What is your life
B.1. A more detailed look at possible creative steps in the evolution of the universe, nature, and human history
Yüklə 0,55 Mb.
|
B.1. A more detailed look at possible creative steps in the evolution of the universe, nature, and human historyThe possibility of ongoing divine participation in evolution in the form of an ongoing creativity through various phases of existence was discussed in Chapter 5.2., “Is There a Transcendental Essence of Creation”, in subchapter B., “Does a Spiritual Essence Rule Evolution, History, and Personal Destiny?”. It was shown that this concept of ongoing creativity through a sequence of distinct phases of existence cannot be supported by observation and science. However, the following thoughts and comments regarding this investigation shall be retained:Comments regarding a possible evolution of Creation: After billions of years of astrophysical evolution of the universe, something new happened somewhere in Creation and, possibly billions of years later, also on Earth: the appearance of life with its very complex mechanisms, with the capability for mutation, with death, with its own “laws of nature”, including the prevalence of the fittest. Was this appearance of life a necessity or was it a new creative occurrence? The older creation was not destined for it, as its prevalent inhospitality shows. To deduct the era of life from the earlier age, as fully inherent in the original nuclear structure of energy, would make the original creation all the more miraculous. That appearance of life, as we know it, hinged on several anomalies and coincidences in nature:
Can subsequent “creative” moments be perceived in this new phase of evolving life on Earth? Important creative moments can be found in the Pre-Cambrian and Cambrian periods (800 to 500 million years ago), when the most unusual, yet limited, creation of the complex life forms occurred. One can see them in the appearance of the new oxygen-burning life cycle (the prior life cycles had been either caldera- or solar energy and photosynthesis-based), with the consequential development of mobility and life feeding on life. One can see them in the appearance of the basic nerval system and the resulting high degree of reflective automation and of higher life forms, including all those that follow the Darwinian rules of evolution. One can see creative moments in so many rapid multi-step evolutions of the most complex and wondrous kind. One can see them in the eradication of the dominating dinosaurs 60 million years ago and the appearance of mammals. One can see them in the appearance of proto-ethical behavior of un-selfishness for the benefit of other individuals and, thereby, facilitation of social coherence. One can also see new creative moments in the appearance of aesthetic color patterns, music, and pleasant fragrances in the cultures of humans. Did this phase of Darwinian life have any purpose? Two contradictory answers are possible. One is that the ever-ongoing evolution to higher forms of life can be seen as the purpose of this phase of Creation. The other answer is that only a very small percentage of all living beings actually continued developing to higher forms of life. All bacterial life, all plant life, all insect life, and most animals actually stagnated at their lowly positions. Furthermore, lower life forms often feed on higher ones – virus and bacterial diseases destroy all kinds of plants, animals, and humans, irrespective of their significance in evolution or history (the great Perikles of Athens died of the plague, Mozart of tuberculosis). Therefore, one cannot see a pre-established intent in this phase to emphasize the higher life forms in creation. One can only see the almost artistic and intellectual character of evolution. Then, most recently on Earth (but possibly not in the universe), one can distinguish a totally new evolutionary step – the appearance of highly developed capabilities for thought, emotions, justice, art, humor, and all the values as given to humans. This phase of “human values” is too much in contrast to the prior Darwinian phase of life to be considered merely an extension of that phase. With the creation of the human species, something occurred in Creation on Earth that is beyond the development of the last billion years of life. For us as human beings, it is exciting to participate in this still evolving phase of Creation, when not all options are explored yet, and when there is more to accomplish yet. It was necessary for humans to have spare time, spare resources, curiosity, creativity, and both ethical and aesthetic values to bring forth any advancement beyond what Darwinian nature already offered. Darwinian nature was not laid out for that. Several effects prevented it – the next predator in the food chain, constant over-procreation combined with the limited availability of food, and the onset of energy-saving phlegmatic behavior as soon as the belly was full. In this new phase of Creation, the combination of a large brain, speech and mathematical capability, and adequate temperamental tuning to allow for the formation of structured societies provided for the development of civilizations and cultures and the effectiveness of the accomplishments of great individuals. The results of this new phase of existence, which appeared within a cosmically very short time span, are absolutely astonishing. In modern language, one can say that the “hardware” of the human phase of existence, the human body, differs little from the “hardware”, the animal body, of the Darwinian phase of existence. It is the appearance of the new “software”, the