Аннотация: Look at the original text, this form is good only for copying. Keywords: cynicism, philosophy, popularly, untraditionally, in English,
-->
-->
====>*_TEN CYNICAL ESSAYS (Popular Worldview)_*
-->
===>*_Part Two_*
-->
-->[ This being a whole book I will give an idea about its -_cover_-.
-->On the -_front cover_-: picture on which is shown the barrel of Diogenes (though it looks rather like very big jar with a cover), tilted a bit forward in a small pit in the sandy soil, in the front with shifted aside cover, where out of its opening is protruded one bearded head and a hand, from aside rises (part of) big olive tree and on the sandy ground around are seen fallen olives, the outstretched hand holds one olive, in the upper right corner is seen bright sun, and in the distance is shining the sea. All this is surrounded above and below by stylized Greek ornaments and this picture is placed in the bottom part of the front cover. Above it is written the title and the author on violet-red (or orange) background.
-->On the -_back cover_-: nothing except the bright background of the front part (but, if this is so necessary, then may be put an advertisement of Coca-Cola, or the cigarettes Camel, or the American banner -- according to who pays more). ]
-->
==>*_Copyright Chris MYRSKI, 2000_*
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
===>*_CONTENTS_*
-->
-->In the first part:
-->
-->Foreword
-->About the Creation and the created
-->About the woman and the man
-->About the mankind
-->
-->-_In the second part_-:
-->
-->About the intellect
-->About the religion
-->About the democracy
-->About the violence
-->
-->In the third part:
-->
-->About the justice
-->About the population
-->About the future
-->Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
===>*_ABOUT THE INTELLECT_*
-->
==>*_I. Definition_*
-->
-->Exact definition of the intellect is principally impossible, because this is all-comprising basic notion, about which is supposed that each one has some intuitive idea (in the same way as it is not defined what is this God, or matter, for example), so that we will rather remind in the beginning what is this idea. But let us turn your attention to the fact that the word "intellect" is used in different contexts, which are often contradictory, and in other cases are highly restrictive, because we are inclined to ascribe intellect only to the humans (and from here also to the God, in all religions), where different animals, as well as artificial systems, can also show intellectual behaviour in many situations. So that the best, what we can expect, is some heuristic definition, which must comprise the most significant, but without asserting that it is complete and uncontroversial, where more important for us will be not to miss some intellectual manifestation, than to exclude this, for which special intellect is not needed.
-->In the second half of 20th century this question become particularly important because of the trials, some of them strikingly successful, for artificial modeling of human intellect. To many readers maybe is known the Turing criterion about this, when we have one intellectual system (computer, robot, or human), which is reduced to this, that a person converses through some informational channel (computer terminal) with somebody, without seeing or hearing him directly, so that he has no knowledge about him, and if after some reasonable amount of time he can not say for sure (or makes an error) whether he speaks with human or automaton, then he has before himself an artificial intelligence. Here the accent is, on one hand, on the subjectivity of assessment, and on the other hand, on the independence from the elementary basis (live cells or electronic elements). This is a right approach, but it says us nothing about the essence of intellect (except the fact, that there is no other way for its defining). The intuitive idea, usually, is about such activity, which looks quite complicated, so that even not every human being can do it.
-->Something similar states the etymology of the word, because "intellect" must come from Greek /_entelecheia_/ (/_enteleheia_/), which was a term coined and used in ancient times by Aristotle as one of the names of energy and meaning: activity, operating and efficient energy, efficiency of given activity, or just something that may happen, /_opportunity for something_/. In other words, the intellect is something hidden (in the canvas of the things), something which can't be seen, unless it shows itself in some way, some working principle of the matter (i.e. it is not obligatory connected with the human), what makes it to function correctly. But even in the time of Aristotle this word has not fallen from above, and, although made around the word "energy" (/_energeia_/) as something active, and as something different from the dynamics, it is still quite away from the energy and in Ancient-Greek can be found /_enteleoo_/ as whole, complete, intact, /_enteleia_/ as wholeness, or /_enteleteoo_/ as inspire, excite! Well, not that people like much to be inspired by the intellect (they prefer rather actions and thrillers) but this is the meaning put in the word for centuries; and if we take into account that the very body (more precisely the root /_tele_/-, which in Slavonic languages means body) is also hidden in it, i.e. when we take aside the prefix /_en_/ = in (which is very old), we come to the idea about inserting of something and uniting of the parts in one whole system, or about the /_relations_/ between the things.
-->In this situation it is reasonable to connect the adjective "intelligent" with the activity of a driver or football player, for example, even if this isn't some tiring mental activity. And the point isn't in the complexity of procedures or reasonings but in their /_originality_/ or novelty, in the exact evaluation of the situation and performing of the /_most adequate action_/, so that it is entirely possible for the play of some elite footballer to be more intelligent than the solving of a given integral equation, for example. Similar is the question also with all great masters in the area of arts, the majority of which surely meet with problems by solving of tasks from the upper (and even middle) school classes, but whose activity is intelligent, it you want only for the reason that such tasks solve practically all school students of some average grade, while the creative activity of those masters can in the best case be imitated! From what follows that the intellect is mainly in the creating of something new in a given situation, not in applying of known, even if difficult, rules. This new thing was only as possibility, until they have turned it to reality.
-->But if you ask those people what is this new thing, which is the secret of their success, they will not explain this to you, not only because that is how they win their "bread", but because even they alone, in most of the cases, /_don't know_/ what it is. When for performing of a given activity exists some description, procedure, recipe, or algorithm for acting, then it is not counted for very intellectual, but if good rules don't exist it deserves praises and admiration, and this is the reason which has forced the Ancient Greeks to contrive the metaphor about the Muses, who whisper in the ear of the artist what and how to do. It is interesting in this relation the answer of the sculptor Auguste Rodin how he was doing his statues -- he said: "I take a piece of stone and cut out all redundant."! So that the intellect was and remains first of all one mystery, though in many cases can be proposed different rules and methods of learning. Today everything is learned, but this does not mean that the great masters have become such because they have learned the secrets of the craft during their time of education -- it was necessary for them mainly to expand their horizons and to add new methods and means to their palette, but not to change this, what was already in their heads.
-->And because we have mentioned once the algorithms of creativity let us draw your attention to one misleading paradox, which consists in this, that the activities, taken usually for most intelligent, turn out to be quite easy for artificial modeling, while those, which are more elementary and accessible even to many animals, turn to be the most difficult! The chess game, which is played by the humans for millenniums, is a typical example of complicated intellectual activity, but in spite of this the contemporary computers, though being still in their "infant" age (about half a century), have succeeded to beat, not just anybody, and not some average chess player, but the world champion in chess, debunking the myth about the unsurpassable human intellect. And on the other hand, various elementary human activities done with naked hand and practically without mental efforts, as also the very graceful gait of some animals, are still quite difficult to be performed by a number of robots and in all probability the creation of sufficient similarity with the humans is not a question of near future. This is so because there, where the procedure can be easily algorithmized, the contemporary technology is sufficiently powerful to do wonders, while the simple mechanical movements and seemingly elementary conclusions at common sense level are much more difficult for realizing. Similarly to the chess may be mentioned also the computer animation and music, which are developing for some twenty years, but already have many impressive results (we are not speaking about what one can do with the use of computers, but about /_autonomous activity_/ of computer programs).
-->Based on the above said we can give some working definition of the notion intellect, as: *_heuristic processing of information, which allows invention of new relationships and conducting of adaptive behaviour in unforeseen situations_*. The heuristic means /_incompleteness_/ or inaccuracy of the decision, as also missing of the right decision, and the adaptability presupposes some adjustment to the environment and learning. The intellect is just unclear way for processing of information, and is this done consciously or not (and what is this "computer consciousness"?), as also is it volitional or arbitrary act, is not so important. The presumption about some /_decomposition of the goals_/ exists, but it is implied also by the novelty of situation and by the groping way of working of the intellectual system. There is no need of considering the material medium in which this processing of information is done, because important is the idea and not its physical realization. ( A propos, even the very word "idea", i.e. the Latin /_idea_/, is based on the root ... /_Deo_/, what is old Greek /_THeos_/, or God, what means that in the idea necessarily exist something divine. ) This is enough as introduction, and in the next chapter we will deepen slightly our views to the intellectual processing of information and will divide it in two major classes.
-->
==>*_II. Reason And Intellect_*
-->
-->The reason and the intellect are often observed as synonyms, but is good to make also /_difference_/ between them, because while the intellect is something in possibility, then the reason is the ability for applying of already known algorithms. The very word "reason" comes from Latin /_ratio_/, what means relation or dividing, and the meaning of its applying for intellectual activity comes from the difficult procedure of dividing (it is meant with Roman numerals), which in the antiquity was known to less than one out of thousand people, maybe (and today is even less known, because the Roman digits are not more used in arithmetics). Phonetically here is hidden the dividing or making of ... strokes, incisions (as also in Slavonic /_razum_/ or French /_raison_/ = reason; also, say, in old Bulgarian /_rabosh_/ as abacus, and others), what deserves to be mentioned (because the reason usually clicks), although this is pretty rough handling of the matters. Another synonym of the reason is the logic, which is Latin-Greek /_logos_/, what means some record, or at least in this sense is used today in the English (you know: logo is an emblem, symbol, then logistic is management of resources, i.e. keeping of records for what is present and what not), and then the logic is the ability to process some written records, symbols, words, et cetera (remember the biblical "In the beginning was the word ..."), in order of revealing of their gist. In this sense is better under reason to understand the ability for complicated intellectual activity, for which, though, exist some known rules or algorithms, where the intellect is not limited only with this but presupposes also ability for getting of /_new_/ solutions on the basis of comparing of situations and generating of ideas.
-->More precisely in the artificial intelligence is spoken about *_analytical and synthetic methods_* of solutions. The analytical methods are also called discrete or digital (symbolic) and are based on some decomposition of the information and analysis of the data and the relations between them, what must enable the applying of one or another partial approach for solving; these are properly reasonable or logical methods. The synthetic methods, for their part, mean some recognizing of the situation as a whole, without detailed analysis (were it of writing of letters and other images, or of playing, war and operative settings, or of musical works, etc.), and are called also analogous; they don't give so exact solutions, but can be very fast and can be easily acquired by the people. These notions very often are interwoven and is possible that analogous procedures are realized on digital machines, or logical algorithms are performed in analogous way, and this happens as in the computer systems, so well also by the people, because there are different types of psyches with their preferred activities. The important thing is to grasp that these are /_two types of information processing_/ and not one, though in the contemporary computers for the time being exists the tendency to use the digital processing everywhere, but this is question of effectiveness of the element base and can be temporary phenomenon.
-->The word "analogous" also originates from Ancient Greece and has to say something /_different_/ from the "logo", because the "a" in the beginning of the word (from ancient times, but at least from the Ancient-Greek, most often) is prefix for negation; the learning by analogies (situations or /_casuses_/-cases), though, is basic method in various sciences. It is so in the example with the driver and football player, in the military affaires, in the jurisprudence, medicine, literature and other arts, and where else not, what means that we have no rights to disregard this method of solving of intellectual tasks. Otherwise it will turn out that the whole intellectual activity is reduced to solving of tasks from higher mathematics, or to playing of chess, where the computers are already better than the humans, and even will be forced to exclude from the sphere of reasonable people all so called intellectuals or people of the arts, as also those working in other humanitarian areas, only because they can't (and they /_really_/ very often can't) judge reasonable. So that we must observe both kinds of information processing in their integrity, when we speak about intellect -- were it human, were it machine, were animal, or then extraterrestrial.
-->And really, some people are good in memorizing of the facts, and another ones of the rules, and this is well known, though such division is nor very indicative, because these both things are analytical or discrete informational entities. But there are people with differently developed imagination and differently emotionally charged, as also such who prefer actions by analogies. Till recently at this was looked as at different ways of functioning of the brain, but in the 70s years of 20th century was discovered that they are related with different /_parts_/ of the brain, but not of consciousness or subconsciousness (what is one functional, not material division), or of cortex and subcortex, but of something much more differentiated -- of left and right hemispheres of the brain! The left hemisphere (except that it controls motor activity of the /_right_/ half of the body -- the nerve fibers "seek" every opportunity to extend themselves and cross one with the other, because precisely there are built the nodes or synapses, which are the exact memory units) is responsible about the rationally-logical or semiotic (symbolic) information processing, which is most often verbal or symbolic. In the left hemisphere is placed the center of speech, and it, although polyvalent, diffused, and imprecise in comparison with mathematical rules and formulas, is one discrete transformation of information. There is the semiotic machine of the human and there is performed the decomposition of the goals, the planning, the logical reasoning, at cetera. As far as the people are predominantly right-handed, then also in relation with the coordination of our movements the left part of the brain is, as a rule, more developed and important.
-->The right hemisphere, on the other hand, is the analog machine, which realizes chiefly the processing of emotional images and by the greater part of people works mainly during the sleep. There is performed the associative recognition, the judging by analogies, the spontaneous situational classification, at cetera, which are /_full with errors_/, if one has succeeded to "catch" his brain in many incongruities during sleep, but they are much faster and interesting. The intellectuals, probably, have the ability to use their right hemisphere also while awake, what amplifies their imagination, while the logical verification of the left hemisphere is weaker and undeveloped. By each of us the brain has its specificity, but the important thing is that we have in our heads, in fact, /_two types of computers_/, which work together, where this duality is the basis of our thinking and of the human intellect! Our brain is not simply one multiprocessor system of identical processors (though by some individuals this is also realized, meaning that there are people who can perform simultaneously several mental activities), but a complex of different in their way of functioning machines. The experiments in artificial intelligence are reduced, for the time being, mainly to modeling of the activities of the left hemisphere, though it is not that the ideas of the perceptron and the neural networks, which must help in realizing of our "right" computer, have not existed, but we have to wait for this, maybe, half or one century more. In any case, this obscure thing in possibility can be achieved also in artificial way, more so that the nature (or God) has succeeded to do this in the most elementary way -- via millions and millions of trials and errors.
-->
==>*_III. Undeveloped Instinct_*
-->
-->This, that we have in our disposition such perfect computer devices in our heads, however, does /_not_/ mean that we use them properly. More precisely said: *_the human being acts reasonably_* only *_after he has /_used up_/ all unreasonable methods_* for achieving of the goal! The intellect is as if the last resort for us, and we remember about it when all other means have already failed. In this sense is justified to look at it as at one /_undeveloped instinct_/, of which we rarely make use even in our individual activity, not to mention our collective decisions in society, where the noising of the environment is so strong that suppresses the reasonable voices (see "About the mankind"). As far as this, to have in disposition something good and not to use it properly, must look as pretty strange phenomenon, let us look more precisely at the /_causes_/ for our /_un_/intelligent behaviour.
-->
-->*_1. The intellectual decisions require much time_* and the process of thinking is significantly slower than the instinctive reactions, because of what the people very often behave like the animals. Here it goes primarily about the analytical or rational decisions, bur they continue to be regarded as properly intellectual and exactly there the human beings think that they have superiority over the animals, only that the latter very often behave more reasonable than them and even more "humane". In fact, it can be said that the human is just one /_universal_/ animal, which on account of his universality is also more incapable than any other specialized animal in whatever concrete activity, and because of this tries to /_compensate_/ his imperfection through this new instinct (or, rather, that the human being has /_become_/ universal, in the process of evolution, because he has been sufficiently incompetent and helpless in various activities). So that, in the best case, the human tries to automatize his knowledge and technique of work to the speed (and level) of the instinct, where, if he succeeds in this, he acquires then, with the time, some /_intuition_/, what shall say unconscious intellectual activity, performed spontaneously and without apparent mental activity. It happens so by solving of school tasks, by driving, and in fulfilling of his direct obligations, but this is, rather, applying of previous mental activity, reduced in the moment of action to automatism (as, for example, if one thinks while walking which leg to heave and how to shift the center of gravity, then he will often stumble and fall). But such, now reflective, activities can be performed in known situations, while in complex life problems one is forced to think /_on the spot_/, only that this is very tiring and slow for him, and the operational situation not always allows it.
-->
-->*_2._* The human, however, except head, has also body, what means that *_he is first of all emotional_* and then rational. The human is higher /_animal_/ (what should not shock us because it is true), and the main goal of every animal is to have a pleasant life, so that here we have one dialectical contradiction in the goals of existence. The robots are not emotional (at least till now) because we have not decided, that this will be of some use for them, but the modeling of emotions is not more difficult than the modeling of intellect, and if by us the emotions are hindrance it is natural not to apply them in the artificial intellect. But the emotional load of human judgements does not mean simply taking of partial decisions satisfying only our interests, because the intellect is obliged to force the superiority of the given individual or group above the others and this is natural. More than this, it can be stated that in our world one suffers mostly /_not_/ because he does not seek his interest, but because he can't establish correctly his interest (for he seeks it too eagerly)! The partiality of human thinking is expressed in /_violation of the very logic_/ of reasoning and substituting it with this, to what the individual is emotionally more well-disposed, or, in the slightest cases, in filtering of the input data from the point of view of (often non realized) individual preferences. The human being is up to such extent egocentric, that he can think logically very rare, by the simple reason, that a priory takes for true this, what wants to prove in the way of logic. So does the politician, and the jurist, and the patient, and the enamored one, etc., and as if really reasonable behaviour can be observed only by working with abstract mathematical categories.
