, we don’t sit at the same table, the industrious and the lazy ones, the rich and the poor, because it wouldn’t work. But such countries with high living standards don’t think about a curious but real fact: they succeeded because they lived and worked "under the shadow of peace" established by others.

The euroskeptics, it is them we are talking about, were not necessarily more clever or harder working but they were the beneficiary of the peace established by the Americans (which they don’t understand, and they sometimes criticize for their fight and sacrifice to give the world a chance for peace and civilization) and by the other Great Powers. The euroskeptics ‘sucked and still suck the milk’ ensured by the world’s peace and now they don’t want to give something away! If citizens of: Switzerland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, England would have been in the situation to call each other comrades, and work for the glory of socialism in their countries, they most probably would think different now. Austria was on the edge at the table of ‘sharing the communist happiness’ and has no understanding for those who made their favorable history (Austrians and others). Austria was an empire and has modified borders it has united and has separated many nations, and now it has no wish for unity and erased borders.

Switzerland made perfect watches and gave them to the whole world, especially to Europe. The watch is a system. Even though, not all Swiss citizens wish to be part of a systemic Europe. England was the first to settle an example of a different mentality: it didn’t consider the smaller ones necessarily more stupid, like all the “big ones” in the world did. And more than this, they implemented the idea in all the places where they spread their civilization. They gave the first American settlers an extremely advanced type of mentality. Nevertheless, many Englishmen are skeptical considering that getting laws and regulations from outside England would be all right; some accept this. It is in fact a contradiction to what they did before, giving their best to the world, and for the first time now they think of others to be less capable to think right for Englishmen.

Some countries, highly democratic monarchies, have citizens that can’t imagine being a different entity with a different name and with another decision center. Maybe they think the king or the queen will be “embarrassed”. But the king or the queen won’t get angry because being illuminated and loving their people they will not oppose the chance of being part of a war-free Europe with a market without borders. Kings (excepting the kings of today) always wanted and planned wars. Those days are over. The wars still taking place are the last ones, and are due to the slow, indolent change of mentalities.

It is difficult for us to understand the large number of Polish euroskeptics. It is possible they forgot their country’s decay in the time of Napoleon Bonaparte. As Europeans, they will observe laws created by the Polish citizens, but Napoleon’s country will also observe laws created by Polish citizens.

Europe can’t be stopped on its way towards unification; it can only be delayed. This is an irreversible process towards functioning within a system, alongside with globalization, because human society on the whole, though some don’t know, longs for system functioning. It works on the principle of the human body, functioning as a system that is built up of organs (countries) and the organs being made up by cells (citizens).

The euroskeptics “sucked the milk” ensured by the European peace and culture, they also prospered selling their products on the European market, but they don’t want to give anything from “their heart” in exchange, they don’t want to exert any effort.

When sucking, the lamb is happy and contented, most probably wishing that nothing changes. But no happiness lasts forever. The lamb awaits its fate; optimistically it will have to give up sucking and feed on grass. But often enough it gets the “treatment” with a knife for Easter or another fixed date. Past history registered many cases of “knife treatment” for many “lamb-countries”. You, the euroskeptics, would find it convenient to suffer such a treatment? You, the euroskeptics, do you know that this is the major goal of creating a new Europe: to cut the knife-scene from the “scenario” (at least for humans)?

We will come with a more convincing example for you, the euroskeptics; you have lived it “on your own”. After the relative liberalization of travel in Europe, the developed countries have faced waves of economic immigrants for a better life. Some of them were gypsies from the East. These individuals with a “special” mentality and a way of life (common for them) consisting of thefts, burglaries, begging, dirty environment, have intruded upon you, have caused you inconveniences and even scared you. Those who have already emigrated, represent only 0,1% of the population of Eastern Europe. What if the whole east with Kalashnikovs on shoulder would have intruded? What if it was a war (sort of “knife-scene”)? Europe was spared such a “surprise” exactly by some ideas as advanced as the one of unifying Europe. As for the gypsies and their habits, and not only theirs, these problems will find a step-by-step solution being related to changes in mentality. You see? We need to learn methods for quick changes of mentality! Now, it’s our turn to be scared. We are scared of the fact that the first priority is the euroskeptics, with their isolationist mentality. We would include bad human habits as second priority, because it takes longer to change them. All this calls for big and united forces, including the contribution of the euroskeptical nations with their advanced material and scientific status.

