emergence of integrity ~ a Quintet (2)

From my latest book : “emergence of integrity”

If the proletarians ~ as Karl Marx suggested it ~ would have brought better social justice, every revolution is legal and allowed in the most moral way. Then it is not discussable who leads the revolution. The only reason an revolution is permitted or allowed if it is based upon the highest moral grounds as mentioned. Every civil disobedience ~ no matter how small or individual it is ~ is then morally and ethically “legal”.

Considering Bergson and the idea that sympathizing with similar species is easier than with others we may conclude that every (sub-)culture imply “the (energetic) law of laziness” what brings us to the open and closed morality. The risk that is implied is the diversity of thoughts and actions. However there are only a few ethical rules these so-called “Closed Morality” organizations or communities loose contact with the outer world and that implies that borders of these morality become stronger and more solid.

The counterpart of ethics is free will as Immanuel Kant mentioned it. What if free will is assimilated by the leader’s (free) will ? Where is the space that is left over in the way I started this chapter named “Quintet” ? Can we still talk about free will of the inhabitants in case of the question if the laws of survival ~ at the benefit of that specific community ~ still represent  the same as the moral laws ?

“Free will is the Space that is left over when your Fate is filled up with Determinism.” ~ moì

Note : Space is synonymous to the Gap as it guarantees one’s Creativity

Closed Morality has nothing to do with Democracy. Democracy is best when its morality, its intellectual system is an open one. Decisions based upon democratic majority isn’t democratic when it damages nature, flora & fauna and even some human beings. The title of Bergson’s book “Creative Evolution” may imply a high welfare ~ a better social justice ~ for everyone. It is anyhow the way of an open mind or attitude willing to improve in the ethical way. Originally that was Bergson’s idealistic view, an open society. In that way Bergson shows us that our Technocracy that is concrete and existing of matter, facts & figures and money has nothing to do with the 2 processes “intuiting” and “sympathizing”, because it is not characterized that way, it has completely different features. As Schopenhauer said :

“The highest moral commandment is empathy.”

Note : Empathy as an integral term for intuition and sympathy empowered by imagination and language ~ moì

By the way, is this commandment just super(b)- or supra-valid ?

Evolution is a process in which the interpretation and world views become different from the old ones. Is there a continuum in the spiral or volvo, this rotation, in its direction of rotation ? Or do we have to deal here with quantum leaps as well ? However the quality of one’s competences concerning the 2 processes of intuiting and sympathizing may guarantee gaining one’s authenticity; the characteristic actions and behavings become congruent with your authenticity and your higher mission or purpose ~ teleologically speaking; your personality represents your arche type. Maybe an e-volution is to be changed into an in-volution; back to the source of all. The word “back” doesn't need to imply welfare regressions; it’s only diminishing the intensity of welfare and the ambition.

What can we learn from this all ? The 2 processes of intuiting and sympathizing are in all of us. So everyone has a capability to develop the right intelligence and knows what decisions are instinctively made and what in the right moral way. In the words of Chomsky every action is allowed when individuals or groups damage social justice. In this context I don’t mind if it is only about mankind him/herself, I include nature such as flora & fauna as well. So in that way of speaking the technocracy is not allowed to conquer natural phenomena by ignoring and even destroying them.

Referring to the 5 Chinese elements like earth/food, fire/energy, air/life, water/flow and æther/creation that represent the quality of our lives. Does that mean that it is allowed to kill the predator or perpetrator like Nero, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and other less known persons who brought damage to these human rights ? According to Hegel their actions were needed to contribute to human social progress in their own way and suggested not to follow the majority if ethical rules are at stake ? Do you know the quote :

“Hate the sin and love the sinner.” ~ “Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum.”

Originally it was quoted by St. Augustine and later Mahatma or Mohandas Gandhi adopted it. People who represent these crimes against humanity and nature must be stopped anyway as long as morality is respected. Legality based upon hard rules and laws are to be overruled by ethical values. So being integer means that you can’t be hurt and you won’t be capable hurting or damaging other individuals, simply because you deal with their actions, their sins and beyond those reflective behavings you try to heal this other person; in a fully responsible ethical manner.