abstract phenomena of thought, emotions, and values, that are the essence of this new phase. With these phenomena came the increasing capability for mental analysis, mental creativity, and decision-making. From there came freedom and temptation and with them, as a consequence, the responsibility of humanity for itself. Consequently, from this point of view one could say that Creation was laid out for, or God can be seen as wanting freedom and responsibility to become the governing principles of the human era, as automation and self-reliance were the principles of the prior era of newly created life. Was the creative force, God, still visibly active during the human era, during the time we call history? Was there divine influence on the evolution of human history? It certainly has been prayed for and expected by humans innumerable times in calamities of nature and in human strife. It certainly was gratefully recognized and also was bitterly missed innumerable times. A broad-brush picture of human history may not yield more than the observation of the same forces of nature that were already visible in the evolution, expansion, and struggle of plant and animal species. However, while the majority of plants and animals did not progress to higher sophistication and only a minority did, with mankind it was different. The majority of mankind participated in the evolution of ever more sophisticated civilizations and only a minority became marginalized. There is a pattern of progress for mankind through the ages, different from anything one could have expected from the Darwinian pre-human phase of life. The progress of mankind occurred somewhat in a diversity of civilizations and in parallel in those civilizations, from China to India, Mesopotamia, Egypt, Europe, and the Central or South-American civilizations. The progress of civilizations occurred in many small steps, as progress had occurred in non-human nature before. But it also occurred in a number of breakthroughs, as also in non-human nature before. These civilization breakthroughs, being phenomena of the mind, were contributed by way of the thoughts of certain individuals at certain times when their cultures were receptive to those ideas. Some were of a practical nature, such as the invention of the wheel. Others were philosophical, such as the beginning of the chain of Greek philosophers in antiquity. Others were always seen as religious “inspirations received from the Gods” or as gifts by the Gods (e.g., the use of fire). Specifically, the ideas about religion and ethics were seen as God-inspired thoughts arriving by way of God-selected individuals – even though many brought only significant burden and suffering to mankind. In this sense, the important turning points in human capabilities, thoughts, or concepts of religion and the world must be seen as moments of destiny. A few of those should be mentioned specifically:
And how about the negative occurrences in the course of mankind’s history, the repetitive and highly destructive Asiatic invasions, ever new plagues, devastating wars, genocides, innovations with devilish consequences, and mental obsessions – not to mention drug abuse and vastly expanding religious-ethnic “terrorism” with unforeseeable consequences? One should be careful not to see history as being totally guided by God. This would deny human freedom and all human responsibility, thereby contradicting the basic principle of the human era of existence – and the cruelty and wastefulness of history could lead to a very contradictory God-image. But how can one see God as the creator of the universe and deny God’s participation in the evolution of mankind? Without interference by God in destiny, what religious sense would any kind of sacrifice, prayer, or ethical behavior any longer have – except utilitarian benefit and emotional soothing? What does that leave as visions of God’s active participation in mankind’s historic evolution? Earlier paragraphs have discussed the cosmic reasons and the problems of theodicy as speaking against the view of a still-active God interfering with destiny. In a view of ongoing action of the creative force of existence, God, one would have to include inspirations – a number of the religious, philosophical, and technical breakthroughs listed above. There is no question that even those inspirations that one could consider divine actually are appearing, in practical terms, through the thoughts that occur in the minds of some human individuals. Therefore, the religious person will seek an opening of the heart and mind to Divine inspiration, and will seek harmony with the Divine essence – hopefully, the right one – through contemplation or prayer. However, one should be careful not to asymmetrically ascribe all positive moments in mankind’s history to the direct action of the “hand of God”, or all bad moments to human action. The various pests and the arising of mighty Asian hordes overrunning great civilizations were not human deeds. The great calamities of mankind and all its individuals – whether in birth defects, accidents, plagues, invasions, wars, devastations of cultures, premature death, or suppression of great minds – are an enigma, as are the great changes toward progress, enlightenment, and well-being. Anthropomorphic explanations of divine intent in calamities, as the setting of examples or the teaching of lessons, appear inadequate. Explanations by divine justice are equally inadequate, since too many innocent people became victims. The saving of the innocents, as at Sodom and Gomorrah, usually does not occur. The only conclusion is that we humans are still