-->About the contradiction between reason and emotions, surely, is spoken much, but the core of the matter is that it is not at all necessary for this contradiction to be antagonistic and the whole "trick" is in this /_who_/ will command /_who_/. It is normal to expect that the intellect will rule over the emotions and from this will gain the very emotions (together with the intellect), but as far as the human being is not created at once, but is product of the evolution of animals, the emotions take more basic position than the intellect. This, in fact, is paraphrasing of the thesis about the undeveloped instinct, because when it will develop enough (and if it will do so, of course) it must take the whole commandment using the emotions only as "consultants" or "arbiters" by evaluation of the decisions. In the next few centuries (and more realistic -- millenniums), however, we have no reasons for big expectations because nowadays for at least 95 % of the people the arguments of the intellect continue to sound dry and unconvincing and they prefer the action before the thinking, because the former brings more immediate emotions, what means that they have, still, not learned to feel emotional satisfaction from the /_very process_/ of thinking.
-->
-->*_3._* The heuristic character of intellectual decisions means that *_their truthfulness is not always guaranteed_*, and their checking in many cases is not possible, were it because of the enormous dimension, were it because of the main criterion for truthfulness (at least in the social area) -- the verification of the future. Looking more generally, the most efficient strategy, used everywhere by the nature (or God, if you definitely want to personify it), is the teeming with so many errors trial and error method (or complete search in the state space), which, though, can be /_successfully_/ applied if one has at his disposal unlimited time and resources. The human isn't God, but he also can apply some limited form of this strategy, if he realizes his position of dust particle of the human society and history and uses the accumulated millions of errors during the passed centuries. Only that each individual prefers to make /_his own_/ errors (because this is much easier than the processing of whole accessible information) and is very proud with this "independence". Well, in various cases this turns out to be correct, because the conditions of the previous errors surely were a bit different in something. In any case, our decisions are heuristic and our criteria for truthfulness are relative, so that the exact decision is not always guarantied.
-->But if the exact heuristic decision is not always guarantied, then at the expense of this is possible to be found some acceptable solution in relatively short time. In similar way work also the computer programs for playing of chess (and, naturally, the chess masters, too), which never consider all possible moves, but limit themselves with certain depth on the tree of conditions, as it is said. According to approximate calculations the number of possible moves in a game of chess of average length is a number written with a one followed by 120 zeroes (i.e. 10 raised to 120th power, 10/120), what is one really enormous number, because the amount of all /_atoms_/ in the Universe, was written as one followed by /_only_/ 80-some zeroes. So that the heuristic is unavoidable in complex tasks and everything is question of acceptable balance between wholeness of the examination and time for getting of the solution. But what is the intellect, if not also a balance between contradictory requirements? Exactly this balance, though, this finding of the middle, as have said already the Ancient Greeks, is the most difficult thing for the human.
-->
-->*_4._* Another reason for the irrational human behaviour is the verbality of our judgements, or the *_/_restrictive_/ influence of the language_*. We are especially proud with our articulate speech, capable to give good description of the nature, but this, what it most of all gives, is one /_virtual_/ (i.e. seeming) /_reality_/, which is rather misleading and ambiguous, than exact. Nobody can convince, say, a dog, that it is better for him to eat beans, soy, nuts, etc., because it does not understand human speech and thus prefers always the meat, while the humans can be convinced in this (and according to the Hinduism the use of whatever meat is not proper, including also eggs and caviar, for these were the future offspring of the animals). Our social system is based on the human speech, because no politician can manage the masses if he can't speak well, i.e. manipulate the people. We just like the delusion, which the words give us, and don't want to change it with anything else; the seeming reality of the literature is more attractive than some other arts, because their language (of the painting, for example) is poorer. By the way, it is not known which Bulgarian has first decided that our speech must be called "/_rech_/" (and was he a Bulgarian), but he must have had sense of humour, because you know what "retch" in English means! This, of course, is just one linguistic curiosity and is not directly related with out discussion, but is indicative for the uselessness of many superlatives related with the (considered as logical) speech center of the brain, which, in fact, does what can, under the limitations imposed by the language.
-->The natural languages are especially inaccurate and work with very fuzzy concepts, what is the main reason due to which different people can on the basis of /_one and the same data_/ come /_to radically different conclusions_/! Our trouble is not that we can speak, but that we believe to what was said! If we could have used some semantic language, which reflects better the meaning of the concepts, as now the artificial intellect tries to do, or if we have at least mastered the telepathy en mass, not just as some phenomenal exception of ones out of millions (and this not always and not for any mental images), we surely would have been more reasonable and more truthful. Many animals have their, primitive according to our understanding, languages, but they are good enough to express the necessary for them emotions (because their intellect is very rudimentary and on a more subordinate level than the emotions, in comparison with ours).
-->There are reasons to hope that, under the influence of the logic, the natural languages will become more and more precise, though this is very slow process. We, I mean the Bulgarians, for example, still use the double negation (e.g. the phrase "I don't know nothing new", which all the Slavs use -- but it is so in the Roman languages, too -- correctly understood means that "I know something new") while the Englishmen (as also the Germans) have rejected this before more than a century. But this does not mean, that they (i.e. you, the English speaking people) are significantly before us, because they have still not learned to make difference between the letter "o" and the number "0", and in many cases call the numbers "figures". Till now as if the only progress is the entering, already also in Bulgarian, of the combination "and /or", because our everyday "or" is the so called "excluding or", i.e. logical function which is true only if the both things are different (i.e. either the one or the other), while the writing with slash is true always when the both things are not simultaneously false. In any case, it is important to understand that our language, how much helps us, so much also hinders us, in our efforts to find the essence of the things, and our intellect consists not necessarily in the ability to speak. So that it would have been best of all if we could have been intelligent /_without_/ speaking, instead of the reverse (what happens most often).
-->
-->*_5._* In relation with the rareness of intellectual activity by the humans not to ignore is also the fact that *_the intellect is not directly related with the continuation of the gender_*, what is our global goal in life, from the point of view of the nature, because for continuation of the gender we need everything else but not much brains! The intellect continues to play secondary role in all more significant social activities (see "About the mankind"), which are related, anyhow, with the achieving of better conditions for reproduction of a given social group (although this is not realized by its members). From the view point of reproduction the human being is not intellectual but reproducing machine, where the man is the sower, and the woman is the earth-womb. Some of us may like this (especially the very process of reproduction, abstracted from the result), and some -- not much (if their reproductive apparatus is a bit worn-out, or not yet completed), but surely not more often than once in /_thousand_/ times one indulges in this activity for reasonable causes.
-->In any case, even in our enlightened age, and in the wealthy and developed countries, the intellect is valued mainly as /_subsidiary_/ element from the other sex, because the women search the beautiful, and/or the wealthy, and/or the strong men, while the men search ... again the same, but with the exception of the strength (because the strength of the woman, as it is known, is in her weakness). The intellect usually is /_not a hindrance_/, when it is possession of the man, but it is just one piquant nuance (something like the combination between white and black race, for example, which has nice exciting effect), while by the women it is valued not according to the merits, but because of its rareness (something like, say, egg of a pterodactyl). And in the society is looked at the intelligent people in the best case with regret, because, you see, they /_have nothing else left to them_/, with which to become famous. Maybe on some other planet the things are different, by the artificial intelligence this surely will not be so, but by the people this is innate quality.
-->
-->*_6._* At the end we will focus also on the *_lack of organization_* in the human society as a whole, what makes the special intellect of its members just /_unnecessary_/. And, really, what is the need of quite optimal solution for a given individual or a small group, when their interaction is still performed in the most primitive way (see "About the mankind" and "About the violence"), and the reasonable decision has no chances to be put into practice? The central nervous system of the animals is improved in their struggle for survival, but when the human being is survived, and even is overpopulated our "poor" planet to insanity, then why should he need further improvements? The limits of our biggest dreams for public harmony don't go beyond the democracy, market economy, and "reasonable" armament, where the democracy contradicts to the common sense (see "About the democracy"), the market is one obvious deceit (see "About the mankind"), and the armament is reasonable only from the positions of the stronger. Until the society does not succeed to build some better organization than this of the jellyfish, for example, where the decisions of the central thinking organ to be put into practice without opposition of the masses, and better specialization than that of the /_destructive tests_/, or of prosperity of the fittest (as if we are on some competition and the sun does not shine equally for all), then there will be no special need of more perfect form of human intellect. In other words, until the contradictions between the individuals will not be reduced to the possible minimum the people will continue to behave unreasonable or like animals. Well, that is it in general outlines: the goal justifies the means!
-->
-->As far as the *_creativity_* is to a great extent related with the intellect it is proper to say a few sentences also about it. Each intellectual activity is, as a rule, creative, though the reversed thing very often is not true. Maybe it is good to define the creative activity as such, by which /_the pleasure is in the process_/, not much in the result, albeit, if the result is good, this also is not to be neglected. The antipodal activity is the routine one, by which the pleasure is after its conclusion, in the results of it (say, in the payment), while the very process quite often is not attractive for the individual. Naturally, are possible different levels of compromise between those two extremities, as also varying of the character of activity with the time; besides, such dividing is specific for each person. In this sense it is possible that a given creative activity is not related with the necessity of much intellect and one example for this is ... the sex, which surely is not practiced because of the result (exactly it most often is undesired) but because of the process! But this is /_really_/ creative activity (at any rate until one does not get bored by the partner), because one discovers each time something new in it, and for the majority of people this is the /_only_/ creative activity. In his life, of course, everybody tries to leave at least one child after himself, but this seeking of the result comes /_after_/ the pleasure from the process and is rather for personal justification; the human is wanting animal and he always aims at something -- if not at anything else than at least at permanent life via his children.
-->
-->So that the intellect, for most of the people, is still something new, in which necessity they are not convinced. And they are not convinced because it does not bring them special pleasure, like the sex, for example. Those, who get pleasure out of the very intellectual process are happy in their own way, because this helps them in many life situations, and also one more pleasure is not to be missed. Only when this becomes common practice (and if this happens), then we could be able to assert that the human is thinking animal, not only capable to think (because he is capable also to ... urinate, for example, but does not relate his name with that his "ability"). If, after all, this will not happen -- well, then the experiment has proved to be unsuccessful.
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
===>*_ABOUT THE RELIGION_*
-->
==>*_I. Support For The Masses_*
-->
-->Well-known is the sentence that the religion is opium for the people, only that the wide majority of public has prejudiced conception on the question, due to (justified with nothing) assuming that the opium is something bad, because from this must follow that the religion also can't be something good, but the masses, as a rule, see nothing bad in the religion (or at least in /_their_/ religion). Such judgement is logical but wrong, because the opium is not necessary to be something bad (for otherwise it would not have been applied in the contemporary, as also ancient, medicine), and in addition to this everything depends on the dose and the particular case (or ailment). The people /_seek_/ the religion exactly in their difficult moments in life -- by big misfortunes and death -- and precisely then they need this psychical and moral opium, in order to carry easier the heavy burden of their individual life. Surely, the religion is welcome also in the happy moments in their life, like marriage ceremonies, births, beautiful religious festivals and carnivals, because the great joy and the great sorrow have similar confusing impact on their everyday life; but even if it is not always so (because there is nothing confusing in an Easter, or a Corban-Bairam, or some other church holiday), nobody is crazy to deprive himself of nice traditions, and even looks for them alone, because in the many centuries of their existence the various religions have had possibility to devise much successful scenarios for nationwide holidays.
-->So that, if we get rid of the prejudice about the opium, we could even complete the above thought pleading that: *_the religion is exactly /_this_/ opium, which the people need_*! If it wasn't so the religions simply would not have existed for millenniums, because nobody can enforce over the man (at least not for a longer period) something what he does not want. If some priests do not understand the things in this way then this is just one more proof for their narrowness of thinking (something what is pretty typical for the cult officers, where the dogmatic thinking is norm of behaviour). The religion for the masses is what the fairy tales for the children are, regardless whether they are beautiful or scaring, because the common people do not differ much from the children in their naive conceptions and in their wish to escape somehow from the reality, which they wide away from always like. In this sense the religion is a kind of /_escapism_/, and nobody can take away from the people the possibility for such temporary "switching out", and has also no such rights.
-->The communist propaganda, because of the fact that it was a /_new religion_/ (on what we will linger a bit about the end of this essay), although it did not dare to admit this, forced the perception that the religions (i.e. the /_other_/ religions) are something imposed on the people, what is not needed for them, and, hence, harmful. But this is just not true in the general case, because the people alone seek some religion, and this what is imposed on them (and they don't like it) is the /_commonly accepted_/ religion and its learning in the schools (for the compulsory things rarely appeal to the people), and for that reason already in the era of Renaissance appeared many adversaries of the religion. These adversaries were big humanists and great personalities, and their opposing was normal and necessary in order to tear, or /_detach_/, the religion from the government, to eliminate the unnecessary dogmatism in the thinking (because it, as everything in excess, is harmful), to democratize and decentralize the society, but not to throw the religion entirely from the social area of life. And as we see even today it is not cast away. The religion exists, and will exist, as one vital need for the mankind, but it is changing, and will change, with the expanding of our knowledge about the world. The religious dogmas break, and for every dogmatist this means denying of the religion, but this, in fact, is one incessant evolvement from the naive and concrete ideas about God (or the gods) with human image to one more abstract understanding of the unlimited in the space and the time nature and of the nothingness and weakness of the human.
-->The religion is one *_necessary delusion_* -- obviously delusion, because there are no proofs for the existence of God (to what we shall turn our attention in chapter III, but see also "About the creation"), and obviously necessary, because the people search for it since centuries. The truth, besides that it is inaccessible for the people (and thanks God, for if we could have reached sometime the whole truth about the Universe, then what would have we done thereafter?) and our movement in the time is one ceaseless process of discovering of new partial truths from the limitless absolute truth about the world, but is also almost unbearable (because the people, as we said, are like the children). The religion is one delusion, but /_everything_/ in our life is delusion: the success, the happiness, the love, the knowledge, the heroism, the purpose of life, the alcohol, the sex, the art, and so on and so on. The Christian religion says that "all is vanity", what has the same meaning (though it does not call this delusion) and offers as single alternative the faith in God and the afterlife. The only thing, that we can do in this situation, is to choose some /_more beautiful_/ delusion and be happy with our mirage!
-->It is very naive to think, that when one knows that he deludes himself in something he will be malcontent -- one is discontented only when he does not like something, and the truthfulness is the last thing that interest him, and this only if he is not contented. Most of the children somewhere about the fifth year know very well that there is no Father Frost or Santa Claus, but this does not prevent them to enjoy their presents for this holiday. Each sane human being is aware that it is impossible to search all available men or women (according to the case) for to choose a partner in life, or object for his /her love, but this does not hinder him /her to fall in love, if not with the first met, then at least with one of the first 5-6 objects. Each reader knows that the fiction books (and films) are pure invention (although we, in Bulgaria, are a bit confused, for one thing because of the existing for a long time "critical realism", and for another thing -- because we speak about literature, where the English speaking people name it exactly "fiction", i.e. invention), but this does not hinder him to read them, if he likes them. In this sense the realizing of the fact that that the religion is also an invention and the existence of God is unprovable, does not at all mean that the religion is not necessary for the people, nor that this hinders them to believe in it (i.e. to delude themselves).
-->In the light of these reasonings it is now time to give a definition of the religion, but such that is maximally broad and non-limiting, in order to include all existed and existing religious beliefs, as also possible future religions. For this purpose is useful to search also some etymological relations, because this, what was settled linguistically in the languages, is something deeply felt (or "unconsciously realized") by the people during the centuries. The very word "religion" is Latin and means something on which one relies, or seeks support, what can easily be seen in the English. Then the English word "pater" is Latin, but comes from the ancient Sanskrit where /_patera_/ means beam, prop, and this root is present also in Bulgarian in one rarely used nowadays word, /_pateritza_/, what is a ... crutch. The Bulgarian word for pater-priest is /_sveshtenik_/ (or /_sveshchennik_/ in Russian) and means bright or saint person (/_svesht_/ //_svecha_/ is a candle), where the Latin Pope is in Russian /_papa_/ and means also father (understand, of the humanity), and the Russian language, though for the West might sound like Chinese, has many Latin words and roots, only that the suffixes are Slavonic and different. Interesting is also the relation of the English God (and German /_Gott_/) with the root "good" (in German /_gut_/), because God is the good being; as also of your evil and devil, where the latter for the English is built from "the Evil (being)". And so on.