The essential question is “what are the or only, are there limitations ?” I don’t think it is so hard to answer, there is just the only one as told by Schopenhauer.

emergence of integrity ~ a Quintet (1)

From my latest book : “emergence of integrity”

“The developing of one is to be considered a vegetative, instinctive and rational life, 3 successive degrees and should not be seen as differences of intensity or degree ~ Aristotle ~ but as 3 different directions ~ Bergson !”

 “More precisely intelligence is before anything else, the faculty of relating one point of space to another, one material object to another; it applies to all things, but remains outside them.”

“A language is required which makes it possible to be always passing from what is known to what is yet to be known.”

Some psycho-sophers that are gathered by me. What are the similarities of these famous 5 ?

When watching an old debate about “Human Nature” between Foucault and Chomsky ~ in 1971 ~ I recognized lots of analogy the way Steiner and Jung discussed the way mankind and his or her way in developing consciousness.

(http://bit.ly/11C58Ma)

The content of Chomsky reminded me to Bergson’s book “Creative evolution” although he used other terms and words. At first it is important to realize what Bergson meant with instinct, intelligence, intuition and sympathy.

It appeared that it would be easier to change 2 words into verbs in the use of processes, namely intuition and sympathy into intuiting ~ introspective ~ and sympathizing ~ extraspective characterized. Here the “normal” words are instinct and intelligence. Since Bergson was a quite well educated biologist, to him the great difference between flora and fauna was the word “mobility”. That’s also where we see the difference between an animal and human; intelligence :”forms of (spatial) points that can be brought together”. In other words : ”the degree of solving potential that distinguishes mankind above the animal, the primate”. This word he used as a starting point for explaining the differences between instinct and intelligence. Instinct implies a static reservoir of values that can be consulted in a reflective way; it has often to do with survival and avoiding pain and (any) damage. It needs no intelligence in a “mobile or dynamic way” of thinking but only an immediate acting; the process of in-tuiting or consulting basic values.

Sympathy implies an extraspective process; more precisely. Intelligence is, before anything else, the faculty of relating one point of space to another, one material object to another. It applies to all things, but remains outside them. Here Bergson used explicitly and often the word “faculty” in his book where I use the word “intelligence” in my former books with its meaning being “the potential to be actualized”. Although sympathy may also rely on instinctive values ~ in a more emotional dimension like e.g. pain and joy. Besides of these small exceptions it seems that intuition and sympathy have their processes in opposite directions.

Also another addition may be that knowledge ~ properly so called and reserved to pure intelligence ~ intuition may enable us to grasp what it is that intelligence fails to give us and indicate the means of supplementing it. That’s why I proposed to consider the intelligence as a spectre, where the intuition is the integral energetic intelligence of all kind of intelligences. Please recognize the possibility to empower general intelligence by intuition.

Coming back to my introduction of the 4 plus one psycho~sophers I refer to Will McWhinney and also to Ken Wilber. Let me explain this to you. McWhinney we know of his “4 World Views” in some analogy with MBTI derived from Jung’s knowledge. Wilber we know about his 4 divisions as explained in my former books; we talked about plurality ~ “Community” ~ and singularity ~ “Individuality” ~ furthermore extended into “We and Its” and “I and It”. Foucault and Jung both approach mankind from this collectivum ~ you even may say “culture” ~ where Steiner and Chomsky approach mankind from this individuation ~ you may say “individual identity”.

There are more similarities to discover between these 5 individuals as being shown in the picture beneath. (available in the book)

At Bergson I show the openness of both instinct and intelligence. In a way both are reachable in the relationship with the outer world. Where instinct is mostly (bio-) “material” orientated and shows a kind of solid and intelligence more “form” orientated is that is more flexible and dynamic. It’s not specifically the form that determines the creation, it is its limitations around, the surroundings that assure the uniqueness of each creation of each unique individual.

The left side of the picture represents the objectivity, while the right side the subjectivity. The tool that Foucault and Chomsky use is called “language” and Jung and Steiner use “imagination”. However, if we take the opposite directions of the 4 factors “I”, “We”, “It” and “Its”, “I” gets exchanged with “It” and “We” gets exchanged by “Its”.

In a way instinct has nothing to do with both consciousness and creativity. As I see it they are synonyms of each other. Where instinct requires immediate reflective actions intelligence has to deal with gaps. Jung and Foucault claim that these gaps are the space between several perhaps noo-spherial “networks”, which imply that the outer world is responsible and accountable for one’s intelligence. Steiner and Chomsky claim that our bio-mechanical structures and their restrictions in it initiate some kind progress coming out of ourselves.