There have been also rapid methods of mentality change, their practitioners not being aware of that. These methods were antiquated and rough but induced quick changes. We are not recommending them, now we talk, we analyze, we wonder.

You surely remember from reading history books or historical literature those prewar situations when messengers were sent to the enemy to explain war-claims (giving up territories, tribute, slaves, a.s.o.). As it often happened when hearing the claims the enemy ruler got angry and dictated: cut his (the messenger’s) tongue! How could he say such a thing? But finally they cut his tongue. This meant, conditions were not accepted and the battle had to take place. Sometimes, the one that said: ‘cut his (messenger’s) tongue!’ was the loser. After the battle the claims were even harder than those presented before by the messenger who got his tongue cut. But being defeated, the tough ruler had to accept the rougher conditions. If he was told: You give in also that fortress, and a double tribute, the defeated would answer:

Yes, yes I’ll give you two more fortresses and triple the tribute! And the dialogue went on:

You will send your children to stay with me, to remember being obedient.

I’ll send you my nephews too!

The mentality of the defeated arrogant ruler was completely different after the battle. In fact, this method of using battles, wars as a means of ending disputes between parts was common practice in history. Astonishment arises when thinking that the method of battle (war) was accepted as the ultimate credibility criterion to clear up all the parts involved, including neighbors and even descendants. Could you tell me now, that battles (wars) in history were anything else but quick methods of changing mentality, an enforcement of profound changes as long as some parts were against? Wars or battles are violent confrontations between systems, like a sort of game. Before the match the supporters and the (enemy) players do not agree which one is the best. After the confrontation between the play systems, agreement takes place.

Let’s have some examples as “bricks” for the construction of a vision on mentalities. Historically speaking, Germany was a country that had her “dissatisfactions” and fought many wars. But the “dissatisfactions” didn’t disappear. It thought a small war (local) wasn’t enough and “stretched” to a world war (The First). Then it tried once more (The Second).

This time they intruded upon the one they shouldn’t: Uncle Sam (to their big chance)! Why did I say this? Let’s see an example. At one moment (while The Second World War) a great Romanian general, namely Iuliu Rascanu, found himself on the Eastern front in Hitler’s company. Arriving in front of a very old church they observed an inscription on the church’s front. Hitler asked his company whether someone was able to translate the inscription. No one was able to offer a translation. General Rascanu who had visited the church before knew the message of the inscription and offered the translation by saying that the inscription was in an ancient language that meant:

“No one is almighty but God!”

Obviously surprised, not that much by the message itself but by the general’s literacy, Hitler raised his hand to congratulate the general who was at a distance. Suddenly, he changed his mind and putting his hand down he moved on to other problems ignoring the inscription and its message. Those present realized that Hitler shaking the general’s hand would have implied recognition of the inscription’s message. He wanted to make believe that not only God is almighty, but Hitler too. Again on the Eastern Front, but in different circumstances, Hitler was informed that America (the United States) was entering the war. The one, who thought that God was not the only almighty one, said without thinking:

“Remarkable! Has America entered the war? It means we’re going to lose the war!”

Consequently, Hitler, who thought of himself as being almighty, next to God, feared the United States terribly (in those days the United States didn’t have a war-experienced army, they hadn’t fought battles yet).