part of the world of randomly or probabilistically appearing physical cataclysms and of the Darwinian struggle of all living beings, including bacteria and beasts and including criminals and tyrants. The two earlier phases of Creation, the physical and the Darwinian, have not been invalidated in the human phase. They reach well into our existence. We had better accept this fact in humility, as well as our responsibility to take action to improve our lives. B.2. Some words about abilities or capabilities: Mental abilities or capabilities can be described only in part. There are IQ tests and qualification tests. However, the question whether you or another person is qualified to undertake a certain enterprise is often difficult to answer, especially when character qualifications are involved. A low assessment of capabilities leads to unused opportunities. A high assessment leads to risk and, possibly, to frustration or failure. The assessment of abilities or capabilities should be raised with the capability of coping with risk and possible defeat. In sum, I see the assessment of capabilities in connection with character and the significance of risk. I recommend a rather high assessment of actual and potential capabilities to the young and strong. This serves as stimulation to develop and reach out. As circumstances and the course of life indicate, however, a more reduced assessment, humility and decisive concentration on proven or useful capabilities may be in order. It is both unfair and unjust to tell each child in each environment and race that he or she has equal opportunity for success in life. If they do not succeed, they will consider themselves a failure and the world prejudiced, unjust, and mean. Capabilities are often “valued” relative to those of others, specifically relative to one’s brothers’, sisters’ or parents’ capabilities and, consequently, their accomplishments. This is, however, neither fair nor suitable. There is, actually, no foundation to seeing human “value” in more or less capability. There is, at best, a difference in performance qualifications, earning capability, and qualification for a specific job. Human value should be related to how one does with what one has received by destiny. In most cases, it is unrealistic that children should see themselves with the same capabilities as their parents, brothers or sisters. The assessment of one's’capabilities, character, or personality forms the “self-image”. A negative self-image leads not only to unhappiness but also to unnecessarily poor performance in life. An exaggerated self-image leads to arrogance and, ultimately, failure. A self-image of positive values and resourcefulness, combined with modesty toward others, is recommended. From time to time, one should investigate the image that others have of oneself and, hopefully, arrive at constructive corrections which lead to the building of positive capabilities. “How should one use one’s capabilities?” Regarding the earlier question, “What Shall I Do in Life?” most people need or want a more individualistic answer than the indication of general human objectives in growth, service, and culture. This leads to the discussion of specific capabilities and individually available opportunities that influence the choosing of one’s individual course through existence. To start the discussion, let us consider a list of typical capabilities required for various professional occupations: Character Capabilities: personality growth potential class
leadership loyalty dedication integrity dependability generosity temperance judgment (wisdom)
desire for challenge perseverance diligence
aggressiveness courage
perfectionism discipline
cleanliness orderliness
planning and control decision-making capabilities – also in uncertainty creativity: concept generation recognition of opportunities thinking in alternatives information-handling capability memory, including coordination capability logical thought knowledge intelligence
comprehension, including intuitive comprehension Physical Capabilities: skill
dexterity strength
Intellectual Capabilities: speech
written expression knowledge of people (judgment) intuitive feeling for situations intuitive policy selection suitable compromising organization-building capabilities Character Capabilities: emotional strength balance warmth
charm radiance
charisma tact
concern for others team spirit tolerance patience
discipline proper relation to law, authority proper use of power perseverance ruthlessness flexibility balance between group-joining and individualism moral/ethical judgment Again, it is a very wide list. Some abilities even contradict each other, such as perseverance and flexibility, ruthlessness and concern for others. Consequently, no one individual can possibly excel in all abilities, capabilities, or skills. This provides opportunities for a variety of individuals to excel in life, specifically since different activities require different capability differentiation at different times. Capabilities can be improved through learning and training. The amount of capability improvement, however, is limited by an individually different natural ceiling. Close to that ceiling, even a large effort in training brings little capability improvement. The question arises: Which amount of effort is justified to improve which capability, and by how much? With total effort being limited for each individual, one has to establish ranking of priorities. In other words, different values have to be established for different capabilities. Some people doubt whether it is fair or justified to assign any value to capabilities. I agree