Steiner uses the process of imagination and Chomsky uses the process of language. Anyway all talk about leaps to be made in their own process of thinking. The bridge to other dimensions may explicate after integrating ? new orders, where ~ according to David Bohm called them ~ the restrictions of mankind guarantee certain creativity and-or consciousness ~ the implicate orders.

As we put it in the political way we might admit that we have no influence in our political landscape. We depend on the ones that we have chosen. If that is so then what is our personal power ? Chomsky explains it as follows. The Government confronts us with legality. If legality is our human nature, then we don’t need our instinct including the ethical values. Every civilian is allowed to obstruct legality if (s)he thinks it doesn't lead to better justice; justice meaning a better social life for everyone. As individual this is, it is applicable to the battle of the classes. 

End of part 1

Debt & Penance : Hannah Arendt

From my latest book “Debt en Penance”.

To me as a psycho~sopher Hannah Arendt is one of the most interesting persons in this book, especially by the term “Animal Laborans”. Originally the word “animal” is a being with a spirit.

Although “Animal Laborans” implies a working human being from a higher purpose politics are part of that. Most philosophers talk about the “reason” that arises the human mind. Perhaps “reason” is one of the 3 mental dimensions or constructures, introduced by Jean Gebser by using language regarding Descartes’ triptych “1-perceptions~ 2-mental experiences~ 3-realizing perceptions (reasoning)”.

In association with Marx’ “sub- & supra” classes I recognize here an analogous structure. At first the division between individuals who think they have to work day-in-day-out ~ the sub class ~ and those who think they don’t in a certain way ~ supra class. Does the image of a hard working individual really originate from the Church ~ regarding e.g. the Dutch Calvinist culture ? Where Protestantism is more a self-manifesting attitude and the Calvinism is strongly based upon sober life and hardworking, both as a response against the wealthy Catholic Church.

The other division is where Arendt talks about striving for a mystical experience with a higher power with intellectual love and a philosophical reconciliation there exists a small group of individuals who can and lots of people who won’t be capable to achieve this state of mind, as a transcendental process. They deal with the religion as preached here on earth. The second division implies to me that we talk about some kind of intelligences. The word “intelligence” actually means “actualizing of a potential” as I composed it from the Greek language. I talk about a spectre of lots of intelligences. “Reasoning” is one of them. The words “intelligence, integrity and integrality” are within the same energy spectre that implies that they (can) interfere with each other. While the term “integer” means or implies “undamaged/unhurt/healed entity” the intelligence has an important role in this process, so a lack of some intelligence makes the integral result of this integrity incomplete. The individual is not integer for that moment.

Today reasoning is often confused with logical dialogues. Logical dialogues are about the content of causality and possible determinism; the world of facts & figures, rules & control. Talking about reasoning when someone enters the public domain like civil servants do without controlling their reasoning, then they won’t be able to deal with the facts and reality that is desired ~ pragmatically speaking like Voltaire meant. Hannah Arendt proposes that individuals who do anyway, survive and make small or even huge mistakes are not accountable for their decisions. These deeds are only banalities.

She mainly pointed with this remark to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s during her job as a reporter in “The New Yorker”, phrased by her quote “The greatest evils in this world are committed by nobody’s” ~ referring to her defensive reports about Adolf Eichmann. About Eichmann she said : ”The alarming to the person Eichmann was surely this man was neither perverse nor sadistic. This normality that was worse than all the horrors of WW-II together”. The banality of the evil caused an enormous controversy among her audience and the Jewish society. Is this a kind of “Anger-History” (see also Max Weber)?

How can we deal with this views of points of Arendt during this crisis ? Isn’t there a kind of invisible hand from the financial world that makes Ministers follow, in return they make their civil servants follow them ? Can we really make the Ministers, civil servants and small bankers responsible for all activations that emerges from this crisis ? That the recovering of the economic system now is done based upon facts & figures and ignores all what has to do with human values ?