Winning the war against Germany, America established for a time period certain laws and regulations that had to be observed by the German rulers and the citizens alike. Practically, all were imposed a different mentality. The first rule had the following message: “You’ll have no more the right to defend yourselves, we’re doing it for you”. Thus, warrior mentality was wiped out of the German people’s “head”. Now, 60 years later, we notice that this change of mentality has been a complete success and that today’s Germany doesn’t anymore conceive war as an acceptable way. The economic, scientific and commercial progress registered after the mentality “transplant” suffered by the German population, was an answer to their expectations in a more substantial manner than what they had wished along their millennial history. We believe that no one doubts the fact that this example proves that a useful change towards a superior mentality may be profitable in the long term even if people are “constrained’ to it. There is also the non-compulsory method, the freewill way, but not all are willing to accept it. But we don’t have a choice, we need to willingly operate such changes of mentality, not all of us have the opportunity of a “healthy” American “correction”. Some do, I envy them!

Another example: due to a certain type of challenge, Japan had the occasion to fight a war with the United States. In fact, the Japanese cultured and “lovingly took care of” their warrior mentality. They had their samurai model, somewhat like the professional European knights.

The samurais, like the knights, were not only trained to kill people, but also they were specially trained in defense techniques to be able to defend those who were not able to, and above all, they were taught a faultless behavior in society. Then, as well as now, everyone had to recognize that samurais, the knights and their followers were much better prepared for war than for peace. Japan had a great need for good fighters, having limited natural resources, having a numerous population on small grounds and having neighbors qualified to be ruled, together with their rich resources. Their methods and wars did not bring the Japanese what they had wanted: a better living. They even contributed to Hitler’s Germany “efforts” in order to take some resources from others. They would have “disturbed” their neighbors longer, but they stretched “too high”. They fought a terrible war with the United States and they also “invented” the Kamikaze method. To end the war (too many dead) and “to take out of the heads” of Japanese their war appetite, the Americans thought it necessary to “heavily punch their heads”. Having a device “that extracted its energy from where even the Sun extracts its energy” (according to the American president Truman in a radio speech after the first atomic bombing) the Americans took Hiroshima as the head they “punched”. It seemed that another “left swing” was needed to convince them, and the town of Nagasaki was there to face it. What followed was a spectacular technical K.O. and the “sportive” emperor even threw in the towel. The resulting lesson was very important. The Japanese were so clever that they immediately changed from being the Americans’ greatest enemies to becoming their best friends.

Taking advantage of the “opportunity” created by the Americans in not allowing them to defend themselves any longer (defense was taken over by Americans), the Japanese re-qualified into jobs where no guns, cannons, planes or submarines were needed. They settled with cars and electronics. Armed fights were so radically extracted from the Japanese heads that it took much effort later on to make them cooperate in peacekeeping missions. To put it in plain words, the Japanese feared wars so much that even the peace game seemed dangerous to them.

Many blamed the Americans for the first atomic bombardment, for the 75,000 sudden victims, although the continuation of the war would have brought many more victims.

But how many appreciated the effect of the first nuclear attack upon mentalities? One first effect was a universal fear of using atomic bombs in fights. This was a fantastic result! If people would not have been definitely scared of the atomic bomb, they would have used it in a “relaxed” manner later on, with catastrophic effects upon humanity. Upon mentalities the effect was extremely efficient. The nuclear arming that followed was rather a sort of “bodybuilding” for showing muscles, but “matches” did not exist. They were not desired not even for one enemy. Does Japan still wish war? Nobody, not even children, doubts that after the Japanese suffered the “transplantation” of mentality applied by the Americans, they (the Japanese) saw their historical dreams come true. A population with little over one hundred million people is the second economic world power (this up to the completed European unification), its population has a standard of life that not even the samurais dreamed of, and its technical and scientific level reached “thrilling” heights for the competitors. They should be forever indebted to the Americans who changed their mentality. Now, even the Japanese admit that what the Americans gave them was the thing they really needed, not the things they thought were right. Are the Japanese people slaves? Are they free? It took only a short period of “behaving”, not obedience, of openness to the new reality, to a new way of thinking, a good one, not necessarily American. When they reached the right level, the Americans paid their respects. We ask: who “spreads” peace, liberty and prosperity into the world? Who wins? America?