that there is hardly any moral value in capabilities, but there is different use or utility of capabilities relative to a chosen course through life. Therefore, the question of ranking capabilities relates back to ranking motivations or objectives in life, as discussed above. In practical life, people decide all the time whether to spend their money on food or books, whether to spend their time traveling or improving their property, or to what proportion to spend time and money on each. In setting priorities between training of various capabilities and various objectives, one arrives at the question of selective specialization versus generalized, all-round life development. The answer obviously varies between that of a professional or sports specialist, whose success depends on specialized top performance in some selected capability, and people in general. The discussion of effort, diversified or specialized, is an old one for mankind, from the pragmatic to the most philosophical level. In practical life, people always had to choose specialized vocations and train for them. The Western Renaissance man encouraged diversified involvement in all fields of activity, with almost equal interest and effort. In the extreme, Buddhism arrives at a view of existence declining all involvement and effort – for the sake of finding peace in Nirvana. For most people, the "thumb-tack" approach is best suited for the selective development of capabilities. In this approach, a certain area of diversification is covered through development of a variety of capabilities in pursuit of a variety of objectives. In one or a few selected areas, however, special effort is applied to excel. In other words, one should neither scatter one's effort too widely nor live less than a full life in excessive limitation to one specialization only. The essential point in response to "how to use one's capabilities" is the proper selection of those individual capabilities for concentrated development and effort, which allow survival, some success, and some positive significance in society as the basis for the pursuit of growth, service, and culture. Besides a primary domain of pursuit, a reserve objective may be emphasized, and even a third one prepared. The reason for the reserve specialization is protection against accidents in life, as well as provision for a change in interests or capabilities with age. In pursuing some specialization and a field of generalized interests, trade-offs in effort are necessary. A trade-off consists of giving up something of one kind in order to gain something of another kind. As before, when discussing objectives in life, I propose the lowering of the personal satisfaction or aspiration threshold in a general field of interests, in order to heighten performance in a specialized area. In practical terms: If you need less money for daily expenses, you can afford more traveling to specific places of interest. If you spend less time on newspaper-reading and TV, you can spend more time on your specialized studies. There are also some synergistic capabilities. The most commonly known is the one between sports, health, and general life performance. Equally important is the maintaining of curiosity and intellectual flexibility with aging in relation to general life performance. As a final comment, I want to mention the concept of lowering the aspiration or satisfaction threshold in some areas, in order to heighten performance in others. For example, the lowering of the satisfaction threshold in terms of the time and money needed for entertainment allows heightened performance in growth or service through availability of more time or money for those. If a person is satisfied with reasonably limited financial or career success, he or she may have energy and resources to spare for branching out into service and cultural projects or interests. Those individuals seem to do best who initially concentrate their effort, pursuing only modestly diversified objectives, and who put special emphasis on career success in the age of 20 to 40 life period. The modest diversification in that time interval allows for more success in the selected field of concentration and subsequent better-founded branch-out to truly diversified development at a later age, when ceilings of professional development are reached. In practical life, there is no accurate method of determining the optimal effort toward success per above considerations. It is often the "disposable" income only (remaining income after "necessary" expenditures) that serves as a base for growth in diversification and for service. Such "disposable" income is commonly only 1 to 10 percent of total income and grows only temporarily with growing income (success). This is one of Parkinson's laws, indicating that demand grows to meet (or exceed) income at any level. Therefore, people always see themselves at the steep foot of the success/effort curve, with only a little bit more success being important for more happiness or for diversification of interests, this effect never allowing them to reach the recommended point of branch-out. Here, the lowering of satisfaction thresholds is the key to widening the margins of disposable money and time for well-funded life expansion. In sum, discussing the conflict between various objectives, I do not see the exclusive preeminence of any one objective. I see the fulfillment of life in an always changing balance and combination of all objectives. This is more difficult to handle intellectually, but it corresponds to the complexity of Creation and man's role therein. B.3. What do death and suffering mean to