Are “animalia laborantes” nonchalant or “mentally lazy” in a way while they do not choose to compete in the debates with civil servants and ministers anymore ? Is this an evolutionary “easy-lay-down” or an tricky “comfortably-numb” state of mind created by smooth talking people ? So if all banalities are evil and are attained by nobodies, are these nobodies not simply yourselves ? Is this state of comfortably-numb a restriction of mankind within decisiveness or a limited use of intelligence in order to create higher consciousness and the will to identify yourselves ? Now that others have tried and done can they be blamed they did it their way ? Isn’t it so that the leader you become, is the leader you deserve ?

That is why this new Youthful Election System ~ YES* ~ is so valuable; from a younger age mankind is stimulated to reflect and identify him/herself in the community, enlarging this “area” while growing up. The results can be transposed in choosing the right individuals with whose ambitions and ethical values you can cope with ~ identify with. Everybody can according to Hannah Arendt. This election system implies also that individually s-electing “soulmates” can be done every moment of the year. The cycle of 4 years is bypassed with this dynamic election possibility. What do you think about the duration of 4 years ?

Note afterwards : Is it strange that there are so many followers and only a few leaders ? Regarding it in an esoteric way ~ “as huge as tiny” ~ where the milky ways and solar systems represent nations and communities and they present some spiral dimensions like we know in our DNA. How many galaxies exist with how many leading more or less concentric stars and with how many planets and moons in their orbits around these stars and act like human “animalia laborantes”?

Debt & Penance : Benedictus Spinoza

From my latest book “Debt & Penance”.

“All excellent things are difficult as they are rare as well.”

“How else than possible it is that salvation could be accepted in the most easy way without too much effort, and anyhow it is neglected by so many people ?”

That’s what Spinoza said at the end of his “Ethica”. The public disquiet Spinoza caused was mainly based upon his view of God. His visions were more based upon a neutral monistic conception of some God. God was no Creator of the world, the world was part of a divine creation. Miracles are no proof of the existence of a divine power; it is the nescience of mankind. He based it upon the duality of religions dealing with “good and evil”. In the way Thomas de Acquino interpreted it that evil was the absence of the Go(o)d.

Regarding Hannah Arendt I discover lots of similarities with her points of view. In her quote “The greatest evils in this world are committed by nobody’s” there is this analogy as Spinoza and De Acquino meant. As we don’t know the causes of our actions, then we deal with free will, for Spinoza however the effects were the results of nescience. Nescience is the biggest obstacle for the ambition of a virtuous life ~ non-egoism. The transition from passivity into activity is always overwhelming, liberating and joyful.

For Spinoza the virtue is not avoiding evil actions based upon fear because of some penance or because of hope for its reward. Happiness is no reward of the virtue; the virtue it is itself ~ Aristotle. By living that way we experience joy. If mankind acknowledges its being as a part of nature, of the universe and consequently subjected to the relevant laws, then (s)he would stop trying to explain the world in human terms and views ~ the so-called “anthropo-centrism”. “Ethics” ~ “Ethos” (Gr) ~ “Etheos” ~ ”E-Theos” – (out of the) manner or habit of God ~ has a scathing criticism of all forms of anthropo-centrism and finalism, which implies that nature services mankind. So “Ethica” truly is about morality, ethics and behaviorism and the way to gain happiness.

He is convinced this routing exists, but for mankind hard to go. Mostly it has to do with the unilateral way of life nowadays; the world of data, facts and figures. All based upon the 5 senses ~ physio-biological or physio-mechanical. The world of dissonance while the 6^th sense ~ intuition ~ is about the resonance ~ energetically speaking. The analytical world with its 2 perculations within Autism; Paranoia and Schizophrenia ~ not willing or capable dealing with and integrating the information from the associative world. Enforced by the drive for power & control as an example of 2 mental mechanisms.

Who imagines to be unable to achieve something, won’t do it and that results into inability ~ “trying = doing”. Not the objects determine the power of passion, it’s the experience, the transition into the subjectivity ~ Spinoza’s “de imaginatio” – “Ethica”. Imagination is a necessary and indispensable part of the acknowledge-process, but only produces chaotic and coincidental and therefore confused knowledge for the individual itself. So “de imaginatio” is restricted, partial and subjective. As Carl Jung told us in his “Red Book” (a quote) : “For Jung, the initial irruption of psychic disturbances that he later came to describe as a result of a process of “active imagination” were more traumatic than constructive.”