Lately, some countries not willing to change their rigid communist or religious mentality are showing their atomic “muscles” that is, they threaten with the possession or the fabrication of atomic bombs. It is true these are sort of terrorist blackmails. Their “muscles” resemble those of Popeye the sailor man (like a thimble) but they loudly blow the trumpet when shown. And again, it is true that sometimes there is a “need” for “enemies” so that people know how to think. In parenthesis, I once expressed my opinion face to face with an historian by saying that it seems to me people think as they are ordered. For the historian this was nothing unusual, as he replied, even in Caesar’s time people thought the way they were ordered.

But, the problems we are posing, related to the theme about mentalities, are not of the kind of thinking that is manipulated or ordered in advance, but a totally different nature: people should independently make up their minds, analyze and draw conclusions, calculating, comparing and finally making a free choice.

For a better understanding we offer another example, with two great artists who dared to “hit” even the dictatorship with the whip of their art, we name the late Toma Caragiu (he died at the 1977 earthquake) and Anda Calugareanu (she died of cancer) who were once playing a conversation between father and son (Anda, dressed as a boy, was the son). Preoccupied, the son was asking:

“Father, what do you call the tree that makes apples?”

“Apple tree!!! Of course, what else?”, answered the father angry about such a childish question. (“the child” was about age 16). Then:

“Father, what do you call the tree that makes pears?”

“Pear tree!!! What else?”, replied the father irritated by the importance given to such obvious things by his son. It did not cross the father’s mind that the son was only “preparing the grounds” for something due later. When the grounds were ready, the son “placed a gnoseological bomb”:

“But, father what do you call the tree that makes crows?” Calming himself, trying to be patient, thinking that he really needs to bring clarification to his son, the father said:

“Such a tree does not exist! Crows only come and sit in the tree, and then they leave! The tree does not produce them as fruit!” After a long meditation for both, feeling him very important, the son asks again:

“Father, what do you call the tree that makes cherries?” Almost enraged, the father answered:

“Cherry tree!!! What else?” The father still had some patience left. Then, keeping a serious and important face the son continued the “preparation” for a new launch of gnoseological bomb:

“Father, what do you call the tree that makes nuts?” This time, the father did not answer promptly, he stood up helplessly shaking hands, walked for a while, gathered parental patience and wondering about his being calm, answered:

“Nut tree!!! For goodness sake! Nut tree! What else? Nut tree!!!” The child listened attentively and with curiosity to this answer too, as if he did not know, and out of the blue:

“But what do you call the tree that makes crows?” Totally overwhelmed by his convincing power on his son, the father meditated and searched for arguments and nevertheless answered calmly:

“Son, you need to understand! There is no such a tree! The crows are birds, they come out of the crow eggs and the baby crows grow to become mature crows. The trees are plants, they grow from seeds and when they are mature the birds, including the crows, come and temporarily rest on the tree’s branches.” Feeling insecure of his power of convincing his son, the father kept thinking about new means to persuade his son who had a fixed idea and was not willing to give it up. The father ends up taking over the initiate and asks his son a question:

“Son, what do you call the tree that makes cherries?”

“Cherry tree!!! What else? Isn’t it logical?” The father continues:

“Son, what do call the tree that makes plums?”

“Plum tree!!! What else? This beats everything! Hear, hear, what childish question my father asks!” The father does not give up and calmly makes use of the same type of bomb:

“But, what do you call the tree that makes crows?” With the most natural air in the world, the son replies to his ignorant father:

“There is no such thing! There is no tree that makes crows!”

Over time, I often wondered about the patience the Americans prove in not doing something until they fully explain and give all possible arguments to convince about the necessity of the things to be done. In this respect, the well-known former German chancellor, the one that facilitated Germany’s unification, Helmut Kohl said: “The Americans always do what needs to be done!” This is the essence; but because people do not easily assimilate essences we shall do some more explaining. What Helmut Kohl wanted to say is that if the Americans do something then that thing must necessarily be done, and if something must be done then, be assured, the Americans are going to do it.