us? The question of why death and suffering occur is a key issue in many religions (for example, Buddhism and Christianity). The interpretation of suffering is either penalty or purification. Accordingly, the attitude toward suffering is either atonement and hope for forgiveness, possibly through sacrifice, or the attempt to prove oneself in hardship, possibly finding compensation in Heaven. God is seen either as possessing cruel features, as just (and humans as sinful), or as loving and helpful against evil. I personally interpret Creation differently and see suffering and death within the context of evolving Creation. Observation of early Creation indicates that a decisive step toward suffering and death occurred in evolution when multi-cell beings did not become self-repairing, aged, and became mortal. Another equally significant step occurred when primitive living beings began to feed on other living beings. Both occurrences, however, were in line with automated, self-functioning evolution and at that level of Creation did not have emotional significance. Reaction to suffering and the fight for survival became the principal moving forces in the evolutionary development of nature (besides the pursuit of opportunities for easier living). Death made room for newer, more advanced life. With the later occurrence in Creation of emotion, morality, compassion, and justice in the human species, those earlier methods of evolution came to appear utterly cruel and unacceptable. The fact is that death and suffering could not be religiously or intellectually attributed to personal behavior alone, in spite of many attempts from Job to modern philosophers. Even guiltless children suffer in car accidents or the wise and saintly from accidents and diseases. Therefore, religious explanations were often rejected and the existence of a just or loving God doubted. But the fact that earlier mechanisms of Creation became unacceptable to later forms of evolving life is not necessarily a disproof of a spiritual essence at the beginning or foundation of Creation, as in providing its appearance and structure. While suffering is significant to those afflicted, and death ultimately to all, it is important not to see either as an exclusive or the principal parameter of life (as in some religions), but to use remaining freedom or strength in the whatever remaining part of life in a positive view for the pursuit of the potential and opportunities of life in following the basic objectives as indicated before. The above relates to extreme degrees of suffering and to death. Life is more commonly related to minor forms of suffering: the necessity to work for a living, to perform for compensation, to sustain rivalry, to experience frustrations and unfulfilled wishes. It is an experience of life that most people, who do not have to apply themselves, decay quickly by turning lazy, soft, or irrational. Few people given large degrees of wealth or freedom can restrain their desires reasonably. In such cases, suffering in the form of some struggle, some limitations to cope with, is a blessing in disguise or else self-imposed discipline, sacrifice, or restraint is necessary. What can one do? In order to derive fortitude, we must accept limited suffering. Generally, however, we have to accept suffering as part of the evolution of nature, always trying to reduce it compassionately, hoping for continued evolution toward reduced suffering, and not losing sight of remaining opportunities. B.4. Is there an afterlife, a continued existence of the soul, or the individual essence after bodily death? The experience of many dying people is a beautiful one as suffering ends. Many people have sensed the spiritual contact to loved ones, who had passed away earlier. All these visions give support to religious concepts of an afterlife, possibly a perpetual one. Science, however, leaves little room for a perpetual existence after death. Science does not see a justification for the concept of “soul” independent of the living brain – as all aspects of “soul” continuously change with changes of the brain, whether in consequence of aging, diseases, or accidents. Furthermore, the end of our solar system and, ultimately, of the whole universe in Black Holes, diverging radiation, or a Big Crunch does not let another existence of permanently stored “souls” appear as within the concept of Creation. This rather indicates that one should accept death as part of Creation – and be grateful for the lives we now have – and make the best of that. B.5. Contradictions in Direction How shall we resolve the contradiction between the moral code of man an the law of nature as we experience it? In earlier eras of history, it was acceptable to fight for honor, to expand territorial dominance, to live in hierarchical or socially stratified communities and to punish cruelly. The most recent centuries of development of human thought have brought a rapid increase in the desire for peace, justice, Christian values, Socialism, social justice, and abolition of all forms of cruelty. “Human”, “humane”, or “humanistic” are synonyms for good or preferable behavior. At the same time, it is feared that these ideals will make us “soft” and unmanly, leading to less success of our civilization in rivalry to others. Recent political events give evidence of stronger groups cruelly overrunning weaker ones. In personal life, it is a fact that a person educated for perfect Christian, socialist, or cultural behavior is less successful in a career pursuit or in his or her pragmatic life. Observation of raw nature indicates a clear preference for behavior of strength