-->So that our definition for the religion is the following: *_integral social system of perceptions and rituals, which is based exclusively /_on the faith_/, and is designed /_to support and encourage_/ people in their everyday activity and_* especially *_in the difficult moments, /_giving meaning_/ of_* otherwise meaningless, from the point of view of the individual, *_life._* About the support, which the religion gives, we spoke enough, about the meaning of life (or its meaninglessness) there are many thoughts in the essay "About the creation", and in the next chapter we will dwell more profound on the goal of religion, so that here remains to say some words about the faith. In fact, it is obvious, that in the religion the assertions are accepted /_not because they are true_/ or right, but first on faith, and only after this, when and where this is possible (and even where it isn't) they are justified in some logical way, but /_post factum_/. More than this, not only that it is believed in something not because of its truthfulness, but /_precisely the opposite_/ -- because of its unprovability, or as states the reached to us from Roman times famous phrase: /_Credo quia absurdum_/, i.e. "/_I believe because it is absurd_/"! For many people this may sound as paradox, but it is the pure truth (well, not absolute one, of course), because this, what is probable or possible, it can either happen, or be proved in logical or experimental way, and this, for which there is no way to be proved (but it must be accepted or instilled in the masses), can be accepted only via the faith and without thinking. In other words, this, what is to be believed in it, i.e. is possible, provable, there is no need for it to be taken on faith (i.e. it /_is not_/ "to be believed"), where this, what is not to be believed, because it contradicts to the logic and/or experiment, it must be taken on faith (i.e. it "/_is_/" to be believed) -- quite confusing verbal equilibristics, but such are the human languages and the logic of common individual, so that there is no way to run away from such slippery situations.
-->
==>*_II. Morality_*
-->
-->Each religion has its deep moral purpose, and it is this, what justifies its existence. The fundamental notions about the good and the evil, introduced even by the primeval shamans, are vital necessity in the human society, not because the man is so silly not to know what is good for him and what isn't, but because the egoistic goals of each individual contradict to the common goals of the group of people, and, hence, there must exist someone, who has to formulate some more common rules for living together, and this someone must impose them -- were it with force, were it with delusion. In the nature there is /_no_/ good or bad, and these notions are not necessary for the animals, because they don't have abilities to build in themselves more or less good models of reality, and live simply day after day, without the possibility to predict the things wider ahead than, say, one yearly season. There are not virtuous cats, or wolfs, or dogs, or locusts, if you want, but this does not hinder them the least in life, because they have not the ability to formulate questions about its meaning, where the human ability for understanding (and this is where from comes the fable about the apple of knowledge in the paradise garden) is a two-edged sword. The ability for knowledge is something more perfect in biological sense, but it imposes new problems for the beings endowed with it, because if an animal kills only to defend itself or to become fed, then the man does this by various abstract reasons. In this way this social animal called thinking becomes very strong and dangerous, not only for the other animals, but also for his brethren -- ergo, he must still learn how to live with the others, so that the bloodshed (or the losses of biological materials, said more cynically) to be possible minimal. Because of this, exactly, exists the morality.
-->If we try to give one short and non limiting, but sufficiently thorough, definition of the notion "morality" we could have come to the following: *_system of rules destined to unite the people in the time and in the space_*. The common coexistence on one and the same place can be reached relatively easy (most often with the use of force), but in front of the time, without moral norms, the mankind just stumbles! Group of people not united in the space is accepted to be called "savages" (for they can cut the throats of each other like a pack of wolves, were it because of some female, or of some "bone", or only to show what "heroes" they are), while group of people not united in the time are usually called "barbarians", i.e. infidels (because they don't know how to behave in order to leave behind a good memory about themselves, nor are convinced that must leave such memory at all).
-->For achieving of harmony in life of the human with his own kind and with the environment all means are allowed! For this reason it is entirely natural the invention of afterlife (or of reincarnation of the souls), and the complete penetration of religion (at least while it is ruling) in all spheres of life, and the notion of sinfulness of the human, and the dogmatism of religious moral, backed by the apparatus of inquisition or, at least, of some censure, as also the acrimonious intolerance to the heresies (i.e. the erroneous theories), and the utopian nature of religious happiness in contrast with the real earth pleasures, and the unavoidable stagnation in the development (because the happiness, most often, is in the stagnation), and other common characteristics of a given religion. The religions are for the masses and, for that reason, they are *_refuge for the weak_*, because the common one is weak -- as much to confront the evil, as well also to comprise in his mind the unlimited time and space.
-->For the unbiased and thinking man is completely clear that the bad and the good are not abstract but /_relative_/ categories and in each concrete case they can have different meaning, but such setting of the things does not solve the problem! One must know, for example, that the cannibalism is something very bad, cruel sin, no matter that there can be cases when it is one reasonable (say, from the view point of continuation of the gender) decision -- only that they are so rare and so questionable, that it is not in the power of everyone to judge, as it's said, on the spot, and there must be some dogma, or God's commandments.
-->The toleration of others' views, indubitably, is very good and useful for each society idea, but this is requirement which is pretty difficult to reach in our full with antagonism world, so that, notwithstanding the efforts of some of the religions, there is no one, which has always been tolerant to the others (even if there was such one, it would have lost its followers, because the people are those who change the religions). What will say that the religions are positive phenomenon concerning their cause for appearance, or their /_intentions_/, but at the same time they have played extremely reactionary role during all epochs, when was come to the effect or result! This, however, is unavoidable, and the best, that one religion can do, is to detect that "the way to hell is strewn with good intentions". Nowadays almost all religions aim at ever greater tolerance, but this is mainly because of the fact that in the religious feelings of the contemporary citizens can be seen some decline and the greater tolerance creates basis for convergence of various, taken earlier for heretical, flows in a given religion, but also because in the today's communicative world people are forced to live in greater concord and require this also from the religions. If in this way the religion retains its leading place as moralizer of the society, then this can only be welcomed! In any case, we should not think that the religion has fulfilled its purpose and therefore will perish from the face of the world, regardless of the next chapter, where we denounce some of the pseudo-scientific or Jesuitical theses for the existence of Christian God.
-->
==>*_III. Existence of God_*
-->
-->Proofs for the existence of God are not provided, and there /_can't be any proofs_/, if we are clear about the question what is this God? If we define God as such omnipotent and indestructible Being (or "substance", if you like it better so), which exists everywhere and always, which does not depend on the real world, in which we live and whose laws we continually attain, and which is even the primary cause for the creation of this world, we can't miss to come to the conclusion that our knowledge about this Being depends solely on His wish to allow us this pleasure. If God wants to stay away from the people and leave them, after having equipped them with free will, alone to achieve the meaning of good and bad, then He will always find ways so to hide from us, that we will not be able to find or prove His existence, neither in experimental, nor in rational way. If He, though, decides to show Himself to somebody, then this somebody will find Him everywhere: in the stone, in the tree, in the animal, in the fly, if you want, in the human being, in his thought, and will be categorically convinced in His existence, no matter what the declarations of the others are. For that reason the Christian religion insists that "who searches, finds". The whole thing here is in this, that God is not just much stronger, cleverer, and better than the humans, but is /_infinitely_/, i.e. incomparably, more such, and He exists forever and everywhere. In order to be able to attain Him or acknowledge His existence only with his own efforts one must be at least with His abilities; yeah, but the human is not a God, so that this is impossible, or, put in Latin, this is one /_contradictio in adjecto_/, i.e. contradiction in the very definition.
-->This is not at all a new thesis, but is known for about 25 centuries and is named /_agnosticism_/. Though we, in Bulgaria, are a bit misled by this setting of the things, because the communist propaganda insisted that the agnosticism is a theory about unknowability of the real /_world_/, not of God. In some religions God is identified with the truth about everything, or with the absolute truth, as we now say, understanding by this the whole knowledge about the Universe, but this is just another way for naming of the natural laws, or the /_idea_/ about the things. One way or another, if we state that God is really a God, then His existence, or absence, can't be proved by us in /_whatever_/ way, because we are imperfect and sinful beings, and when we think we have discovered God we can positively delude ourselves, as also when we think that there is no God. Said in more contemporary language God is a being /_from another dimension_/, and we simply can't see Him, where He can (if only desires). From what follows that the existence of God is a matter of taste, or of /_belief_/, and who wants can think that He exists, but who does not want -- that He doesn't. But our wish shows no effect over His existence or absence, because we are those who need Him, not He us! The existence of God is only a /_hypothesis_/, and if we need it we can accept it, but if we can do without it there is no need to invoke it; the exact and natural sciences do very well without it, where in the social area it is often necessary, due to the naivete of the masses, and for that reason it is used there.
-->These reflections were necessary for us in order to know how to take the listed below "evidences" for existence of the Christian God, where the quotes are necessary, if we understand that proofs, anyway, can't exist. These are examples for Jesuitical logic, what is a mixture of logic and faith (where the logic fails), but we must not judge them especially severe, because they are intended for the masses, and the people, as a rule, apply similar imprecise judgements quite often, in order to excuse their own views in some, ostensible objective, way. Here are some of the most widespread *_theses for the existence of God_*.
-->
-->*_1. God is the primary cause for the world_*, in which we live. Everything on this world is created by somebody, because there can't arise a consequence without existing of a cause for it. One house can't be built of itself, neither a sword be fabricated alone, nor a human to be born without the act of conception, and so on, so that there must be cause also for this, what does not happen by our will -- sprouting of the tree in the forest, emerging of the wild animals, creating of the rocks, and the seas, and the rivers, and the stars in the sky, et cetera -- and, hence, they must be created by somebody. But no man can create a flower, for example, if has not its seed, or create a star in the sky, or stop the rising of the Sun, therefore all this is created by some omnipotent Being, Who lives forever in the time, knows everything, what was, and what will happen, because understands the cause-effect relations of the things, is located everywhere, where He wishes, and commands our whole world or entire Universe, because He alone has made it. He does not plant the seed for each grass, because He has said how this grass must plant its seed, or how each animal must behave and how to propagate, so that to populate this beautiful world. He has created also the human being and has made him to look like Him, but has not restricted him to do only good, because otherwise the human would not have had the freedom of will, this divine quality, but has left him to suffer on this world in order to achieve happiness in the future life, when will come to Him, then without his perishable material shell, but only as an idea, soul, or emanation of the divine principle. God is the truth for everything, because nothing can arise without the idea for it, and the idea is nonmaterial, though it can be implemented in material forms. God exists, because however much we know we, still, can't achieve the divine nature of the world, and the world exist, hence it was created. If we think that some things happen simply because they happen, or casually, then we think so only because we can't grasp the divine wisdom, but we delude us and err thinking so. And so on.
-->All these considerations are entire speculative and can easily be rebutted also in one logical way: if God has created once the material world applying His free will, and if /_each_/ thing has to have its Creator, then who has created the Creator? In general, the thesis about the beginning and meaning sets unavoidably the question about the beginning and meaning of /_this_/ beginning and imposes the necessity of some hierarchy of gods, what again does not answer our questions! As, by the way, the separation of the matter from the idea about it inevitably raises the question of priority of one of the two things, but so long as they exist together (as the hen and the egg), then such separation leads to nowhere. The beginning of Creation must be observed only as some /_conditional point_/ for tracking of the time, not as some real beginning, as well as also the searching of meaning or goal, where they are not bound to exist, can't discover them but only invent them. Anyway, concerning these questions see also the assay "About the Creation".
-->
-->*_2. The nature obeys natural laws and_*, hence, *_they must be created by somebody_*. This is some modification of the previous point, only that it is much more contemporary and logical and that is why we treat it separately. It does not presuppose the idea of God being like a naughty child, who has done some mischief (say, has tied a tin at the tail of a cat) and has hidden somewhere to see the fun, but of Him being like a real artist, who has created something finished (a picture, or mechanism, or the like) and has left it to the people to use it. This thesis does not limit at all the scientific search and knowledge about the world, in which for God is not necessary to interfere after the initial act of creation. It simply imposes on us the justified with nothing relation between the natural and human laws, and if the latter are created by somebody and written on something, then also the natural laws must be created by somebody and written somehow in the matter. But the catch is the same: when something exists, it has to be created by somebody. It is true that there can't be a cause without some consequence, but who gives us the right on the basis of the consequence to /_invent_/ also the cause for it? And who can guarantee us, that the cause is one and only, for to choose exactly it? The arbitrariness of our world can be "coded" in it (by somebody or something), but can also be the only possible solution, in which case we do not need the hypothesis of God. And in addition to this the usage of this thesis again degrades the role of God, or contradicts to His definition, because if God has created all natural laws, then He also has to obey them, what says that He has no free will or is not at all God.
-->
-->*_3. The purposefulness of our world can be explained only with the existence of its Creator_*. The grass grows in order to be eaten by some animal (and to saturate the air with oxygen, if we want to be more profound in the review); the leaves of the trees fall down in the winter in order not to freeze, and to prevent the roots of the trees from freezing, and to enrich the earth with nutrients; the cow exists for to give us milk, the sow -- meat, the hen -- eggs, and so on; the Sun rises in order to warm, the Moon -- to shine in the night, the river flows for to drink from it, the seas exist for the fish to breed there, etc.; the sex exist for the people and animals to breed and reproduce themselves; the man is created for to please God; and other similar things. Nothing happens just so in the nature, but with some specific purpose, and if we can not perceive it then this does not mean that there is no such purpose. If the world was not made by God then it would not have been so efficient. The sciences do not contradict to the existence of God, but serve only to /_explain_/ to us the divine goals, which He has set, and which, otherwise, the weak humans could not have succeeded to understand. God has given us the reason for we to be able to conceive Him, the notion of good and evil -- for to strive to the good, and the free will -- for we to be able to come nearer to Him. Even the fly exists for to feed the spiders and the birds (and, maybe, to teach us to live more hygienically), the worm -- for to loosen and enrich the soil, and the death -- for to teach us to value more the life and to be able to come later on in the paradise or the hell, according to this, what we have deserved on this world. But then, why not to add that the nose exists for to set the glasses on it, the little finger -- for to have something to ... poke in the nose, and the hands -- to be able to wipe our behinds (because we can't, hmm, lick us like the cats and dogs)? The life is result of propitious events and unlimited number of trials and errors (see again "About the Creation"), and all efforts to ascribe to it some goal or purpose are at least comical.
-->
-->*_4. God exists in order to teach us what is good and what -- bad_*. This is the moral argumentation of His existence, but here, too, the things go from the back to the front, or we prove something only because that is how we like it. When one does not know what is good and what bad for him, and the human being really very often does not know, then must come some omnipotent power to teach him. But if the notion for good and bad has not existed before our "dear God" has explained it to us, then from this follows that the world which He has created (with the bad in it) is not at all good, and the very God neither is a good Being. The fables about the free will of the human, because of which God has left the bad in the world, because, you see, if there is not evil then there will be nothing between what one has to choose and will behave always good, are pretty nice in theory, but does not at all justify human miseries, and, in the end, when He is /_God_/ He might have devised some way so that there were free will, and also were bads and evils, but the humans could have done only good things! What from this, that in this way there would have not existed the reward of eternal bliss (or eternal punishment) in the "other world" -- then one would have lived on /_this_/ world like in the paradise. Surely this is groundless thesis. And if then the good and bad have existed before the arrival of God and the creation of our world, then God has shown no contribution to the question. It turns out that the things are easily solved if we do not mix these notions in the material world, which is such as it is, and the good and the evil are relative, as everything else, or are side products of the existence of the matter. The moral will not suffer from this, but will become what it, anyhow, is -- rules for peaceful coexistence of many individuals. Only that we shall move away from the hypothesis of God, and the purpose of the task was to confirm it.
-->
-->*_5. God is the Saviour of mankind_*. Despite the misfortunes on this world God is who saves the immortal souls of the people, and He has even taken a particle from Himself, begetting in this way His Son Christ in entirely human form and with human flesh, in order to be able to experience all human sufferings and later, with His death, to defeat the death. God has created not only the real world, but the paradise and the hell, and in this way has made it easy for the human to became more fully united with His divine essence. Even if we leave aside the justified with nothing hypothesis about the existence of our Christ, because there are no historical evidences for His real existence, especially credible witnesses of the moment of conception or of His resurrection, after confirmed by competent consilium of medics physical death, but we have no reasons to think that the "other world" is in something better than this one. The human being is finite creature and it isn't at all clear whether one everlasting life (if possible) will be something good, or constant boredom, because the happiness may consist largely in the stagnation (for the reason that each transitional period is something, on the whole, bad -- as we in Bulgaria have seen on the example of our transition to the democracy, that never ends), but not the /_everlasting_/ stagnation, without whatever possibility for change (with the exception of those in the Purgatory, after which again comes endless boredom). There, where are no expectations and hopes for changing, can't exist any space for expression of the free will. In other words, as much as we twist our souls, the "other world" is one eternal exile! If God was really good and omnipotent He would have devised some painless way for destruction of the soul (or deleting of its memory, if He so much does not want to throw away something good), instead of this eternal tortures (or blisses with the same effect). So that: as this world is bad, so is also the "other", and so also the relation between the two worlds is almost the worst possible, and this isn't a salvation at all, because two millenniums after the Christ the mankind continues to kill one another as before, even in significantly greater scale. Instead of to "spoil the image" of God in this way it is better if we do not mix Him in the least in our human follies.