I am surprised (and I also appreciate) that although the American leaders and people are very much convinced of what they have to do, they take their time to patiently explain the actions and they do not request someone’s alliance unless that someone is fully aware of the action’s justness. They do not spare efforts in the act of persuasion. Other nations, other leaders, with firm convictions, do not bother to ask, do not try to explain, do not try to convince others of the righteousness of their deeds. They first “hit” and then ask, but usually they are not asking at all.

An episode of World War II is well known. It happened when the American army was supposed to cooperate in action with units of de Gaulle’s French Army. Generals of both armies were sent to settle the terms for the cooperation. Although the mission for the French troops under American command was already clear (the actions concept being finalized), the American generals (one of them being Eisenhower –himself the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces) had a hard time in “settling” again the already settled missions. This was because of the French group’s ideas that had to be “issued” according to the Supreme Allied Headquarters (defined without French participation-because their location was too far away): the French general, arrogant like Latins are, (with no exception, including myself - I shall have to get rid of this bad habit) would not give up on any of his ideas. Everything had to be according to his wishes no matter that they were different from the already settled concept, that only needed to be applied on the battle field. Realizing that they cannot persuade the French general to cooperate (to make him co-author of the concept) they told him bluntly:

“General (the Americans address the rank directly, without “Sir”), the decision is already taken, everything is settled, we are sorry!”

And thus the French general missed the historical chance of co-authorship. The Americans’ effort is admirable by allowing time for negotiation, for persuasion and by their polite attempt not to offend. I do not know who would have been more delicate. Anyway, the Soviets – as main force of the Warsaw Treaty – would have proceeded “straight” by saying:

“Comrade, this is what you must do!!!” And would have carefully watched for the spark when the general stamped his boots as a sign of:

“Understood, Sir!” The Soviets did not ask, not even politely, they imposed their wish without any restraint. And they are not the only ones, many others being quite impatient. The Americans are the only ones not acting without conviction and they will not cooperate with someone who is unaware of the justness of what has to be done. I am not praising the Americans, I only emphasize their reliance on convictions.

In the title of chapter 1, I also mentioned the fact that mentalities are an old (ancient) problem. But, first, our answer to question nr.2: A problem is: a situation where there are shortcomings or difficulties which can be solved by applying the law and the appropriate rules.

Wanting to describe old problems related to the human mentality we remembered some descriptions in the Old Testament constituting our inspiration base as written “fundamental source”.

We ask ourselves: when religion was first established was it not done with the idea in mind to implement an advanced human mentality? In the beginnings school was not yet an institution. However, the human community had to have and observe some rules of proper conduct. Having to start from the ground up, which was not easy at all, religion began to establish rules to be followed; other institutions appeared only much later in time.

Strong convictions were needed for people to memorize the rules. Convictions and emotions generating miracles were needed to help the memorization of the rules needed in a community. The miracles of those days were opportunities for memorizing moments, as the crossing of the Red Sea, extracting water from the rock, the return of the Ark from the Gat to Betshemesh a.s.o. In those starting times, with illiterate crowds, there were some hard punishment rules included, even for minor offenses: for almost nothing the death penalty was applied and all this to convince people and for remembering.

Nevertheless, people often mistook and were badly punished, and even many death sentences were executed. The descriptions, as impressive now as ever, are analyzed today and it seems that mentalities are difficult to implement, they may be lost and easily modified and they take shape chaotically.

We are not selecting here a certain example, as nothing may impress more than reading “the original”. When reading, try to observe the enormous effort to form the mentality of the peoples of those days!

While reading those well-known Old Testament stories a question arose (for the authors, not for the readers, but it is not forbidden to them either): why did those people forget everything they saw, they felt, that impressed them terribly and that made them solemnly swear to respect? Sometimes, the same situations happened again and again to them and in spite of this they kept forgetting, being taken by surprise as if everything were new; similarly to the forgetfulness of the woman who gets once through the pains of birth and nevertheless takes again the same road at the end of which are “frightening” pains. For the time being the question remains unanswered, a sort of enigma. We will return later to this.