and dominance. Without this principle, the elimination of the weak and sick, most species would deteriorate or catastrophically overbreed. Humans have to live in compromise between the higher ideals which the recent phase of Creation is pointing out (and which should be the human mission in Creation) and the demands of raw nature, which are still very much part of human character. To be a force of love, Socialism, justice, and forgiving, one must be mentally, morally, and physically strong and stable. One’s own survival has to be assured, one’s basic position be built and defended against rivals by a certain degree of hardness, selfishness, discrimination and even some disregard for suffering. Whatever you eat, you have not given to someone more hungry than you. Whatever you spend on yourself, you have not donated to the suffering. In rivalry, survival must be assured. Some individual success commensurate with personal objectives has to be obtained in rivalry in order to arrive at individual strength, which is the foundation for service to others. However, we can attempt to maintain the dignity of the rival. We can constantly compromise between our own needs and those of others. We can build a society with deterrent strength and then be gentle and exemplary in using the strength for help. We can prevent decay through discipline, sacrifice, and struggle for the realization of our ideals. How shall we resolve the conflict between the demands for progress and for conservation? We fear the loss of “humane” existence in an overly progressive and increasingly crowded world requiring conservation. But we must cope with the demands of the Third World for progress, which would make all conservation meaningless. The world has already found the answers; it is only lax in applying them: birth reduction – through birth control, education, or increased rights for women – leading to a reduction in population, strict environmental control, reduction of corruption, abandonment of excessively disruptive projects, limits to consumption in hardware, and properly directed growth in our and the Third World. Will China as the leading country of the Third World and advancing rapidly among the leading nations be able to solve this problem? How does one resolve the conflict between the desire for peace and freedom? There were times in all civilizations when fighting was the fulfillment of a manly, noble life. Today, peace is a preeminent ideal of mankind. There is abhorrence of violence and suffering, a desire for security, and regret for the waste resulting from wars. Non-violent, peaceful behavior is also preferred in personal life. Actually, all lives experience struggle and rivalry. The preference for absolute peace leads to unacceptable yielding and loss of freedom. Freedom is also lost by nations yielding too readily in some international conflicts. Russian foreign policy (prior to its collapse) promoted the peaceful behavior of others in order to foster Russian expansion based on military strength and subversive terror. Israel had no choice but to fight during the early decades of its existence for freedom and survival, now remaining as the cruel suppressor of the neighboring Palestinians. Christ taught peace but did not live peace, preferring argument and his personal suffering over loss of freedom in spreading his message and in helping as help was needed. Historically, the desire for peace has been in contradiction with many nations’ desire for growth. Rome and its civilization would not have risen to its significance without wars of conquest. The Russians were close to such a philosophy of growth through wars. Nature supported their view for a limited time; but it was the primitive nature of earlier Creation. Mankind's task should be to arrive at “humane” methods of settling conflict and arriving at individual or social development. In the meantime, people have to stay strong and at times belligerent, to defend their own survival in physical and cultural terms. Nature expects fight for survival and for development in diversity. Fight, however, can be transposed in human society from military violence to rivalry in moral, mental, and economic terms. As in all the discussions above, the answer may not be in an absolutely extreme point of view. In absolute peace, there is no benefit in yielding without struggle. Absolute freedom, without reasonable limitations, is not realistic either. Creation shows that all life has to struggle for its place, that one can minimize struggle by moving or evading to a suitable territory or by suitably specializing and that one can live reasonably or better with less than perfect freedom. There can be no absolute freedom. There is a need for moral/ethical behavior codes, and criminality results in the need for police control. Therefore, there is more personal freedom in societies with accepted ethical standards, whether in business, politics, civil service or in interhuman relations in families, among neighbors or with strangers. In this sense, intellectual liberalization from all moral values is a disservice to society. Contradictions Between Various Sources of Insight In a situation of rivalry, observation of nature indicates a course of prevailing through strength to the limits of brutality. In the same situation, intuition may indicate a course of compromise between hard struggle and lenience. Christian doctrine may indicate only lenience. How can one determine the relative value of sources of insight in case of contradiction? There is a vicious circle in attempting to solve this problem, because the selection of a method for arriving at the