-->
==>*_IV. Atheism_*
-->
-->After our ascertaining that the agnosticism is a true thing and the existence of God is a matter of taste, we should not miss the other pole in the worshiping of the religions -- the atheism -- all the more that it is related with their future evolution or "mutation". The atheist insist that there is no God, but this /_also can not be proved_/, as the opposite, and in this sense *_the atheist is also a believer_*! This can sound paradoxically for the majority of people, including the /_very_/ atheists, but this is unalloyed truth. More than this, the believers and the atheists are not entirely symmetrically opposed, where the true believers are /_exactly_/ the atheists, because the existence of God, still, can be proved, /_if He exists_/ and decides to show up, while *_the absence of God_* simply *_cannot be proved_* (if He does not exist)! This now must be clear, because for each thing is much easier to be proved its existence (if it is present at least in one particular case), than its absence (everywhere and always), in which connection our folks say: "go and prove you are not a camel". In the most cases there remains no other algorithm for proving of the absence except, the so called, complete search, and in our case this is impossible, for we are to "search" each one point of the /_infinite_/ space /_and time_/, and by this /_having no idea how looks this_/, what we search!
-->Let us now try to predict the future evolvement of religions, going out, of course, from some common tendency in their chronological appearance and development. This tendency is not so difficult to be noticed and it is: from the concrete -- to the abstract! All primitive religions have pictured in some way their gods, where their image was dogmatically set and, of course, similar to the human or to some animals. The Hinduism also has humanlike gods, but some of them have by six limbs, and it begins to be spoken about million worlds or Universes, which can emerge from the breath of one god and be destroyed by another, where divine now becomes the truth. By the pharaohs and Ancient Greeks, as also in Hebrew religion, the gods are still quite human. But by the Christianity now appear three gods: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, where the point isn't in their number but in the abstract image of the Spirit, which is pictured as pigeon not because looks like it, but because He has to be pictured somehow. Seven centuries after Christ emerges the Islam, which says about God only that He exists, but how He looks like -- nobody can tell, for which reason in the /_cami_/-mosques can be ornaments, and this mostly outside, but the walls are bare, in order not to distract the worshipers with various pictures. In the time of Mohammed there was not science fiction and that is why he does not call Allah being from the forth dimension, but the meaning of this God is such. The widespread during 19th and 20th century (though coming from Ancient Greece) atheism rejects entirely the divine image and substitutes it with the impersonal "nature" (or substance -- by Spinoza). It is true that by the atheists God disappears completely, as well as also the saints and the miracles, but there remains one His quintessence, the /_idea_/ about God, in the form of natural laws, i.e. remains the most important, this what can not be destroyed.
-->If one still wonders why the Islam makes significant progress, especially in the 20th century, then he simply does not realize how the rapid development of sciences makes untenable the strict Christian dogmas and the exact images of God. The people are still like the children and need fairy tales, but they want now something more up-today, some science fiction tale, i.e. some religion, which leaves more space for their own fantasy and thought. The Christian religion also changes, as much as she succeeds in this, diverging in quite different heresies since about 15th century, until the contemporary situation is reached, where in USA in 20th century arise also some, so called, /_autocephalous_/ churches, i.e. churches created by one person only, who alone is the head of it (as also its "tail", because it can't be said that they have many followers). It turns out that the icons are not compulsory for the believers, but the everyday prayers also are not something irrevocable. The important thing is for the person to realize that he is not alone on this planet, and that the life on it does not finish with his own life!
-->From the concrete to the abstract is the natural evolution of religions, but this is also the way through which go many of the sciences, because this is the way of our knowledge for the world. The final moment in this regard for now is the atheism, but it is not enough developed and has not many of the rituals which has each self-respecting religion, and this is the reason that it is not accepted from the masses as such, but the future is limitless (unless we alone set some limits), so that we should not reject it in a hurry as belief.
-->And meanwhile one *_new religion_* emerged in 20th century and while the people argue whether this is a religion, whether it is good, etc., it succeeded to make its own way around the world. It goes about the *_/_communism_/_*, or rather about the Leninism, which has all characteristics of an atheistic religion. It bred out of Marx's "ghost of communism", but began to exist as religion in the time of Lenin in the young Soviet state, went through periods of persecutions and prosecutions, created his own saints, succeeded to establish itself as official religion on a vast territory of the globe, and now goes around in the "third" world searching suitable soil for its prospering. It has /_no gods_/, but has natural laws, which are no less implacable than the gods; has /_no wonders_/, but has the wonders of the sciences, which are no less astonishing than those of the gods; has /_no prayers_/, but has wishes, strivings and ideals, which have no weaker impact on the masses. It is true, that in regard of the rituals there is much to be desired, but its active existence is only about 80 years, and what are 80 years for a religion? It isn't now ruling religion in the ex-communist countries, but this does not mean that it doesn't still rule "the hearts and minds" of the people (well-worn stereotype, but, in general, true), because the collapse of the communist system was simply signal for /_its separating from the state_/, as it has happened in the Renaissance with the Christian religion in the whole Western world. It has morality, has utopianism, has idea of sin, has afterlife ("the bright communist future"), has goal -- the happiness of the people, causes stagnation (as each other religion), and the stagnation is especially important when some civilization (as the contemporary) goes away, it is sufficiently tolerant to the others (i.e. genuine) religions, preaches ascetic way of life on this world, and is a real refuge for the weak or less developed countries and nations. It had even their own censoring bodies and inquisition, as each other ruling religion.
-->Whether and up to what extent it will exist -- the future will show. But many things in it can remain, even the five rayed star, because this is widespread and old symbol and exists on the American banner (though the Americans run away from the communism "as the devil from the incense", but this is because they are wealthy country and nobody there wants to be poor), besides the Pentagon is, in fact, one "pentagonal star with cut out rays" (or in the reverse way -- the five rayed star is an upgraded pentagon). The red colour is in nothing worse than the blue one (it's allusion to the modern in the first democratic years Bulgarian Union of Democratic Forces, UDF), for example, and about the party houses -- nobody has said that they must be built only in "Stalinist" style (or "Communist Gothic") and can be shaped also like space stations, if you want. The future of mankind is one much more tangible ideal than the afterlife, because each one, in any case, tries to leave something behind (at least some child), and the total abstraction of the god-nature does never endanger to fall out of mode because of changing of the tastes. The most precious asset of the human is his labour and this is uncontestable truth, and the highest happiness (for each sufficiently reasonable individual, who can "exceed" his mortal shell) is the happiness of the others, because this is the mutual or shared happiness, and it is something that can outlive him, leaving some trace amongst the other people. The contradiction between the faith, which each religion requires, and the reason, which the very human nature requires, is not so hardly to overcome (as, say, the contradiction between the sexes, or the generations), because the faith can be stipulated by the way of the reason, and the reason to exist based on the belief (in it). More than this, exactly the symbiosis between faith and reason in the communist atheistic religion, or in some of its descendants, including the contradiction in itself, can make this religion live and long lasting. And the fact, that it does not set any racial, financial, sexual, intellectual, and other differences (except, maybe, the necessity for the worshipers to be not significantly wealthier than the others, but this is easily surmountable), makes it entirely accessible for each weak, but more or less rational human.
-->
-->So that the religion is opium for the people, but until they do not show that they don't need this opium, it will take a central place in the social life of the people. But judging by the omnivorousness and naivety, with which the masses devour the advertisements, that are offered to them, there are all reasons to suppose that they will always need religion. The religion is harmful when there collide severe two different religions and begin to fight war (because, for example, one group of people were breaking the egg from the sharp end and another one -- from the blunt one), but otherwise some measure of delusion about life is vitally necessary for the people in order to be able to live it, and, in this sense, /_each_/ religion does good work, because one will never reject the delusion, if he likes it. While a given society is divided in contradictory structures with different interests (and this will always take place, because the humans are created different in their tastes, interests, and abilities, and exactly this variety is the most valuable thing in this world), till then it will need something uniting and binding together its members. While one needs support and purpose in life he will need also some religion. But he will always have such need because he is not a God.
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
===>*_ABOUT THE DEMOCRACY_*
-->
==>*_I. Great And Unreasonable_*
-->
-->*_The democracy_* is the most significant achievement of mankind in the social area, /_because_/ it *_contradicts to the common sense_*! Despite the paradoxicality of this statement it is true, because it, really, is something to what couldn't have come one normal, i.e. average, individual in his judgements. The whole human experience during the centuries and in our days shows that *_the democratic choice_*, in fact, *_is not applied_* anywhere, *_where_* some *_work has to be done_*, say in the: army, police, education, healthcare, productive sphere, and so on. It is inconceivable to imagine army, in which the new recruits choose their commander /_between them_/; or the physicians to be appointed by the nurses and orderlies (and even the patients); or the teachers to be chosen from the students (and from their midst); or in some company to gather all common labourers, drivers, cleaners, and others, and ask them to choose director, or head of department, no matter what education he or she has. ( And let us not confuse this with the democra/_tiza_/tion of management in many activities nowadays, which is only one /_auxiliary element_/, not main principle, and as such probably has existed also in the times of the pharaohs. ) There are obvious reasons why this is not done, because each activity requires certain professionalism, which is proved on the basis of educational criteria and/or life experience, and this is decided by people /_with greater amount of knowledge_/ in the given area, not from below, by the common people, and this is the only way to make the right choice, i.e. from top to bottom, not the reverse, what will say that the democratic choice, from the point of view of the reason, is a pure /_perversity_/!
-->Said more precisely, the democratic choice assumes that: *_people who don't understand_*, *_choose_* such *_who they don't know_*, and this *_not requiring_* whatever *_document for professional qualification_*! Let us explain this in more details. The masses don't know anything about the area of governing, which isn't so elementary as they think (if we have in mind the real ruling, not its ostentatious part), but exactly for that reason think that know everything -- because the more limited is the knowledge of somebody, the more self-confident is he in his judgements. This is very old truth dating at least from the time of Pythagoras, who explained to his students why he, who knows so much, thinks that he knows a little, while they, because know nothing, think that know everything, resorting to the help of drawn on the sand circles, where his was the biggest, and theirs were very little, and everything outside the circles was the unknown, which is not limited from the outside; and because the biggest circle has greater contact with the unknown, for that reason he was well aware of his ignorance, but they didn't realize theirs. On this occasion the Russians have their proverb saying (in translation) that: "The narrower the forehead, the wider the self-conceit!". Because of this people usually argue: either about sport, or about politics, or about women (men), because these are the most difficult questions, for which singular solution does not exist, but these discussions are only useless "babble", for neither the masses can solve them, nor someone will listen to them if they occasionally say something reasonable (inasmuch as people are not interesting in the reasonable arguments but in what they like!). But this phenomenon is /_justified_/ from the point of view of life, because one always wants to be motivated somehow in his actions, and if he does not have much knowledge, then he must have at least higher self-confidence, which must /_compensate_/ for his lack of knowledge, otherwise about 95 % of the people would have suffered from inferiority complex, what surely wouldn't have been right. This is why the children always think that they know everything, while with the age the self-confidence little by little diminishes (because their knowledge grows), until they become so old, that in order to be able to lead peaceful life (because their knowledge and abilities begin to lessen more and more), they become forced again to think that they know everything and the now young ones are simply silly (and for them each, who is younger than 50 or so is still very "green").
-->So that the majority of people understand nothing about politics, despite their bold assertions, but they don't know also the politicians who they choose. To know somebody means to can /_predict_/ his behaviour in each possible situation, to know, so to say, the algorithm by which he functions. People live side by side for ten years and after this again turns out that they don't know each other well and have overestimated or underestimated one another, so that it isn't possible to know well a politician whom have seen a pair of times by TV, have heard or read something about him (or her) by other media, but these were only /_poses_/ (because the politician is a kind of artist who plays before the entire population), not his essence, on the basis of which they could make objective mental conclusions. The population can know the car of a famous politician (or football star), can discuss the pluses or minuses of his mistress (or boyfriend), the menu on his table, or the suits which he (respectively, she) wears, to know where his children study, and the like, but these are all things that has a weak connection with his political qualities, especially if he is new emerging on the scene. The electors haven't, and will never have, possibility for /_personal contacts_/ and informal discussions with him (over a drink, as it's said), at least because he represents thousands of people, which he has no physical capacity to know personally; neither they have been his colleagues at the place of work, for to know him from professional point of view.
-->It would have been good if the electors required at least some document for completed political (or in political sciences) education, as it is custom for each profession; to were able to know some his objective intelligence quotient, or at least to have put him to some test or exam, by the results of which to take decision; to have had some way for checking of his adherence to principles and incorruptibility, for to be convinced that he is not just power-hungry individual who sets everything else in background and in the interest of his political career; to have had in their disposition some his psychical tests and conclusions of medical commissions that he is psychologically normal. If not anything else, were there at least age restrictions, as some true in the general set way for checking of his life experience. But all this contradicts to the main democratic principle that /_everybody_/ can participate in the government, without whatever documents -- for they can not correspond to the reality and may be fabricated by some political powers. In this way is come to the /_absurd_/ called democratic election, in which everything is reduced to the ability of the leader to manipulate the masses, via finances, his appearance, talks, etc., advertising himself before them in the same way as one shaver is advertised, or a car, or prostitute, for example. Who succeeds best of all /_to deceive_/ the people, that he is the best, he wins the battle, where the deceiving is obvious because neither the population can appraise him from below, not knowing the specificity of his labour, nor can it know well the leader, without personal contacts with him, nor can rely on ready results performed by others for assessment of his qualities. This is pure outsmarting deception and obviously unreasonable way of choice.
-->
==>*_II. Zero solution_*
-->
-->Well then, but how is it possible for such unreasonable way of choice, which is not applied anywhere else, where work has to be done, to be /_able to do work_/, because the democracy exists now about 25 centuries and especially in the last pair of them is the most widely used in the civilized world form of social government? How is it possible that people, chosen in this way, which should not work, they alone do the work? This is exactly the question which we must answer now, and, as it was marked long ago, the question most often is not "what is the answer", but "/_what is the question_/", i.e. by correctly set question, in many cases, is easy to find the answer. In other words, we have one incorrect and ineffective procedure of choice, by which people are chosen not according to their abilities for a given work, and in spite of this the /_procedure_/ does work, and this is possible only when: either /_the very people don't do_/ (much) work; /_or *_each other_*_/ of the alternative candidates *_/_could have done the same work_/_*; or some combination of the two things! This, surely, is so, because the politicians perform mainly strategic and representative functions, they say what must be done (say: cook me, wife, meatball soup, and you know how, or if you don't know then look in some cookbook), give general guidelines (although they fulfill also some tactical tasks, by which most often /_make errors_/), sign documents (what everyone, who has started primary school, can also do), but the very work is done by teams of qualified professionals. The politicians, unquestionably, carry the responsibility (only that often transfer it from one to another, and /_nobody withholds from their salaries_/ when they make errors), and for these risks they receive chiefly fame, which (at least for them) is valued more than money, but almost every politician from the other parties could have done /_the same_/ work (and he does it, when comes his turn). So that the democratic choice, in fact, gives only one /_trivial_/ and uninteresting decision!
-->In the mathematics exist the term "*_zero solution_*" for the solution of a homogeneous linear system of equations. This is a sequence of equations, in the left part of which stay expressions like: "something" multiplied by /_x_/, plus "something else" by /_y_/, plus etc., until the number of unknowns runs out, and on the right part of the equations stay always zeros; if the number of equations equals the number of letters for the unknowns there always exists the solution: /_x=y=...=0_/, because whatever these "things" (the coefficients before the unknowns) in the equations are, when we multiply them by zero and add them, there is no way not to get again zero in the left part, which equals the zero on the right part! The zero solution, of course, is solution, /_too_/, but it isn't interesting and does not require whatever efforts in order to be found, though such is also the democratic solution -- there always can be elected in this way someone, if he (or she, surely) will do only this, what any other competitor can also do, and even better if he does nothing important, but this /_isn't reasonable_/ decision, and there exist many other decisions, which would have been better!
-->/_Exactly_/ the fact, though, that this decision contradicts to the common sense, makes it genius achievement of thought in the social area, because it isn't something about which everybody could have guessed and have used it, due to its triviality. But despite its triviality this decision has one very important /_psychological_/ characteristic, namely that it turns to be quite /_convincing_/ for the population, regardless of its illogicality (because the people are not such beings to be bothered by the lack of logic). The democratic decision is convincing because the people /_are asked_/ about something and the politicians wait to hear their opinion (notwithstanding the fact that it isn't of significant importance!), and later on, if something does not go properly (as it most often happens), it is answered them: "But weren't you who chose your rulers?". In short, think who you will choose, because only you carry the whole responsibility for this.