A very impressive description is given for the warrior mentality of those people who lived 3,000 years ago. An expression of the Old Testament reads as follows: “in spring, when kings go out to war”. This synthetic formulation compares the war to the clean spring air – much wanted, much expected, extremely natural.

In those days the human communities were organized in fortresses, each one with its own king. There were also kingdoms (countries) composed of fortresses and even empires, like the one of Nebuchadnezzar, Artaxerxes or Darius, some being composed even of 127 countries. The most important were the fortresses, they were the basis, and their surrounding walls were genuine invitations to great conquest, great heroic acts, great deeds of glory. Not having TV, radio or telephone, in those days battles took place and ended without communication between fortresses. There were many times when tens of battles took place simultaneously and no one knew how many people died; battles could end with tens and hundreds of dead each day on earth.

Now we have a different situation. We have a war between two nations, the conflict lasts for years, sophisticated arms are used and about seven people die during a month, but the whole world knows and participates (mentally) with the help of the television networks.

So, the number of the wars today is much smaller than before, and this because of a smaller number of borders.

Question nr. 3. How many states are there on the globe? (A consistent answer is considered with a precision of ± 20 states).

Thus, in our days, a “pocket” war satisfies the curiosity, the quest for popularity, the need of ephemeral glory, the bored population of an entire globe. Due to a highly cultivated concern, such wars of today have a maximum effect at home in bed or in an armchair in front on the TV and not out on the battle grounds, where some soldiers are having a walk, where cars, tanks and planes are carefully filmed. Back home are worries, emotions, prices going up and news. The fact that we no longer have a large number of war causalities is not something we miss; on the contrary, it is the triumph of mankind and the effect of advanced mentalities. Was World War II, with over 40 million dead people, something superior? Less borders meant lesser wars! Our answer (with the same precision rate as yours) is: about two hundred and twenty states.

And now question nr.4: If all the borders are reduced to one, if we had a single border to surround the states, how many wars could we have in a year? Of course, we are not speaking here of civil wars (within borders); no one is particularly happy about such wars. We talk about wars between distinct communities. And now a question without credits, just between us: are you not tired of these endless talks about wars?

Do not think there are no methods to change mentality without wars. These methods are preferred though more difficult to implement and they are slower. I had in mind a further example related to fights and battles but I promised you a break and let’s switch to a more peaceful area. But we will not be too far from the “grounds” that we so often mentioned, because we are lacking an alternative. If you, the readers, provide us with a clearer example, we will remain indebted to you. I hope you already guessed that our “playground” is America.

Along hundreds of years the population of (today’s) territorial community of the United States has been a large “mixture” of nations and races.

The black population faced special attitude, which developed in time. For hundreds of years black people were a notion that was perfectly equivalent to that of slave (an individual considered to be the property of another individual).

In those days, a moderate would say: “… the truth is the black man is not the white man’s equal and slavery … is the black man’s natural and normal condition!”

On a worldwide basis, slavery was very common within the existence of human society. The humiliations suffered by the “Negroes” were not different in the United States than they were anywhere else. But it is the Americans that noticed the fact, that made it public and described the reality of this situation. Others were much rougher but they did not talk about their deeds. Therefore, much more is known about black American slaves than any other people’s slavery. Maybe this was a way of admitting their wrong personal attitude and maybe it was a source of learning from their own acts. Active and largely known were white men organizations, the Ku-Klux-Klan, who punished the “Negroes”. These aspects were treated by both literature and cinema. Many other states had a cinema industry, but the Americans were the ones to use it for different major goals. Practically they transformed it into a force, a force to influence and transform mentalities. It is also true that they benefited from leaders with advanced ideas. I heard in the 1960s and 1970s about the activities of the Ku-Klux-Klan. The films, the courage and some advanced mentalities opened the door for changes that were unimaginable a short time ago. After 40 years it is an uncontested reality that in the United States there are: black doctors, black judges, black generals, black mayors (elected), black Secretaries of State, black teachers, black policemen, black agents of the Secret Services a.s.o. This is an unchallenged example of mentality change-without war. The most amazing thing is that the white population trusts, listens and when the situation is such they obey the blacks; and the whites do not feel humiliated at all. Now, following the American example, other countries, too, open the way for black and other races to be promoted to high functions; they have now overcome their lack of courage.