right approach already implies the preference for a source of insight. Thus, in cases of contradiction, an intellectually oriented person will intellectually arrive at the observation of nature as the prevailing source. Another person may state intuitively that intuition will lead most successfully in situations of contradiction. The religious person sees the Commandments of the Bible as overruling raw nature and human intuition. Often, contradictions are not realized but, instead, eliminated subconsciously through self-deception. This occurs, for example, when people are subject to different source hierarchies on different levels of their existence. The adolescent may accept science as prevailing in his thoughts, yet act and live emotionally. Some adolescents or immature individuals may claim scientific thinking in pursuing highly opinionated courses such as radical theories for society. Self-deception also occurs through selective observation and the use of selected input information. This allows individuals with low mobility in thought perspectives to stay in their "tracks", even when contradictory sources of insight are available. Source usage or preference – and, hence, source conflicts – varies with time, in historical development and within an individual's life cycle, as, for example, in the young radical becoming an old conservative. One should retain a critical attitude, mental liberty, mobility, and width of vision if one wants to come closer to “truth”, to optimal performance, or to lead a fuller life. Apparently, the structured character of Creation allows understanding by observation, logic, and conceptual thought. However, the complexity of existence and the limitation of the human mind and resources require a complementary approach by intuition, positively accepted feeling and, beyond that, a search for inspiration by meditating about the spiritual essence of existence, God. There is a need for compromise between these sources of insight, depending on individual conditions of conflict, whereby I personally depend on some degree of intuition in finding the right compromise between a harder interpretation of nature by its own rules and lenience in terms of human ideals – tending to the latter as I can afford it. The resolution of conflict remains a mystery. Some people think that finding one’s way through life is a matter of luck or of character. I think the vision of the right path to follow through life is a matter of mercy. It is then a matter of character to follow this path. B.6. Decision-Making, Implementation In plotting a course through life, as in any problem, one can distinguish three phases: Search for information as discussed in the preceding sections Decision-making Implementation The following discusses the decision-making phase and the phase-over to implementation.
Planning: This essay is about planning and pursuing a course through life. Therefore, the following chapter, which specifically discusses “planning”, is somewhat longer and more detailed than the others.
B. Extrapolation C. Analysis of trends, cycles, and structures D. Investigation of laws of nature controlling trends, cycles, and structures E. Classic business planning F. Enlarged business planning G. Delphi method H. Scenario method I. Conceptual planning
Historically, this is the oldest method of planning and is based on intuitive, sometimes “inspired” prediction. Hence, it is as good as intuition or the basis for such inspiration. The earlier paragraph on meditation pointed out the importance of the God-image for the quality of the resulting inspiration. History shows that there were outstanding prophetic leaders as Moses and devastating leaders as Hitler. Some predictions or prophesies are self-fulfilling. For example, if an accepted leader predicts trouble with a neighboring nation, mistrust and friction will arise and, finally, there may be trouble just for that reason. If people foresee doom and act in fear and resignation, they may find doom. Past and present history shows examples.
This planning method, by far the most common, consists of presenting the future as the expected extension of developments of the past. Extrapolation fails when the unforeseen happens or when the development of important factors in the course of time is misjudged. At the end of boom periods, many people failed in business because they expected endless continuation of the boom in industry or tourism. Others lose their chance by not seeing the end of a depression and let the competition take the lead over them. Marx has been fundamentally wrong in extrapolating the social development of industrialized nations. C. ANALYSIS OF TRENDS, CYCLES, AND STRUCTURES This is an improvement on extrapolation through seeing trends before they become prevalent or seeing the cycles and structures that change trends. However, this method is also based on observing the past or present and predicting from there. Hence, the origin of new cycles or the change of structures may not be considered. D. INVESTIGATION OF LAWS OF NATURE CONTROLLING TRENDS, CYCLES, AND STRUCTURES This is the scientific approach to prediction. More than prediction, the attempt is then made to influence the future, rather than merely accept its course. Examples range from Toynbee in the field of political history to economists in governments influencing the development of booms or recessions. Yet, this method finds its limitations in the complexity of the field, the psychological effects involved, and the unpredictability of destiny in the appearance of catastrophes, weather, inventions, or influential personalities of unique character.