-->Is there any better way to "/_close someone's mouth_/" than this to say that he alone has wanted this, what has happened? And any explanations of the kind that nobody wants lawlessness, or high level of crime, or low standard of life (to have even nothing to eat), and so on, are things that always can be interpreted in /_two_/ ways, and this only pours water in the mill of the politicians. Figuratively said, the remarkability of democracy is that *_it is the best known_* till the moment *_"/_baby's pacifier_/" for the mouth of the populace_*, because it does simultaneously the following: creates illusion about satiety (they have asked us), does not allow the child (here the people) to cry, and preserves the mother's breast (here the political system from unnecessary clashes with the "plebs")! This is exactly by the formula: "The wolf is fed and the lamb is intact"! That is why in Ancient Greece in that time was necessary for a tyrant (title of a ruler in that time) to intervene, Pisistratos, for to force the people to accept this miracle of miracles called democracy, for which they didn't wanted to hear, because however restricted were the people in those times (as much as nowadays, by the way) they didn't have thought seriously that instead of a ruler or king, who has all his life prepared himself to rule, could have stepped out one of the common folks before them all and begin to command them, and were afraid, maybe, that this is one of the successive tricks of the governors (and they were not much away from the truth, of course). But wasn't this trick brilliant?!
-->
==>*_III. Conditional Advantages_*
-->
-->Better later than never, and that is why it is time now to give some definition of the notion democracy, as such *_form of social governing, by which the population (or the subject of governing) has possibility for /_reasonable_/ influence over the governing body, including the choosing and /_changing_/ of this body_*. Naturally, no stable system can exist without a feedback, and this was intuitively clear long before in the automatics and cybernetics have begun to speak about feedback, but here it turns to be the most important part of the system and the very governing body plays up to certain extent subjugated role to the subject of governing. But we are bound to stress that on the question of this, what is reasonable for the people, most often, the very people are not clear (because if they were clear then why is the whole government?). The people in their actions are like unreasonable child, who only wants to play and fill his stomach with something sugary (well, for the grown people some sex from time to time also wouldn't have done any harm), and also like a child would have thought right, for example, to eat up a whole box of candies in one go, because the child (like also the people) can hardly recognize what is good for him for a /_longer period_/ of time. So that let us accept that the reasonability is defined in view of the near and more distant future of the people, which reasonability may not be clear to the people as a whole, but must be clear to their leaders. Here, by the way, is seen that if the people don't know what is good for them, and they choose their rulers, then also the governing, in its turn, will not be right or reasonable for the same people (not so much because the choice decides something, but because the politicians /_adjust_/ to the desires of populace already before the elections). But this is /_unavoidable contradiction_/ in the democratic system of ruling, and it will never be completely decided, we can merely move nearer to some relatively correct understanding of people's interests!
-->Despite the fact that the democracy contradicts to the common sense and is one zero solution of the question of governing, it has one unconditional advantage, which we mentioned, namely this, that it is the best silencer for the people (or stopper for their mouths). In addition to this it has also some conditional advantages, which originate from the *_possibility for debates_* and listening of the opposing opinions in the process of taking the decisions. These advantages are pretty relative and can easily be turned to disadvantages, if the matters are not approached gently, but they can be advantages in various cases, so that we must mention them.
-->
-->*_1._* We will begin with the possibility for *_taking of relatively reasonable decisions from the point of view of_* the general set, i.e. *_the people_*, not only of some strata of the population. The disputes can be a big hindrance (and they are very often) when they don't lead to taking of decisions but only to "thrashing over old straw", as you say, but /_truth is born in a dispute_/, because our world is inevitably contradictory and the right decision is only a narrow strip of skillful balancing between opposing tendencies! And such balancing is impossible without listening to the views of opponents and without their real presentation before the governing body. Instead of the contradictions to take place concealed, by the democracy they are manifested in the open, what contributes for their resolving. But there, surely, is no guaranty that the disputes will not escalate and create wrong idea about the real situation, what could have been seen by one reasonable ruling body, but who can guaranty us that the ruling body is reasonable and will remain always such? As far as there is no such guaranty *_the democracy_* sets or *_relies on the unreasonableness of the ruling body_*, fighting with it in one reasonable way, but this means that the democratic ruling body is /_also_/ unreasonable! Whether such decision will be really reasonable or not depends on the concrete democratic form and on the avoiding of some of the drawbacks of real democracy, on which we shall focus in the next chapter.
-->By this governing is relied not only on the unreasonableness and corruptness, to which often comes each ruling body, because it is known long ago that the power spoils the individual (distorting his feedback link with the society), but also on the presumption for *_lacking of the best politician and the best party_*, what is a very reasonable setting of the things! This does not mean that you will hear some democratic politician to say that there is not a best party, but this is due to the /_manipulative_/ character of the words of politicians, but the truth is exactly as we just explained it -- for if there was a best party (or politician), even for the moment, then all other parties /politicians have nothing to do in the government, and, hence, the multiparty system becomes unnecessary and we are going to the situation under the totalitarianism, which is well known to us in Bulgaria. In order not to come to such extremities is useful always to remember that under the democracy: there is no best leader or party, the whole power can be corrupted and unreasonable, each ruling person is easily changeable, nobody can state the whole truth but just a part of it (the very word "party" comes from Latin "part"), and all politicians are biased, where exactly /_in this is the reasonableness_/ of such a ruling -- that it contains the unreasonableness in itself!
-->
-->*_2._* The democracy maintains the evolution of society giving it possibility *_to renew itself /_without_/ changing_*, i.e. to evolve on the spot, because it is flexible or /_adaptive_/ form of governing! As far as each system of governing has the goal to preserve the status quo in the country, one system can change only if it contains the contradiction (leading to change) in itself, otherwise it can crash but not change. It happened exactly so with the totalitarian systems, which were very good and effective systems, but the ability for change was alien to them; they tried to change, initiated the changing, and after this collapsed. There is no such danger for the democracy, because *_it is one /_ineffective_/ system /_without_/ specific goal_* in the moment, and there isn't such action which can ruin it, /_except its ineffectiveness_/ (as it has happened many times in Ancient Greece, where were alternating periods of tyranny with such of democracy, and vice versa)! So that there are two sides on the coin, as they say, and the democracy can be suitable form of social government when there is /_absent_/ a concrete, mobilizing the whole nation, goal (say, danger of war). By us, in Bulgaria, the transition to democracy began exactly when we have no concrete goal, i.e. the military threat (which was maintained stubbornly by the rulers as real danger, in order to justify with something the necessity of some kind of dictatorship) has long ago withered, and the totalitarian ruling has begun to skid in its unnecessary efficiency; but later on, during the transition, when we have accepted the ineffective and aimless democratic ruling, it turned out that there emerged quite real goal for surviving and preserving of the nation, which required something more effective than the traditional democracy, and for that reason our transition /_again_/ began to skid!
-->The ability for changing by the democratic model of ruling is illustrated best of all via the example with the swing, or rather /_seesaw_/ -- such kind of swing which is a beam propped in the middle on some elevated place, and two persons (here parties) sat at both ends, where in the middle can sit also someone (called here "center"). When the one part falls down it "slumps in the mud", figuratively said, and sticks there for some time, but then later on it begins to "cleanse itself from the mud" and to throw it to the other part, in result of what the latter in its turn also becomes "mudded", becomes heavier and begins to fall down, heaving above the fallen before part. This process is helped by the center, but also by the public (the population), which, when becomes bored to boo the fallen, begins to "throw with rotten eggs" also that one who is above, because he is more vulnerable there, and the atmospheric conditions (political winds) are stronger high above, so that there is no way for the seesaw to become quiet for a long time. In this way the democracy constitutes in the social sphere one *_working /_perpetuum mobile_/_*, something what is impossible in the mechanical systems! And mark, please, that the one, who rises above, /_does not do this because of his own merits_/, but because the other part is fallen down, i.e. the leading party becomes such not because it is with something better than the others, but because the others are worse than it! The existence of many parties does not change the things because usually the fight takes place between the first two-three of them (and if it isn't so then corresponding coalitions are formed). Generally, till here all pluses of the democracy turn out to be potential minuses, and the next point is only a way of compromising of the democracy with the dictatorship, so that it even less can be taken for its advantage, but there is nothing to be done here -- that is the democracy!
-->
-->*_3._* The last good thing of the democracy, on which we shall dwell, is the *_possibility for adding of foreign elements in it_*! Such non democratic and unauthorized elements are, for example: the presidential institution, which is a kind of possible dictatorship (on declaring of martial law), or existence of strong hand, that can apply right of veto, even to dissolve the Parliament (in some countries); two-chamber Parliaments, where the different Chambers function on different principles, but the most democratic one, as a rule, plays subordinate role (with various national distinctions); combining of democracy with monarchical ruling, where the monarch symbolizes the undivided authority (although nowadays strongly restricted); admissibility, but also necessity of some moralizing the society body like official Church; impossibility for existing of democracy without some, as well internal, so also external, repressive or militarized apparatus (the police and the army); the possibility for extra-parliamentary control of the supreme body in the country (even may be stated that the biggest success the democracy shows then, when intervene /_not_/ the official and paid bodies but some extra-parliamentary groups of people), and other variants. These are all possibilities for some improvement, but in the same time also acknowledgement of the imperfection, of the democracy!
-->
==>*_IV. The Real Democracies_*
-->
-->It is high time now to begin to make difference between the ideal and the real democracy. The ideal democracy is this, which in some way allows to the population to choose such ruling body, that will "play to his tune", so to say. Even in the ideal case we can't require that this will be the best ruling for the people, but to be the best /_according_/ to the averaged /_opinion_/ of the population. In addition to this even in the ideal is not necessary to ask the people about everything (even if this may be possible), because there are questions on which the people can only mess the things, if the averaging is done by the number of people, not according to some other criteria (for example, there will hardly be found a nation, where, if the people are asked how much must cost the bread, or the cheese, or the meat, the drinks, the cigarettes, and so on, will not choose the lowest of the proposed prices, because these are goods for which consumers are the major part of the population, but it is obvious that this will not be the right decision, for by a free manufacturing the lower selling prices will be the surest way for disappearing of these products from the market). In other words, even in the ideal case we should not search entirely ideal/_ized_/ solution, because it will not fulfill its functions, and is or not a given solution near to the ideal can be estimated in each concrete case according to some obvious, but also questionable, criteria. The real democracy, for its part, is each of the realized around the world democratic forms, along with their shortcomings, the most important of which follow below.
-->
-->*_1._* The first main minus comes from the zero democratic solution, by which on ruling positions are chosen people *_/_non_/professionals_*, without the necessary educational qualification, without checking of their psychical indicators and their moral qualities. It is very easy to require some document for psychical condition of the candidate, as well also some diploma for completed political college or higher education -- the realization of these criteria is more a matter of desire then of resources. Regrettably, it is still considered (and not only in Bulgaria) that the best education for the politician is the legal one, where it has practically nothing in common with the /_management_/, or the work with masses (public relations, as it is called nowadays), and even an education in the sphere of advertisement would have been preferable than the legal one, because this, what the politician must possess, is the ability to persuade (or, rather, to manipulate) the masses that this, what he states, is in their own interest, i.e. to mobilize the masses for some common actions, in the necessity of which they doubt. In addition to this a politician must have sufficient knowledge in history (ancient and modern), in rhetoric, in economics, in military science, or some technical education (because it improves the logical thinking), at cetera.
-->If by the examining of professional qualities of the politician can exist some (surmountable) problems, then there are no hindrances for applying of some elementary control for existence of life /_experience_/, because this, what the politician must know well (inasmuch as this is possible), is the /_life_/, and knowledge about it can be accumulated only with the time and the work, i.e. there is nothing easier than the requirement of age and length of service in the sphere of governing and politics. For example, could be required at least five years of service at ruling positions for applying for political work on local level, at least another five on the previous level -- for municipal candidates, at lest five more years on this level for national candidates, and another five if it goes about the highest positions like President, Chief Prosecutor, Prime Minister (or Chief of Staff of the Army, or President of the Academy of Sciences, or the Holy Synod, and the like, where this, maybe, is checked). Also it is quite elementary to require age of at least 35 years for the /_lowest_/ political posts, at least 40 -- for municipal level, at least 45 -- for national level (i.e. in the Parliament), and at least 50 years for the highest posts. If there is something, because of what one suffers most in his life, these are /_the errors of the youth_/, and the same applies wholly in the area of social governing! The ruling is not like the sports, or the sciences, or the giving birth to children, for example, where the younger one is, the better, but /_exactly on the contrary_/, because this, what the politician or manager needs, is the experience and /_moderation_/ in life, otherwise there happen all sorts of, to put it mildly, "blunders". One basic feature of all dictators is their youth and wild wish for self-expression, and the situation wouldn't have been the same if these positions were occupied by older people -- compare the age on which Napoleon, or Hitler, or Mussolini, or Lenin, or Stalin, and why not also Genghis Khan, or Xerxes, or Alexander Macedonian, and others, come to power, and you will find that hardly any one of them has done this over the age of 40 years. And if these people could not have come to power due to legal restrictions (and let us not forget that at least both, Hitler and Lenin, have come to power through a democratic election, and at the time of Napoleon was a law, according to which the First Consul could not have been under the age of 40 years, but Napoleon succeeded somehow to overcome it with some political maneuvers), couldn't have the spilled in history blood be at least twice less?
-->
-->*_2._* The next moment, which we have not touched till now, is the wrong method of choosing of the Parliament, *_/_not_/_* as *_representative sample of the people_*, but as sample of the /_political parties_/, what is one pretty indirect way for expressing of the will of the people, and is away from the primary source -- the Areopag in Ancient Athens, where were chosen by 10 persons from the 50 genders, called /_dems_/, via lots or some voting in the dems. In this sense, the contemporary democracy (in the whole civilized Western world) is /_worse_/ than that of 25 centuries before! The Parliament must be representative sample /_of the whole nation_/, if we want that it will in some way reflect the will of the very people! The representative sample is statistical term and it means that if between all of the voters those, say, on the age between 50 and 60 years are 15 %, then so much (or very near to this) must be these people in the Parliament, too; if the people with tertiary education between the voters in our country are, for example, 12 %, then so much must be those persons also in the Parliament; if the voters with Gypsy ethnic origin are 20 %, so much must be they also in the highest democratic body; and so on. This is not provided, neither in Bulgaria, no in any democratic country, neither now, nor before centuries, but what is more important -- /_no_/ Parliament even /_thinks_/ to make this in the near future, because this will be strong blow directly in the heart of party system! On the question of parties we shall dwell in the next point, but let us note here that if something can be done in order to ensure representativeness of the entire population, then this can be done /_only at the request of the people_/, not the politicians!
-->Such democratic reform also is not a problem to be carried out -- via random multi-parametric choice, or just random choice, from a computerized data base of all voters. More than this, this idea isn't at all revolutionary or utopian, because in the judicial system, at least in the U.S. (as far as is known to the author), by the choice of the jurors for each law suit (or at least for these of criminal character) the situation is similar, and the role of the jurors and of MPs is, in its essence, one and the same -- they must represent the people on the question of this, /_what is good_/ and what bad /_in their view_/, for already from the times of Plato was clear that this is a very treacherous and inconstant matter, which cannot be put in narrow formal framework. The difference is only that in the judiciary the representatives of the people decide on the guilt of particular person, where in the Parliament they evaluate the suitability of a given law, i.e. one more abstract matter, but the nature of the work is the same! This does not mean that by such system there will not be errors, because the people very often can be mistaken, as we have already mentioned, especially if some unanimity is searched (as it is in murder cases in U.S.), but this is the true democracy, and everything else is only "dust in the eyes" of the populace "thrown" by the politicians, in order to justify their existence and the privileges of the power!
-->For understanding of the possibility for such changes we must make some explanations, or rather *_to divide the legislative activity of the Parliament in_*: *_strategic_*, here related with the requiring and /_approval_/ of the laws, on one hand, and *_tactical_*, or related with the /_creating_/ of the laws, i.e. with the ruling through them. This isn't a new element in other fields and is applied in all big companies, where the strategic body is somehow hidden or distanced from the very management -- these are those who keep the money in the company (or also the wife in the family -- see "About the woman and the man") --, and the tactical body is the Managing (Executive) Council of the company. By the democratic ruling bodies, of course, the Government and the Municipals are the tactical bodies, but also by the creating of the laws the things must be divided, where the Parliament must be engaged only with the /_approval_/ of the laws and then it can (but also must) consist of nonprofessionals and /_not related_/ with whichever part (i.e. party) persons. The tactical activity, or the creating of concrete laws, according to the directives of the Parliament (or the Peoples Council), is work for jurists and other specialist from various sciences, and with this can be occupied some, let us call it, /_Judicial Council_/. The whole mess in this case comes from the /_wrong practice_/ these, who create the laws, they also to assess them, and that this is wrong practice must be obvious, because it /_is not applied_/ anywhere /_else_/ except by making of the laws (by all committees for whichever competitions always is controlled that the members of the jury do not take part in the competitions, and even are not related by financial or family relations with the competitors). Be that as it may, the things are pretty clear, if there were not the politicians to complicate them, because of their personal interest.