Another example of mentality change is a European one. The efficient and elegant work of Radio Free Europe had as a result the shaping in time of the mentality of the people of the East. Firm convictions were created about the superiority of the Western system and about the belief that such a system would suit them better. Thus in 1989, as at a signal, the populations of the East changed from one system to the other without a nuclear war (possible if they would have a fanatic communist mentality). There was a saying within the socialist system that: “capitalism is a system in a rotten stage!” To this, the common people answered in a satisfied manner and being very convinced: “Yes, but it still smells nice!” Obviously, Radio Free Europe is the winner not against communism, but of the war! The defeated one in the decades long battles fought by Radio Free Europe was the notion of the war itself, of war between the two ideological systems in the world. One of the parties’ hatred (the East’s) was changed by the radio team into a real sympathy. Lacking belligerents, there was no more war! You see? This time I did not “blame” the Americans for the achievements, I said the Europeans “were to blame” for this gigantic mentality change. As for the money, we will see (who paid). Let’s say they came in by ship!

One of the most common human bad habits, a really ancestral imperfection, is the tendency to “get too big for one’s boots”, a sort of applied pride. It is a kind of automatic shift to a stage of over confidence. We do not ask, we answer. What does it mean “to get too big for one’s boots”? Everybody heard this expression and everybody noticed it, easier with others and harder with one’s self. We insist you ask anybody, but mostly those who too easily “get too big for their boots” and see what answers you get! Here is our answer: “to get too big for one’s boots” means to have a double attitude: 1. to think that others or all the others are stupid or inferior and 2. to think you are automatically right, because you are what you are, because you say so, because it is your judgment.

CHAPTER 2

EUROPA – SYSTEM , NOT EMPIRE

”Everything is one!” -Xenophan, 6-5th century B.C.

Visiting numerous countries, reading a lot of books and newspapers, talking to people, looking around and seeing films, living in the real world we noticed that people always want something but they do not manage to define that particular something. We also noticed that things “want” something but are not able themselves to say what. We noticed that, generally speaking, people are pessimistic (exceptions being rare), that people are unhappy, experiencing at the most only short periods of happiness. We noticed that animals want something but they do not succeed in being understood. We noticed that plants too “wish” something and no one understands what. We also found out religion says what it says, but people forget quickly.

Such observations are not new, they are thousands of years old. Others, more educated and more experienced than us, proposed answers and all sorts of solutions but nobody is satisfied, not even those who advanced them.

For our part, we are afraid that you will be satisfied and content, even if only partially, by the answers and definitions that we are going to come up with. We are fearful that you will “see” in a different way, without compulsion or without us asking you to.

We will stop here with our comments because we do not want to be accused of a philosophical or a boasting attitude. You, the readers, are asked to note the first question of chapter 2: say a word (meaning a notion) which contemporary people persistently use, though not being very familiar with what it means. Think of a frequently used, modern word meaning something that does something (serving the purpose it has been designed for) and that achieves its goal.

We assert without fear the fact that people deal with many domains (even too many) ignoring the most needful ones. For example, the phenomenon of knowledge is not studied, although all the people deal with knowledge (teachers, pupils, students, researchers –especially- and generally, all people). Many of us concern ourselves with potatoes growing but we have no interest in how and what the potato is. Almost 10% of the population is concerned with education (aiming knowledge) and nevertheless knowledge is not studied. We ask you, what are our chances after having spent 12, 15, 17 or 20 years of our youth with education (high school, graduation, masters degree, doctorate) if we are not interested in knowledge itself?