This follows an established sequence: Definition of goals or objectives, development of alternative routes for reaching the goals or objectives, decision-making in selecting the most suitable route followed by implementation and control. This sensible and comprehensive method has proven itself in simple environments as the planning of a simple business by economic considerations only. However, problems arise in complex environments, for example, if not only economic but also social, political, and, possibly, aesthetic considerations enter into personal planning. Then, there may be dissatisfaction with the capability to develop alternative routes to reach complex objectives. Also selection between complex alternatives may not be possible. Hence, the emphasis in planning may shift to the following.
This emphasizes the consolidation of dimensionally different objectives (for example, business and social demands), the development of imagination or creativity in finding alternative routes, and the development of judgment capability for selecting suitable strategies in complex environments. The formation of character is emphasized in matters related to implementation and control beyond formalistic management techniques. Thus, this method addresses itself to underlying complex factual and human conditions of life, in addition to the formalistic steps of the classic planning method. However, the complexity of existence and the limitations of the human mind may still exceed comprehension even by the “enlarged” planning method.
This method skips formalistic planning steps by simply collecting and statistically evaluating statements, opinions, or judgments of selected successful individuals. The selection can be one of experts in the field of interest, or it can specifically include non-specialists (“inperts”) to broaden the scope of inquiry. For example, a set of leading physicists and a historian or sociologist may be asked to predict the time when fusion-type nuclear energy will be available. The statistical distribution of the indicated time is then presented. In matters of national development and governmental strategy, a number of known personalities may be asked who may be experts in their specialties but would be “inperts” relative to questions of very broad scope. Applied to personal planning, one could ask several outstanding personalities or friends which course in life one should follow at a certain time. They may be well informed about the situation or just people of good judgment. The results of this method are interesting but not necessarily dependable. The selection of people asked to respond is relevant to the results. Fashionably prevalent opinions or concerns may overshadow factual investigation. A number of doom predictions, such as the MIT Resources Study, are examples, as are predictions of friendly development of basically aggressive and expansionist powers.
This method is a broad-scope planning method for complex environments and includes both intuitive and analytical elements. In the first planning step, concepts of future circumstances or environments (“scenarios”) are visualized. Alternate scenarios are developed for possible alternate developments or decisions of the future. The scenarios are sometimes supported by factual analysis. The presentation of meaningful scenarios, however, requires a high degree of intuition. After definition of scenarios, plans are developed to either influence future development to arrive at the preferred scenario, or to reach a desirable position in the scenario. For example, future scenarios of a certain country may indicate, alternatively, a democratic/free-enterprise or a totalitarian/socialistic environment. Consequently, one may plan to facilitate strong personal investments and public initiative to strengthen democracy or a strategy of a low-profile position and adaptation to civil service bureaucracy. Thus, scenario-type planning is used extensively in policy planning of governments and large enterprises. But the method could be equally applied to personal planning problems. The weakness of the method is in the intuitive aspect of scenario development and in judging probabilities of future developments.
This method expands on the scenario method for personal planning. Personal planning is as complex as the planning individual's personality, life involvement, and aspirations. For simple individuals, planning by extrapolation or analysis of trends/cycles/structures may be adequate (for stable people in defined professions, established interpersonal relations and limited, stable environments). In complex, dynamic situations of personal planning, however, the scenario method will be preferable for gaining insight and direction in existence. The conceptual planning method is possibly best suited for personal planning. Conceptual planning is an expansion of the scenario method. As applied to personal planning, it includes the following steps:
Yüklə 0,55 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|