-->
-->*_3._* Regarding *_the parties_*, then, if we proceed from Ancient Greece, they *_have no place in the Parliament_*, in the sense that they can be formed in the Parliament, but /_after_/ its election! And even better if they go out in some separate, let us call it, /_Party Council_/, because they also have their place in the social life as /_consolidating units for mass manipulation_/ of the people in their own interest (we discussed already that it is not in the abilities of the common folks to realize correct their own interests and someone cleverer than them has to help them)! In this sense the parties come up to a great extent near to the media, but the latter are directly ruled by the business, where the parties, even if they receive some financial injections from the big business, are nonprofit organizations, so that they play the role of national institutions for public relations, what is a necessity in the contemporary society. In this way is resolved the contradiction between the first and the second point of this chapter (to which we deliberately paid no attention), because in the one we require professionalism from the politicians, and in the other -- /_non_/professionalism from the Parliament. If there exists one really /_national_/ National Assembly (that is how the Bulgarian Parliament is called) for strategy and approving, one strictly legal Judicial Council for making of the laws, one really professional Party Council for maintaining of the relations between the governing and the masses, as also the corresponding tactical managing bodies, represented by the Government, different Ministries and the Municipal Councils, we could have spoken about real democracy in action. This is just one additional dividing of the powers, but what is the history of civilization, if not one incessant dividing of the whole power, with a view to specialization of the individuals and establishing of the ways for interaction between the powers (see "About the mankind")?
-->But we can't speak about the politicians and not to touch their moral aspect, which suffers strongly by the existing democratic way of choosing via /_self-advertising_/, because no politician can be chosen if he alone does not apply for the post, exhibiting only his high self-esteem, but not his modesty or his other moral qualities (because with his competency this, in all events, has nothing in common)! It is true that by each choosing for a given post the candidate must somehow propose himself, but this does not mean that he must trumpet on the left and on the right in the company how good he is and how everything "will blossom and fruit" if people choose him, and that all other candidates are "bare water", as we say. The modesty is /_non-inherent_/ quality for the politician (because of the system of choosing), and when some boy chooses his future female partner in life he does not go to search for her in the brothel, does he? This is probably rather unpleasant comparison, but it will impose itself always while the pluralism expresses chiefly in chest beating and spitting on the political adversaries, and this is observed in /_all_/ democratic structures for centuries. The radical decision consists only in /_debasing the role of politicians_/ and their gradual exclusion from the executive and law-approving authorities! If the "piece of pie", for which they fight, is not so big they will not show such painful ambitions to catch it, but will do their work faithfully. However much we may speak about the moral it will not change until the situation, in which they act, is not changed, because the politicians, whatever one may say, are people, with all their human weaknesses, and the politics is a kind of game (like, say, the poker), and it may be interesting for all only by moderately high "buy-in", otherwise it turns into means for personal benefit, where all methods ale allowed.
-->
==>*_V. Utopian Models_*
-->
-->Till here we explained various drawbacks of contemporary democracy, as also some real methods for its improving, in which there was nothing utopian, though the utopias are not at all something bad and have their place in the social sphere, because their main quality is the /_reasonability_/. More precisely said, we may characterize one idea as utopian when its reasonability /_exceeds the level of reasonability of the circle of people_/ who assess it! This will say that after a time there are no obstacles for some regarded as utopian idea to find its place in life, if the reasonability of the society (may God grant it) increases. In the remaining part of this essay we will propose some *_utopian democratic models_*, which improve some of the drawbacks of the real democracy explained above, or elaborate some of its advantages, maintaining the necessary attractiveness for the masses.
-->
-->*_1._* On the first place we shall stop on the *_model of representative Parliament_*, which was touched in the previous chapter and which is the least utopian of all. It supposes: Parliament (or National Assembly) chosen by a computer between all "voters" (this term looses its meaning in this case, for they don't "give" at all their voices); Party Council, chosen by the very parties within the quotas, received through voting in the /_already chosen_/ Parliament; Judicial Council, which must be legislative body (rather law-making body, but which does not approve the very laws) and is chosen by the Party Council, proportionally to the parties in it, but this does not mean that the lawmakers must necessary be members of some party; Government, which is proposed by the Party Council as a professional committee, but is approved by the Parliament; and also President of the country with representative functions and as instance for "rapid response" (within the legal framework), who also is proposed by the Party Council but elected and approved by the National Assembly, which can also take him down from his post. In this situation the supreme body is the Parliament, but it performs mainly strategic functions and sets the tasks to the Judicial Council and the Party Council, approves the laws and intervenes with various directives in the work of the Government and the President, being able to cease some of their decisions, if this becomes necessary. The Party Council is go-between between the Parliament, on one hand, and the Government and Judicial Council, on the other hand, and maintains the relations with the masses. The Judicial Council makes the laws, which are reviewed by the Party Council and the President, but are approved by the Parliament. The functions of the Government and the Presidency are the same as by the traditional forms of democracy. On conceptual level everything is clear.
-->
-->*_2._* The next model we shall call "*_democratic dictatorship_*", which, regardless of the shocking name, is an attempt to combine /_in the time_/ the advantages of democratic and centralized forms of governing, with the hope to avoid their drawbacks! As we stressed above the democracy is a mobile and adaptive, but very ineffective form of ruling, while the dictatorship was and will remain the most effective, but also rigid form. This means that the democracy has its advantages in the choice of some /_goal_/ for developing, taking into account various opinions and choosing the best possible from them, but later on the very realization of this goal must be done under the conditions of autocracy and without party quarrels. Exactly for these reasons in Ancient Greece were often alternated periods of democracy with such of tyranny (the dictators in those times were called Tyrants), where neither one of these periods have lasted for long time, because the democracy then was near to the ideal or pure democracy and in their General Assembly have existed a good representativeness (well, without the slaves and the women), though on a gender principle. The today's democracies contain many foreign elements and /_because of this_/ they stay longer, but in spite of this very often happen governmental crises, caretaker governments are appointed, martial laws are declared, and even totalitarian systems come to power, because, as Bulgarian, so called, /_shopp_/ (around Sofia) says: "What is necessary, it wants itself!". The meaning of such alternating is that, when something near to the one extremity does not do good work, for the /_truth is in the middle_/, change to the other extremity is forced, but it also isn't good, and then a returning to the first end becomes necessary, and so on, ad infinitum, or until better compromise between the two things is found. Yeah, but the people very rarely succeed to find the compromising variant, and then happens so that they /_find it in the time_/, and looked at from afar this oscillation averages exactly where needed! Out proposition now is, instead of to wait for these fluttering between the extremities to happen chaotically, simply to plan them, including them in one system capable to work /_in both modes_/.
-->The period of democracy lasts three years, for example (but they might be also four), and during it exist all traditional democratic institutions, where there are no problems to combine this variant with the above-explained of randomly chosen representative National Assembly, separate Party Council, at cetera. During this period is lively discussed and is fixed some strategic goal for the next period of dictatorship, lasting five years (or again four, for equality), and in the end of this period is chosen the needed Dictator. There are no problems to name this Dictator also President, but he will not be mainly representative figure, like the democratic President, and will have /_all_/ rights in the framework of law, where each political activity has to be frozen, the demonstrations to be forbidden, the Parliament, especially if it consists of politicians, ceases its work as supreme body and, either the Dictator dismisses it, or rules over it wholly and uses for some subsidiary, rather questionnaire, purposes. The dictator turns into reality the tasks set by the previous democratic government and two months before the end of his period appoints new democratic elections. Neither the democracy, nor the dictatorship can last more than one mandate, but each government /_can renounce his mandate_/, where the Dictator, for example can give the whole power to the Parliament (or choose new Parliament), if the goal for which he is elected can be performed also in democratic conditions, where the Parliament can in three days choose new, or appoint the old Dictator, if the country faces serious problems requiring individual management without possibilities for long disputes and disagreements. As long as in the contemporary democracies, anyway, exist rudiments of such forms of governing, there are no problems for this utopian proposition to become sometime reality.
-->
-->*_3._* The next variant combines the ideas for representative sample with bigger attractiveness and really public participation in the governing. We shall name it "*_totalizational variant_*", and the single change in electoral law is the necessity for lacking of the /_names_/ of actual physical persons in the electoral lists of the parties. Can exist whatever parties, bunches, groups, clubs etc., which take part in the elections, and if they succeed to collect voices for at least one quota in the Parliament or Municipal Bodies then /_after_/ the general elections in each of these groups are held random elections (or whatever other form of choice is accepted there) for the concrete persons, who will enter in the corresponding bodies! This can be done easy, when for participation in each of these groups is bought some ticket with unique number in the group, and thereafter are drawn the corresponding number winning tickets (plus some reserves). The groups can be on ethnical, professional, of age, territorial, or property principle, based on interests and devotion to sports teams, or some other division, where the chosen after this persons are, really, common people, not politicians, but they will not enter the Political Council, they are chosen for the Parliament (maybe also the Municipals). There are no problems for a given voter to participate in ten or so such groups (provided he has bought the corresponding tickets), as also to vote for group in which he is not registered (though this is but an exception). While in all traditional democratic forms of ruling /_the common people have no chance to be chosen_/ in the ruling bodies, here this chance is entirely real, and the elections become something like national lottery. But what is life, if not a lottery, too?
-->
-->*_4._* Interesting moment by the democracy is taking part in the ruling bodies, as of representatives of the "goods", i.e. the won party or coalition, as well also of the "bad", i.e. of the defeated, and both groups have even equal rights (and salaries!). The important thing is that, in order to allow for free debates, there must be present all parts or, in fact, the ruling party and the opposition, but also the whole population (or extra-parliamentary powers), which have various possibilities for influence over the government. /_It doesn't matter which is the ruling party_/, neither which is in opposition -- the important is /_both parts_/ to be present! In other words, /_there is no specialization_/ in the parties, and each one can do the work of the other one, but the necessary element is their changing. In this situation there are no problems to separate these parts in /_two kinds of Parliaments_/, which we can name, respectively, /_Party Parliament_/ and /_Oppositional Parliament_/, and assume that each one consists of equal number of people (say, 100), but the leading one is the Party one, where the Oppositional can only criticize and make propositions. As far as each politician, or person from the people, can fulfill equally well both functions, it doesn't matter which one -- which of them!
-->It remains to establish how we will fill both Parliaments and how they will change and renew, for the things to remain dynamic. The best possible choice, in the sense of representativeness, is the random one, but in order the preference of each voter to show influence we propose here /_two stages_/ of the elections. The first one is for forming of the dividing of all voters in at least three part, namely: Party, Opposition, and Folk (People), but in order to provide greater attractiveness is preferable to choose between five variants, for example, where have to be added also: Last (Old) choice (from the previous voting) and Next (or New) tour of elections. These five variants are coded with the numbers from 1 to 5 and each voter has to declare within one month via the established for the purpose bureaus one of these numbers, to which he gives his preference, only /_without knowing in advance_/ which number what signifies. The deciphering of the numbers is done later on officially (via a lot) and in this way are formed the /_pools_/ of the Party, the Opposition, and the Folk, where by existing of fifth number is conducted one more tour in the same way (only that by the second tour the fifth choice must be added to the Folk, for to be able to stop till here). The actual choice happens in the second stage, for which each one again has to declare one number, but this time from 1 to 10,000, for example, in order to get substantially smaller sample of people for each group, where thereafter is drawn the winning number (and, maybe, two more reserves). But till here the exact people are still not chosen, only their number is greatly reduced (to about double reserve), where in the end is drawn a lot /_for ordering_/ between them and are separated the first to the needed number, and the left ones remain as a reserve. By the choice for President the final number must be now to 100,000, otherwise the things are similar, only that the President is chosen amidst the Folk.
-->In this way the role of parties in the classical sense is reduced to zero, but the democratic model /_does not presuppose_/ obligatory existence of political parties -- they are additional and auxiliary element, and if we can do without them we shall lose nothing. The both Parliaments exist as the united traditional Parliament, and each person knows to which part he (or she) belongs and should he agree or criticize. Even the group of Folk (People) also can take part in discussion of the laws (but surely without right to vote), were it via some extra-parliamentary associations (say, by ... zodiacs), were it if there is formed a third, Folk's Parliament. One more thing: here will be no abstained by the elections, because each one, who for one or another reason has not made his choice, will automatically receive the number zero, which later will be interpreted as belonging to the Folk. This model does not mean that parties can not exist at all, but they will not have that meaning as by the traditional democracies, and members of a given party may be present in both Parliaments and amidst the Folk. In other words, this model can be combined also with the first proposed variant, because it constitutes, basically, a procedure for forming of representative sample of the voters, and allows one additional level of dividing of the Parliament, in view of avoiding of direct debates and their substitution with summarized resolutions of both Parliaments and only some common meetings. By each successive choice is performed renewing of the three powers in the governing, but with some degree of continuity (enhanced also by the Last or old choice in the first stage). This variant can be named "*_forever changing Party_*" and it is very near to the ideal democracy, although it parodies the party system.
-->
-->*_5._* The next variant is "*_new nomenclature_*", which does not require changes in the procedure of election, but proposes a way for forming of nomenclature cadres -- something like specially chosen /_aristocracy_/, which main purpose in life to be the ruling of the people. Such variant is needed, because the centuries of human existence confirm some definitive pluses of similar social layer freed from worries about food and means for subsistence, but also freed from severe and unrealistic competition (in various cases wide more than ten to one). These people would have had for their life goal, either their own pleasure, or the happiness of the others, or the both things, and even the personal pleasure under a good provision and higher esteemed place in the society, would have reduced itself again to something useful for the others, like: arts, sciences, military distinctions, and the like (and not, say, to watching of actions on the video). After becoming conscious of these pluses many clever people have wondered what sorts of nonsense to invent only to make people listen to some personalities, who from their birth have been prepared to rule (because there was nothing else left to them). There were used the delusions of shamans and church officials, the power of the money, has been invented the tale about the blue blood, the fables about the predestination of each one, the ideological conviction, the belonging to different castes, the genetic heredity, and so on, but all these were only temporary decisions, because there have remained the basic drawback of aristocracy, namely: /_the wealth and benefits were transferred hereditary_/, and there is no reliable argumentation about the appropriateness of this! More precisely said: the aristocracy is a good thing, but in the hereditary aristocracy is hidden the dead element; it is good for one from child age to know whether he is destined for higher activities, but there is no logic in this that his children must also be predestined. But when the question is already set, then its decision is obvious -- it suffices to perform /_random choice_/ of small number of nomenclature cadres /_in the youngest possible age_/, where the belonging to the group of chosen ceases with the demise of the person!
-->One concrete decision is each year to be conducted random choice between all live children with completed two and uncompleted three years, where this is performed always to one and the same date (say, 1 July). For Bulgaria suffices to choose by 100 children, what after about fifty years will ensure about 5,000 potential "nomenklaturists", who could have covered the needs of all higher officers in the country, including the Parliament, the Supreme Council, the Municipal Councils, and the such, but it is not necessary to employ them obligatory there (it is just supposed that they will be preferred), and can be required only a /_quota of 1/3_/ of the democratic ruling bodies to be reserved for such persons. Must be established and funded initially the corresponding institution, which has to care for the feeding and education of these cadres, ensuring for them the best possible on a world level, because they will be one ridiculously small number (about 1 to 1,000 for our country), and later on they, definitely, will find ways to support themselves alone, via deductions from the income of already occupying leading posts nomenclature cadres, as well also from voluntary contributions. In addition to this, because the state of nomenclature will not be transferred by heredity, after some time they will leave also significant property (excluding the personal, which may remain for their heirs) to this institution.
-->The very choice can be made pretty attractive and watched by all parents, where the happy child will be directly taken in the corresponding boarding schools, for the parents will be ensured some lifetime support in the amount of one minimal working salary, for example, and till the completing of seven years of the child one of the parents can live with him or her receiving enhanced support. Afterwards the new aristocrats will have also some very decent incomes as a kind of aristocratic pension, plus provided house, transport, vacations, and others, /_regardless_/ the fact whether they work or no. In other words, these new aristocrats will not at all be obliged to take leading posts in the country, and will be able to do this, what their heart wishes. Greater details are hardly needed, because the very aristocrats after some time (say, 40 years) will be compelled to make some moral codex, legal requirements, et cetera. The idea is to create each year new aristocrats, who till the end of their life will live "as kings", in order to be able to develop most fully their personalities, but without genetically fixing their rights. As is usually said: only pluses without minuses.