To me imagination is ~ like dreams are as well ~ an important process in the way of supporting and empowering one’s intuition; it carries personal value in it ~ empathy & sympathy. Like a new and free born baby that doesn’t know good or evil as dual terms. Every duality is based upon subjectivity, upon a general point of view ~ let’s say in a democratic way a point of acceptance. Especially these processes of generalization makes that people are not stimulated to think, imagine and reflect for themselves, and more specific concerning money and morality, “debt and penance”.

Do you have debts and do you feel you are to be punished for now ?

This chapter was written by me as a tribute to Spinoza and the book itself.

Debt & Penance : Ayn Rand

From my latest book “Debt en Penance”.

A first impression ~ reading Ayn Rand ~ might be that she was a victim of the Communistic system, the system where free thinking and acting were forbidden for the average civilian according to this dictatorship. Everything was pointed out and settled ~ dictated ~ by the Government. The controlling power was even harder. Although this kind of Socialism would imply equality for every civilian it didn’t work afterwards. You may consider it as a closed morality, where values and cultural expressions are not tolerated than that they represent the mind-set of the authorities of the dictatorship.

The motor of the economics does also move as a way of speaking, it is statically a machine with one speed without any excessive ac- or de-celerations. Any enterprising individual with some ambition is to be overruled, because that may be successful and therefore a risk to the system. So we deal with a strong social dependence without any authenticity or self-reliance. Everything has been taken care of by the Government so that implies obligations backwards, namely unconditional ad-diction. What we see is the obstructed way of self-development, to gain one’s own identity by free research. life and expressions. So the Government is selfish, so its civilians are as a reflect on it.

Because you can’t read it from the faces who can be trusted Rand tells us that selfishness arises above all, rationally speaking. That’s what she means with self-reliance. The meaning of selfishness is close to egoism ~ I do agree ~ although it indeed has a lot to do with integrity and intelligence as Rand claims too. As long as selfishness is based upon integrity that can be controlled by reason, then it is alright and the right way to live your life. That is what freedom is to her and thereby free interactions and communications between individuals are not to be disturbed but only guaranteed by the Government.

It is in a way a little peculiar that although the social system as the Communism equalizes all people Ayn Rand assumes that all people are capable to do so ~ self-development ~ which means that all people are more or less equal and have the same talent and competences to achieve this. Despite the fact that it isn’t of course so she doesn’t want the Government to interfere with no one at all. As I consider it that way then the selfishness of Rand is an egoism in the way we commonly use the term in our society.

Is self-identification part of the process Rand is pointing at and is rational selfishness synonymous to self-consciousness ? Reading Nicolaas van Cusa he suggested that there is a higher state of mind above the common sense of mankind. According to him it was “reason”, while the process is called “reasoning”. Of course reasoning is more than debating. Interactions with the environments facilitates this process and may even empower that. The product is “rationality” ~ Aristotle ~ where the individual has found an inner balance between cognitive and intuitive skills. As long this balance can be disturbed by its environment, there is no integrity within the inner and with the outer dimensions.

These processes of identifying is of course dangerous for some Governments. Unskilled ~ read self-unidentified individuals ~ can be easily influenced and seduced by some comfort. The ability for influence implies dependence and dependent people are sensitive to “debt & penance”. As long a diversity of mankind is guaranteed in this world these phenomena like a financial crisis exist. Advocating for self-identification by Rand is too simple in expecting that it really is going to happen.

Almost half the amount of all people live in or relate life to a passed mode, about a third of the amount do that concerning the present mode and a small amount has a progressive or future temperament of thinking. The first mentioned group ~ “Animalia laborantes” ? ~ is the one of uncertainty, you may say. Their passed is the most certain aspect. They even prefer a bad certain future as long is it is as certain as their passed life periods. It’s like preferring bad sympathy above no sympathy, that’s part of human nature, captured by uncertainty.

Even in that way ignoring people and exploiting them in an evil way like cheating and manipulating them imply egoism, it has nothing to do with solidarity, integrity and altruism. Self-reliance is important to Rand and that is a hard job because self-empowerment is applicable when you finished your identification. Where self-reliance implies integrity in the activities of actualizing; egoism has always been (too) easy.

So integrity doesn’t know and won’t pander to a financial crisis. A financial crisis only exists for them who deal with money, who need to use money for happiness, where Aristotle suggested that for happiness “reasoning” and “virtue” are the 2 necessary components for happiness. How happy are you ? 