All the people think, but nobody tells them how the thinking functions, how to manage the process of thinking, what to do to make this process, used by every one, a more efficient one. We ask ourselves: if people were not told what and how knowledge is, what and how thinking is, what have they been taught?

All the important scholars tried to find solutions and what is the result of their search? The result is new words, new notions some more comprehensive than others, replacing more words with only one and “stuffing” the world with words used in an unprofessional, intricate, extensive, incomprehensible manner.

Too little has been done to find a “super-method“ and a “brick” with which to build anything required in thinking, understanding and knowledge. The solutions, favored the “big”, and it seems they are not satisfactory, because many of the extremely necessary basic notions have no good definitions, i.e. the “brick” with which to be able to “construct” is missing. For instance:

-no satisfactory definition has been given for the notion of TRUTH

-no satisfactory definition has been given for the notion of UNDERSTANDING

-no satisfactory definition has been given for the notion of GOOD

-no satisfactory definition has been given for the notion of KNOWLEDGE

-no satisfactory definition has been given for the notion of HAPPINESS ...

Having no such “brick”, the scholars have done what they could, they gave definitions for almost all the notions in a “scattered” manner, serving especially their use in language and not their complete knowing and lifelong understanding by everyone. It does not matter, after they will “get the brick”, they will be able to give some marvelous definitions (better than we, the authors, could), and, even if our merits will be disregarded, we provide them with some “bricks”- not basic ones, but primordial ones, with which they may “build” all the other needed “structures” as well as all the definitions.

William James (one of the most important American thinkers) said something very suitable and being well known you might rather believe him than ourselves: “Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. We are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources. … Stating the thing broadly, the human individual thus lives fair within his limits he possesses powers of various sorts he habitually fails to use.” Considering that this is a fact acknowledged by the Americans, who were long ago the “engine” of the world’s sciences and economy, and who had the highest income rate..., we ask ourselves: how are the mental resources used by other peoples that have always been experiencing economical difficulties?

Of course, these peoples would never admit that their economic shortcomings reside in an unsuccessful engagement of thinking. Not everyone has the strength to assume poor operations - because of oneself not of others, because of oneself not of the predecessors. Now we give our answer, the book’s answer, to question 1 of chapter 2. Do not be surprised if it is almost identical to the answer to question 1 of chapter 1! That modern word, that consciously or unconsciously is very much made use of and that constitutes the notion which defines something that does something (in order to reach the goal it has been created for), that word is: SYSTEM. What would be the target for which there have been, are and will be created systems? Answer: to be of service for other systems – to serve their functioning, their stability, and progress! Obviously this is the aim of the system’s creator or user for there also exists a proper (intrinsic) aim of the system: that of preserving its own stability. We are “courageously” asserting this, though we are fully aware of the fact that at important congresses of knowledge it has been stated that systems have no purpose of their own. You are invited to judge for yourselves! What is the intention of an electrical engine in motion when its power supply is cut off? I suppose you agree it wishes to go on rotating (for a while). What does an atom want when by outside energy supply an electron jumps to a superior level? We believe you admit it wishes to keep its own stability and the excited electron returns to its former orbit, even if this means giving up the received energy, giving out an energy quantum (photon). What does a worker want, whose working place is going to be reduced? Wouldn’t he sincerely wish his situation remain unchanged? Doesn’t he want a stable working place?

Now do not tell me that the cause is inertia! We know that too. We only view things differently. We both are right. Inertia is a phenomenon. Phenomena are manifestations of the systems (actions, outputs) thus we disagree with the opinion that one has to submit to inertia. Inertia is a “product” not a cause and, despite the fact it appears in many circumstances, inertia is the “product” of a certain system (we don’t specify it now).

Continue reading this ebook at Smashwords.
Purchase this book or download sample versions for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-36 show above.)