-->
-->*_6._* The last variant we will name "*_sexual democracy_*", because by it is set on some natural differentiation of both sexes (see "About the Woman and the man"). As far as the woman is the born strategist or hidden ruler in the family, and in the same time the most /_mediocre_/ personality, because stays between the man and the posterity, as well in her destination, so also in her abilities, she is simply bound to occupy the whole National Assembly (no matter in its traditional form, or in some representative variant), and then it can rightly be named /_Women's Assembly_/ (or Council). This does not conflict with the party system and does not mean that only women can take part in a given party, but that only women can enter the Women's Assembly and the Municipal Councils, while the men will do the other work. This other work is the real or tactical ruling in the Government and Presidency (especially there). In the Courts can be accepted the "Solomon" decision to retain their mixed staff. The woman is the one, who can bring more calm and finesse in the politics, and then why not do it? This, in any case, is worldwide tendency in the politics in recent times -- here we simply validate it and lead it to its completed form.
-->More concrete is necessary the introduction of some other requirements for mediocrity in the Women's Assembly, like: average height, weight, chest measurement, income, education (secondary or one tertiary), age from 30 to 40, and others. Exactly opposite are the requirements for the President, who must be a real /_father of the nation_/, where is required, for example: height above 180 cm, weight above 80 kg, income more than 4 minimal salaries, education higher than tertiary (at least more than one tertiary), married with at least two daughters, age above 50, at cetera. Only in this way the social governing can become sexually balanced and harmonious, where each one gives what is put in him or her by God.
-->
-->In addition to these models can be proposed also various others, on which we shall not dwell here in details, but may hint at some basic points. So for example, by the national voting can be required choosing not only of one person, but up to five, as well also to be voted not only "pro", but "/_against_/", too (in white and black boxes)! This is entirely in the spirit of conducted surveys and ranking lists for prominent politicians and parties and will allow for more accurate estimation, as well also for measurement of the /_difference_/ in the votes "pro" and "against" for each political power, where the choice is done on the basis of this difference. This will drive into "blind alley" those parties, which are as much loved by ones, so much also hated by others, and exactly these are the "sharp stones" which confuse the "grinding of the flour" in the political "flour mill". Then can be formed two lists -- with positive and with negative differences -- which are ranged and fill now two institutions: Parliament and Antiparliament, where the first one is the ruling and the other one is the opposition, without which there is no democracy.
-->It can also be thought about performing of /_the only correct choice from below -- the iterative choice_/! Meaning that the choice is performed for persons from the immediate surroundings, who everybody knows well; then one part (say, ten times less in the number of the people) of the first chosen vote in the same way (maybe for some of the already chosen); and so on in 3-4 iterations, until is come to one /_extended_/ National Assembly of, say, 1,000 people, which now chooses with open voting the necessary 100 or 200 people, but it can every time be used also for other survey goals, as well for choosing of the President. There are no insurmountable problems for such voting, which can be done with voting bulletins, in the Municipal offices, with phone-cards from special machines, via Internet, and other variants, where is just needed to give some unique code for the person (personal identification or insurance code), and if by this it is conducted also openly (meaning that is known whose is the vote) then the similar personal code for the voter. When is voted for acquaintances there is no need to hide the votes, where this does not prevent the voting at the tops, too, i.e. for political leaders, but this is not compulsory, at least on the first iterations. By today's computer equipment this will give possibility for exact tracing of the tree of choices (top-down and v.v.), so that will be known exactly who for whom (not necessarily directly) has voted, and who whom represents, in order to be made real contact between voter and representative.
-->It can, in the end, also the politics be put on business fundament, where each politician builds his (or her) /_political company_/, sells shares and collects money for his activity in one /_legal_/ way, for it is public secret that the politicians are supported by some or other business circles, or, at least, live from membership fees of their followers. Instead of to turn a blind eye before such facts it is better to allow open establishing of this, who from whom earns. In one company the strategy is determined by the General Assembly of the shareholders and why it should not be so also by the politicians? Or else: how are the politicians worse than the football stars, when the latter can be bought and sold but the politicians can not? Because if we take for granted that the money always spoils the things, then we must reject also the private property of the means for production, as it was decided by the communists.
-->Surely there can be devised also other variants, or be combined some of the explained, but this is more than enough, and let us also not forget that the main difficulty in taking of decisions in the social area comes /_not_/ from the finding of new decision but in the /_rejecting the old_/ one!
-->
-->So that, if we summarize all said here, it will turn out that the democracy is a /_bad_/ social organization, but because it contains the contradiction in itself and is open for various foreign elements, it turns to be /_dynamically the best_/ of the known so far forms, where the bad thing in it forces it incessantly to enhance and evolve itself! /_The democracy is like the life_/ -- bad thing, but without it is worse --, so that there are all reasons to expect that in the future it will still remain the main form in the ruling of society. But it surely will be corrected and changed.
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
===>*_ABOUT THE VIOLENCE_*
-->
==>*_I. Necessity Of Violence_*
-->
-->The violence is /_necessary element in the "game"_/ called life! This is trivial truth, not only because the millennial existence of mankind proves it, but also because the only way to overcome it is ... /_another form of violence_/, were it some police or army, illegal mafia, revolution, religious war, judicial investigation, et cetera. In this process, of course, it can't be said that the character of new violence is of no importance, which can be more humane (in the usual meaning of the word), but it must be /_stronger_/, as far as it can be spoken about some objective criterion for its measurement, like human lives, or percents of one life as measure for inflicted serious physical or moral damages; or else it has to be expressed in /_another aspect_/. The reducing to the scale of human lives is especially difficult when the influence is moral, or of moral terror, in which case the usual human reactions are changing for /_fear_/ of further violence, in which situation the given action, although it has preventing effect, is a kind of violence against the person, and in this case the magnitude of global impact is determined by the broader layers to which it is directed, while its strength in each single case may be only about 1-2 % of the accepted value of one human life. At any rate, this cyclical character of the fight against the violence via applying of another violence (more so because there is no other way), is a natural phenomenon.
-->The violence can change its forms, where each new form usually differs in some parameter, or in the sphere of its action, i.e. in the scope of individuals, to which it is applied. In this process not only an exact quantitative evaluation is not possible, because of the relative character of the measuring unit, but almost always is not present the so called "control group", with which to compare the new form of violence with the old, if it has continued to exist by the control group, and the repeating of the things in the time never happens under exactly the same conditions. So, for example, it /_can't_/ be stated with certainty that the communist terror in the former Soviet Union (or in any other ex-communist country, with the conditional exclusion of Germany) has been a worse violence than the contemporary democracy, with inevitably accompanying it: national, ethnic, religious, and criminal bloodshed for the same period of time -- because have not existed /_two equal_/ by all parameters Unions, which were to be compared for a bigger period (say, hundred years) and evaluating the victims to make a conclusion about the more humane character of the one or the other form! All possible comparisons of different territories, with different population, and in different periods of time, are unavoidably nonobjective and can be used only by biased political powers to prove /_whatever they want_/ (and based on /_one and the same_/ facts).
-->In any case, the violence has existed always in the history of mankind and there are no reasons to suppose that it will disappear sometime, no matter whether we like it or not -- in the same way as, for example, we can't make olives without stones (and if there exist citrus fruits without seeds, then they can not give by themselves new life). This is unavoidable as it is impossible to have life without death, if you want. But before getting the question in proper focus let us give one general and non restrictive definition of the notion "violence" as: very *_sharp form of compulsion_*, leading to serious physical and moral consequences, including lethal outcome, and having for goal to make separate individuals or groups of such to act against their wish. The important thing here is the unwillingness of the subjects to have the required behaviour and the serious consequences otherwise, because we can not consider as violence, for example, if somebody will be awakened despite his unwillingness to get up (even if one pours a cup of water over his head). But in the same time we don't set any requirements characterizing the object, that causes the violence over the subject (to what we shall return at the end).
-->More interesting, and unexpected for many people, side of the question arises with the statement that *_the violence is a reasonable reaction_*, as from the side of the object applying it in a given situation, as well also from the side of the subject of the violence, applying in his turn new violence to the object, or succumbing to the compulsion, despite the seemingly chaoticism and unreasonability of the reaction (as far as it is possible to speak about reasonable behaviour by the humans, what we shall clarify after a while). Here is the place to mention one basic characteristic of the organized animal matter and this is /_the inadequacy of the reaction_/, because for it the Newton's law for equal and opposite reaction is not valid (see also "About the creation"). But inadequate is a weak statement, because it can be stronger or weaker, and we will try to concretize this law following one dynamically increasing action over the living matter (were it an amoeba, leg of a frog, particular individual, or social group). By very low-level stimulus there is still no reaction up to reaching of some threshold value, then reaction emerges and it usually is stronger that the action, and with increasing of the action the reaction also increases, but this continues up to reaching of some moment of maximum, after which with further increasing of the action the reaction begins to become weaker, and after some time it unavoidable ceases, because the subject of action has simply used all its energetic etc. abilities for reaction (where the object is supposed with unlimited, or at least very big, power, for to be in position to produce impact over the subject, especially violence, in what we are interested here).
-->This experiment is conditional, but it is obvious that it is generally applicable, irrespective of the type of impact and the subject. The animal matter, especially one whole organism, under weak actions has strong reactions (say, if we pull the tail of a cat it will scratch us), by stronger stimuli little by little it becomes adequate to the stimulus (to the stick, according with the proverb), and by very strong -- just refuses the opposition (i.e. the cat will curl itself and at most will begin to meow piteously). But this, what is valid for the cat, can fully be applied to the human, no matter whether one is being beaten or has just cut his finger (the slightest cut hurts most, and the pain is a kind of response by the higher animals, which determines their next reactions). In the social sphere there is no need to go far for examples and we could have reminded ourselves the wave of strikes of the workers in system of education in Bulgaria (as relatively more intelligent) just after our November coup d'etat in 1989, but also in later democratic times, from what observation is seen that under lesser difficulties, shortly after the overthrowing (of our communist leader Todor Zhivkov), the strikes were most massive, but later on, when really hard times have come, and the average working salaries were significantly less, related to the subsistence minimum, the teachers striked less and less, until at the end they gave up at all to do this actively. The curve of this reaction can be different, but its character is always one and the same and is expressed in this, that *_by weaker impacts arise stronger reactions and vice versa_*!
-->Some vague analogy can be observed also by the reaction of vegetable matter, for example of bending by a strong wind, but in the moment of the wind the reaction does not differ in anything from the reaction of a slim metallic rod, which is due to the elasticity. The difference between the metal and the tree, though, is shown /_in the time_/ (where the branch simply becomes tougher), and mostly in the future generations, after some genetic modification becomes necessary, while a metallic rod will never become stronger by itself. This means that some buds of inadequate reaction (and from here also of /_reasonableness_/, as we shall see after a while) exist also by the vegetable matter, but this question does not interest us now and we can leave it to the specialists, so that let us return to the reaction of the animals.
-->Well, will somebody say, it may be so, but what reasonable exists in such reaction, and from whose point of view? Ah, it is very simple: the viewpoint is /_the preserving and prolongation of life_/, and the reasonable is exactly in this preserving, because by weak impact the stronger reaction more effectively helps the living body to free itself from the impact, while when the stimulus become so strong that it is neither possible, nor reasonable, to counteract it, then the reaction weakens, with the hope that the impact will cease, but even if this does not happen, still, the reaction only needlessly exhausts the cell, organism, or the social community. Even from the point of view of the object of action (if it is reasonable) and the effectiveness of the very action is more reasonable for it to be stronger than necessary, in order to have better effect for the suppression of the reaction. So that the paradoxical character of reaction of the living matter to compulsion, or to the extreme form of the compulsion -- the violence -- is one more reasonable form, both, of action, and of reaction, than this of the nonliving matter, where the reaction is exactly equal to the action.
-->It is another question, though, whether this is the /_maximal_/ level of reasonableness, which one organized matter, especially in the social area, can show, and, surely, there exists more reasonable reaction, consisting in /_earlier positioning of the extremum_/ on the curve, i.e. of /_predicting_/ of unpleasant consequences for the living organism from the strong irritant without whatever necessity for it to become really strong! But, alas, this "bringing to reason" is very slow process and continues for centuries and millenniums and is practically not limited in the time, because always can be thought about better evaluation of the moment of ceasing or lessening of the reaction, reaching to the point even before the threshold value of the stimulus, what would have led as a result to the complete absence of the necessity for violence. Anyway, *_the violence is justified, if it can prevent_* the necessity of *_greater violence_*, and this is /_the only_/ justification of the violence! This thesis might not have been formulated in this way, but it, positively, has been known for millenniums and is fixed in all legal acts nowadays, because the punishment /_is never equal_/ to the crime. Not only by murder, where it is not in the power of man to return the life of some person, but even for a stolen hen, for example, is paid a fine at least as for ten hens, i.e. it turns out again that for slighter misdeeds the punishment is stronger, and for severe offenses -- it is weaker, and in the toughest cases of taking of someone's life the felon most often remain alive. But what is one judicial decision, if not a reaction to a crime, and what is one criminal act if not a reaction to the set for a given place and time laws?
-->But, in any case, the violence exists and it is "doctored" with other form of violence, where to the minor offense is answered with more severe violence of punishment, in order to prevent its spreading, and to the severe violence of crime is answered with lesser violence (if the reaction is relatively reasonable), because the escalation of violence leads to no good, as it was remarked long ago, but just moves the moment of extremum to greater violences. We can name this law for brevity "*_law of necessary violence_*" (or more generally, "law of necessary impact"), what answers quite precisely to the core of the said above. But isn't the main message of Christian religion, which says that when you are slapped on one cheek you must turn the other one to be slapped also on it, something else than a call to avoid unnecessary violence because of knowing of the above law? The message of Christ was necessary /_exactly_/ because it contradicts to the normal human reaction, which is not sufficiently reasonable!
-->
==>*_II. Acts of Violence_*
-->
-->Now it is time to observe some concrete manifestations of violence in the society, in order for our review not to sound very abstract, but this is not a classification of the forms of violence, because some of them are contained in the others or cause them, but just an overview of the most significant points, which is intended to show the effect of the law of necessary violence (or of unnecessity of violence, if the social communities were in position to propose some more reasonable alternative).
-->
-->*_1._* The first thing with which we shall begin is the *_war_*. It is the most massively applied form of violence, but here is interesting the general delusion (accidental or deliberate?) that, at least since Roman times and to the present day, the war has been considered for the final, or most powerful, tool (/_ultima ratio_/, in Latin), where it almost always was /_the first tool_/, because hardly ever has been sat down at the negotiating table before some military actions have taken place, where the only exceptions were when decisions were taken based on /_other people's_/ defeats, what has to say that there are, in fact, no exceptions! In the spirit of the said above about the reasonability of violence it comes out that the war, still, is reasonable tool for proving of someone's supremacy, and that in it are done mass violences in order to prevent long-lasting violences in the next periods, but the bad think is that this is /_not_/ reasonably /_enough_/, for there can be proposed various other means for reaching of the goal.
-->As examples we can give the following: sports competitions (football, or other ball-game, fencing, horse races, athletics, etc.); intellectual combats (chess or checkers, for example); games of chance, which in all times have symbolized the intervention of higher powers; magics and auguries, which were often applied in the past (but there neither have been approved generally applicable to both sides "standards", no have they succeeded to prevent the battles, they have just created some psychological disposition for them); representative battles of equal in numbers (say, by hundred persons) fighting squads from both sides and in conditions of real war, i.e. on life and death; such fights but of only one percent of the military units; gladiatorial fights, if you want; and so on. The wars for economical reasons, for their part, could have been carried out with economical means (as we now try, but don't succeed very much), and these for religious reasons -- via religious disputes, ceremonial parades, confessions or discussions with priests, and similar things. Even less sense would have been in the civil wars, if there could have been reached one common for the whole country vision about the problems, not to act like two packs of wolves hunting in a common area. The main drawback of mentioned reasonable methods is that these would have been /_weak_/ violences, and as such they would have not fulfilled their purpose! Though, of course, they wouldn't have been weak if the masses have shown a bit more intellect and have predicted the unreasonableness of stronger impacts.
-->But, still, in the wars of before a pair of centuries there was bigger dose of reason than in those of current days, because then has still existed difference between front and rear, and especially in Ancient Greece the soldiers have fought only on the battlefield (how the sports events are conducted now), and it was known in advance where exactly they will fight, so that in those times the wars have not differed much from current-day motor races, for example. During the 20th century, though, the power of the human has grown so high, that he, naturally, needs much bigger violences, for to be able with their help to reach the so wanted weak reaction -- alas, these are the facts! In addition to everything else now the state's organization is much more stronger, so that the wars nowadays are like the fights between dinosaurs -- it is shed much more blood than when fight two gnats, for example. Else the people have not become more reasonable, neither intend to become such! The presumption about the sufficient armament is a nice thing from the point of view of the stronger states (because they, anyway, are strong and know what happens with the mentioned dinosaurs), but the weaker and left behind in industrial and military sense countries continue to seek some keen (and often dishonest) methods for achieving of dominance, what they can't reach with restriction of the armaments. For example, it is very good for the states not to possess nuclear weapons, but it is good from the point of view of those who /_already possess it_/, and who will convince the weaker that for him it is better to remain more weak than the stronger?
-->It is very easy to rise allegations that the violence is not necessary and is fruitless and that, say, there was no need for the town Dresden to be burned down, or for one significant part of the population of a multi-million city like St. Petersburg to become dead, or the atomic bomb over Hiroshima to be thrown, et cetera. But who can prove that such monstrous violence was not necessary in order to prevent even bigger violence, until we come to such escalation of the sufferings, that all nations could understand, at least for an instant, the Christ's maxim about the turning of the other cheek? Isn't it true that thanks to the Second World War the world lives now more than half a century (help God to be more) without (at least) world wars, and if the bomb over Hiroshima has not been thrown, would it not have been thrown till now somewhere some other, or more powerful, bomb? Cruel, really, but necessary violation, because the people continue to hit their breasts that they are reasonable beings, while they are only beings /_capable_/ to think, but do this simply after they /_have exhausted_/ all other unreasonable methods for reaching of the goal (contribution, maybe, of the author to the definition of /_homo sapience_/). It would have been very nice if the Americans, for example (as the most powerful country in the world), would have decided to give ten years or so by 5-6 % of their incomes as help for the unemployed millions German workers in the 30s years of 20th century, or for the destitute population of the backward Asian country named Soviet Union in the 20s, and other examples, but they have not done it. It would have been very nice if the capitalism from the beginning of this 20th century was a bit better and has not generated conditions for emerging of the fascist and communist ideologies, but it was not. And because the mankind is not in position to show more reason than a jellyfish (see "About the mankind"), it reacts according to the law of necessary violence. This is the situation, as you see.
-->
-->*_2._* Another typical manifestation of violence is the become "modern" during the 20th century term "*_genocide_*", but it is not invention of the century and exists for millenniums, only that earlier it was applied mostly on the level of a family or tribe, while nowadays it is applied on a greater scale and on the level of a nation. Otherwise, nothing new under the Sun. The necessity of applying of this kind of violence comes from the possibility to pass genetically the characteristics of the subject in the generations, and from the conditions, which this creates for the remained alive subject to use in his turn violence over the previous object, which violence, naturally, will be stronger than the initial one, if the initial was not strong /_enough_/. Clear and simple, isn't it -- each pear has its peduncle (as we say in Bulgaria)! This /_isn't_/ justification, for /_nothing can excuse the genocide_/ (even not previous genocide) -- this is just explanation. And if one begins to think how trivial is the solution, which might have been applied by the Hebrews, if they have wished, in order to prevent the genocide over them already as a germ (because they have had thousands of years to come to this decision, for have been persecuted from biblical times), one wants just to weep for this silly being called intelligent.
-->And the solution, really, is simple, because the genocide is directed against the gene and, hence, if this gene is difficult to be discovered, than the genocide also would have had no grounds for existence! In other words, the solution is in the gradual /_assimilation_/ of the Jewish nationality or, at least, in their /_rejecting the concept of the_/ "/_chosen by God people_/", what would have eliminated radically the necessity for applying of violence over them. Nothing difficult or cruel -- just the Hebrews should not have opposed with all their strength to the interbreeding with the other nations where they have lived. So, for example, has happened with the Thracians in our lands in the antiquity, and typical contemporary example for equal racial mixing, I think, is the Brazil. This is *_/_not_* losing of the gene, but its wider distribution*__/_* on more fertile soil, what is preferable for genetic strengthening of the nationalities, because it is long ago known that by more distant family connections are born healthier children, but in the Talmud (which the author does not know, but have heard) are pictured many marriages between direct relatives. So that, really, the most clever is a bit silly, though this is not directly related with our topic.
-->But we can look also from another angle at the things, because the concept of chosen by God race is a kind of /_violation_/ over the people around, though weak (moral) one, and being such it, naturally, forces the necessity for stronger counteraction, what has been applied to the Hebrews in many countries in different centuries, but the "top" was reached under the fascism, which applied then unmasked genocide. Objectively looked, though, the fascists have not invented something new, they just "turned the rod" backward saying that if so, then they also are chosen, because were Aryans. Anyway, it is clear that the genocide (even the most humane) is damaging to the human society as a whole, for it diminishes the so needed diversity.
-->
-->*_3._* Another kind of violence appears in the *_religious and ideological fanaticism_*. Inasmuch as the faith or conviction are something that can elementary be changed for less than a generation here the necessary violence is, generally, weaker than in the previous cases, but it unavoidably exists in the history of all religions and state ideologies. It deserves to be mentioned that in this case, too, there is easy solution of the disputes (if there were more collective reason), because /_each religion_/ in its own way is /_progressive_/ (well, regressive, too), so that there is not a big difference which exactly one will share (as it is so also by the choice of partner for creating of family) and the difference is only a matter of taste, i.e. it is something secondary and, hence, there is no reasonable necessity of strong compulsory impact! And really, there would have been no necessity of compulsion, if the subjects changed easily their religions, or if the priests have recognized the need for religious tolerance. Little by little, this is realized in current days, and in many countries coexist peacefully quite many religious beliefs, but to this state of things has come always after many needless bloodshed and not at all everywhere. Similar is the question also with the different ideologies because, although the religion has as its goal the happiness, and the ideology -- the peace, in the country, they look alike as different forms of delusion (see "About the religion"), and because of the unwillingness of the masses to accept easily new delusions becomes essential for the law of necessary violence to be activated, in order to be possible /_later_/ on the things in the country to go smoothly. Put it otherwise: the necessary violence could have been weaker, if the human stubbornness was not stronger!
-->
-->*_4._* Another kind of necessary violence is the *_civilian terror_*, but it is direct consequence of religious or ideological causes, though sometimes it can be induced by other domestic unrest. The capricious moment here is that this terror often becomes stronger than the necessary level, in which case it, not only has initially the effect of weak reaction, but allows for /_accumulation_/ of the discontent of the masses, so that later it happens that the strong impact has played the role of a weak one, generating stronger reaction after a time. This is very subtle moment and, as far as discontent of the masses exists always when change of some course of management with another one happens, it can't be unambiguously said where exactly is the middle point of the violence. This is in sense that, as there were in old times in Bulgaria hard laws of Khan Krum, or in the young Soviet Union was CheKa (/_chrezvichaynaya komissiya_/, extraordinary commission), so in many other countries there were excessively inadequate to the crimes punishments, and such things happen also today around the world, because one must have "nonhuman" intellect, in order to establish the needed level of violence over the humans, i.e. this is practically impossible. In some extent in this aspect the things are related with the sadism, to which we shall come after a while, because are created conditions for massively applied legalized cruelty, but, we have to stress this, the terror often arises as reaction of the government to the disobedience of the population, so that guilty for the terror are as the rulers, so also the ruled ones.
-->
-->*_5._* The next kind of necessary violence is the *_anarchism_*/*. Maybe the adherents of this movement think that they act in this way because, in their view, the anarchy is the best regulator (or at least /_one_/ of the good regulators) of the human society, or that "the anarchy is mother of the order", because the order originates from the chaos, and so on, but they are simply in error. ( By the way, this is a very old thesis, because the English, i.e. Latin, word for motive or "cause" is etymologically related with the word "chaos", which in its turn is of Greek origin, and this relation reflects the naive concepts of Ancient Greeks from 25 centuries. ) And they have reasons to fall in error because the well-known idea about market economy uses exactly this thought, but our (Bulgarian), mildly put, unsuccessful attempts of the first democratic years, as also the worldwide experience in this regard, show clearly that betting only on one idea, without its counteracting, does not lead to anything good! The chaos isn't a good regulator even in the world of mollusks, to say nothing about the human society; it can work in the world of atoms and subatomic forces, or in the other direction -- on a level of galaxies -- but by the humans not the chaos is what leads to some order (as a rule, of course). The anarchism has its effect not because of the chaos, which it causes, but because of the applying of necessary violence over small number, and often totally innocent, subjects, as also in conditions of peaceful coexistence, when this is as if inadmissible. In this way /_with little forces is achieved strong impact_/, or put it otherwise: /_the anarchism is the most bloodless war_/! This is the reason for existing and spreading of these methods also in current days on the whole world. The anarchist is not like the sadist, he kills people who does not know, but just as subjects of his action, and the "good" anarchists, usually, have their views about humane killing, however shocking this may sound.
-->
-->[ * Here we have in mind fulfilling of attentats, explosions, sabotages, and so on, aiming at creating of social disorders, bound to solve the problems, because the government can't do this. Together with this view exists also another one, which comes from the times of French Revolution and is simply negation of the "archy" or authority (in whatever form), on account of the idea that the people, you see, were intelligent enough (or were on the way to become such), for to understand what is to be done and to do it, without any force, but (the author thinks) this is obvious utopia because, even if there were no objections from the part of the people, without planning nothing can be done nowadays. ]
-->
-->Said in other way, the anarchism is something similar to the strikes, only that with much more cruel results, but aiming first of all to attract the attention of domestic and international public to unsolved problems, and this violence in the case is the minimally needed, in order to achieve strong impact. The anarchism should not be confused with the organized crime or terrorism, which may use the same methods, but have entirely different goals. /_The anarchism is the weapon of the weak_/ and it is applied when existing in the country atmosphere of terror against some of its citizens does not allow using of others (peaceful) means. If in this situation, at the cost of five victims, several persons succeed to engage five thousand policemen in their pursuit, and to attract attention of five million people to serious problems in the society, then the goal is achieved! In this sense, the strong impact here aims not directly at solving of the problems, as it is in a war, for example, but only at /_setting of the questions_/ for solving (except when the attentat is directed to a concrete political personality, when it again does not solve entirely the problems but only assists in changing of the course of ruling). And again: this is not justification of the anarchism, but explanation of its appearance. And once more time: the anarchism is the possibly reasonable reaction of the weak, when the society does not propose them a better decision! The necessity of anarchism will disappear of itself, if the social reasonability reaches some level of organization higher than that of the jellyfish.
-->
-->*_6._* Another kind of violence is the *_organized crime_* (or the mafia), which is just an /_addendum_/ to the authorized instances for maintaining of law and order in the country, although it often acts against these instances in the struggle for establishing of dominance! More that this, it acts also /_through_/ these security bodies, as there is present also the reversed process. It answers to the interests (though unacknowledged) of a considerable part of the population, serving them, because the police can't do this, nor has such goals. When the police forbids the narcotics (or the alcohol, for example, or the prostitution), but the people, no matter that they deny them officially, want them, then who else is to propose them to the people if not some strong organization, or mafia? The forbidden fruit is always sweeter than that, which is generally available, so that, while there are prohibitions, there will be also people who will trespass them. This, surely, does not mean that there should not be any bans -- such things always will exist in a society, because each organized group of people attempts to defend its interests and deny those of the others, and we can hardly imagine such liberal society that will legalize the cannibalism, for example, or will not try to protect the young and children from the mistakes of juvenescence, and so on. Though the society could be /_moral_/ enough, so that to be no ground in it for organized crime, and this is something to what we can always strive (maybe because we can never reach it?). Except the elimination of the causes for this crime remains only one way -- the necessary violation of the official punitive bodies to be such, that the reaction of the organized crime to be sufficiently weak (say, for it to be not possibly to organize itself). The legality and humanity here can do almost nothing -- the point is: /_whose_/ violence will be stronger, for to cause weaker reaction!
-->
-->*_7._* At the end we will stop for a while at the *_cruelty and sadism_*, which are not so much forms of necessary violence, as examples for /_misunderstood violence_/, in which is applied not the minimally necessary, but much bigger one, what causes accumulation of the reaction in the subject, or in his close relatives, which leads to consequences that are not weak reactions. In this way we come to the phenomenon that a strong impact has shown itself as weak, what is not typical for the normal human activities, but the sadism, too, is not behaviour of psychically normal human personalities. The cruelty is not just violence, but /_excess_/ of violence, what is an indication for people with mental deviations (though it is difficult to assert that these deviation are rare, because many children, for instance, like to torture the animals, but this is explicable with their small knowledge of the world and with their not quite formed psyche). This, that the cruelty is inevitably related with the violence in each of its forms and manifestations, determines the possibility for its appearing in each of the above points, but, still, there must be made difference between the two terms in the presence or absence of emotional involvement for the object exercising the violence. In this regard the cruelty, and the sadism as its extreme form, are most often individual acts, where the violence is exercised almost always in groups and motivated. And let us stress that if the violence is unavoidable and necessary in our activity, the cruelty is entirely redundant and can be avoided! The minimal core of the definition of humanity consists exactly in this, that if, by various reasons, some violence must be exercised, it has to be applied /_without_/ whatever cruelty. Contrary to the assertions of the humanists, though, this is so not because the people must behave like humans (for the humanity is very fuzzy and ungrounded notion and out of these positions we, for example, should have long ago given up eating animal flesh), but because the non humane actions do not agree well with the law of necessary violence.
-->Somewhere since Freud got particular propagation the thesis that the failure to satisfy some (most often hidden) impulses and desires only worsens the situation, because it leads to accumulation and to their subsequent manifestation, so that it is better to offer some vent to the passions (were they erotic, were sadistic, or any others). This, naturally, is true in general terms, but to a certain extent, and the exaggeration of this thesis also leads to nothing good, as we gradually begin to grasp. The excessive liberalism does not lead to much freedom for the individuals, because if strengthens the contradictions between them when they are not /_reasonably constrained_/, and it becomes clear now that massively applied virtual cruelty is not so innocuous, for it leads to addiction and unavoidable desire to try it in reality. The situation is much alike to that with the alcohol and the narcotics, and it is logical in near future to be taken similar measures, i.e. to apply some necessary violence from the part of society, that must restrict the conditions for forming of cruelty and sadism. So that we again return to the question of violence.
-->
==>*_III. Conclusive Remarks_*
-->
-->Before we finish it is proper to turn our attention to this peculiarity in our definition of violence, that it does not require for the object exercising the violence (or, generally, the impact) to be necessary organized matter. So, for example, for the reaction of those buried by an avalanche in the mountain, and for those who have barely managed to escape, is irrelevant whether the avalanche has fallen of itself (i.e. as a result of natural laws), or was caused by some human, an outsider or some of the injured group; this may has its importance by judicial investigation, but not for the behaviour of people in avalanche areas in the winter. Similar is the situation also for other kinds of "violence" on the part of the nature, like: earthquakes, fires, volcanic eruptions, infectious epidemics, environmental pollution, disappearing of animal species, et cetera. We may put the quotes on the violence when the object is not animated, but this does not change the character of the reaction of the subject, i.e. it is weak by strong impacts (or at least should be such), expressing itself in their avoiding, or in predicting of the strong activities even before they have occurred. For the believers in the hypothesis of God (see "About the Creation") there are no obstacles for endowing of the nature with some divine intellect and for accepting of the above-given examples as God's vengeance, but we don't need this. The important thing is for our reaction to be /_inadequate_/ to the irritant, and even /_reasonably_/ inadequate, as much as this is possible.
-->And one more thing: each impact, *_the violence_* too, *_is factor for our learning_*. If there is not necessary a violence for to make us act reasonably, then let us not wait for this violence to be realized at all: were it not to fight with stronger adversary, were it not to create ground for anarchistic manifestations, or for genocide, or for religious intolerance, were it not to build high buildings in earthquake region, or to avoid big gatherings of people on one place as source for various infections, were it to observe some moral and physical hygiene in order to prevent contracting AIDS, and other examples. No matter how many times one has explained to a child that he (or she) has to stay away from the stove or electric plate, he will not assimilate this until it "punishes" him. In the same time, when one becomes tired doing hard physical work, then it is time to invent something that will make it lighter, because the ache in the muscles is a weak "violence" and people answer it with stronger reaction, as they don't agree to do the unpleasant work forever but invent corresponding mechanisms for that goal. So that the violence is not only necessary element in life, but also /_life relies on it_/ in its evolution, and the human being, left without some form of compulsion, begins to fall in rage and to wonder what to do (something, what is easy to be seen by small children and pet animals), so that in some way to receive /_the healing dose of penalty_/, which has to prevent him from extreme cases of violence! The whole subtlety here is to react intelligently to the various forms of compulsion and violence.
-->But it turns out that in regard of the reasonable reaction the social community stays /_lower_/ than the isolated individual, meaning that one will much more easier meet a person, who acts reasonably, than a nation, that does this, and for the mankind as a whole this is practically impossible! This phenomenon of the social community is investigated in the essay "About the mankind", but it reduces chiefly to this, that the society still has very /_primitive_/ nervous system (especially a free society), similar to that of the mollusks, where the human being has also nervous system and ability for reasonable judgements (though he does not much use these gifts in difficult real situations). For that reason it happens that a bigger group of people is not more intelligent that one arbitrary chosen individual with average intellect, no matter that the latter is part of the group, so that the reaction of social communities, most often, is that of the jellyfish. We may not like this situation, but must take the facts into account. It would be nice to think that after some five-ten centuries the mankind as a whole will at last jump over this debasing for the "crown of the creation" level, but this is not much probable. Nothing hinders us, though, to hope that this will happen.
-->
--> -- -- -- -- --
-->
=>END OF THIS PART
-->