Debt & Penance : Voltaire

From my latest book “Debt en Penance”.

Voltaire is indeed well-known by the Enlightenment. Of course peace is part of it. Enlightenment is getting integer, loosen personal matter, convictions and all pre-judgments. Gaining peace implies that there’s a (potential) quarrel, a fight or even a war. The battle for the world was very topical then in a way of global trade ~ e.g. the Dutch V.O.C. ~ Vereenigd Oost-Indische Compagnie” ~ with their fleet. It may be that Amsterdam had world’s first trade center in those days. I do not know if Voltaire based his quote upon the battles for matter as we know at South America. Lots of natives were murdered because of the invasion, whether for the Christian religion whether for the greed for gold. This plundering ~ of course ~ had nothing to do with fair trade.

During the life of Voltaire the battle of religions had been ended within Europe. So the evaluation of religion was the most important topic within the new world of philosophy. While religions appear to be incapable to deal with respect regarding cultures Voltaire saw that trade could. It is like “Homo Ludens”. What happens that happens. It is based upon “Égalité & Fraternité”. No need for power and-or control during that game. So every means or intermediary has the same state of the game, meaning money has no overvalue considering the game, it is part of that game. Small debates and quarrels are part of that game.

While the interests grew and so their responsibilities and accountabilities money became a higher value. As long as we deal with physical and concrete products and services during a short time, then the problems were not serious than within that context. As simple it was that when the salary wasn’t to be paid, the work wasn’t done. That is of course in exclusive situations as we already saw it during the Medieval and the building of lots of cathedrals by mainly the Freemasonry through Europe in that period. Experience has to be paid for.

So when trading had still physical dimensions ~ multiplicity ~ so had money. The change was when money became a trade product of itself. Not as long as it concerned just an interest rate. Because an interest rate could be as physical as possible, even as a natural product. The problems started when promises were made which couldn’t be fulfilled. It is like a self-producing system. Regard it as a MEI-constructure from the Chaos Theory; it needs Matter, Energy and Information. “Ancient” or original trade consisted of those 3, nowadays money mostly is based upon energy and information. Numbers & figures and big accounts that are stored in computers, that tell that the value of money will grow based upon expectations. Do you really get what you see ?

Making money is now based upon expectations, based upon statistics, chances and promises. What about the probability ? It may be that your chances grow but the current situation of our systems make it improbable. That’s the subjective aspect of making money. All other aspects are based upon objective aspects, facts & numbers created by computers. So is it right that we have peace by trade ? Voltaire was right then. Nowadays trade means paranoia, suspicion, fights and even war talking about basic elements for life like food and (fossil) energy. Even trade itself means war, indeed trade means income nowadays. The way multinationals supported by Governments deal with trade is only focused on making more money or grasping for it. And when it is not available, they invent debt constructures, which create dependence. Dependence means control in a situation that control is more preferred that penance.

So trade used to guarantee peace then, does it still today ?

Debt & Penance : Stanley Milgram

From my latest book "Debt en Penance”.

“If man should decide to erect a Nazi concentration camp in today’s America, then the deployment would be no problem at all.”

Why this appendix ? If you just had the opportunity to read Hannah Arendt, it is not so strange that Stanley Milgram popped up. Milgram was just like Skinner famous because of his social experiments concerning the human behavings under extreme circumstances. One of these experiments concerns the obedience of a leader and his or her follower. How far ~ under how much psychological pressure ~ will individuals go to obey, no matter how much harm and damage (s)he causes at other individuals as a part of the task of this obedience process ?

These individuals were questioned, wrong answers were punished by putting an electric shock to other individuals starting with lower ~ non-lethal ~ levels that was told to them at the start. The respondents experienced ~ heard ~ the pain that these shocks generated by the victims in the other room although the victims were actually acting and feigning these pain expressions.

The research was about authority and influence of the so-called leader or master and the level the psychological restrictions of the follower concerning obedience combined with the ethical values. His conclusion was pretty shocking to him; about 80 % of the respondents followed and obeyed their master till the lethal level of the victim.

Another experiment was about 4 groups of one hundred already addressed letters, which he lost by purpose. The potential recipients were 2 famous institutes, the other 2 were addressed as “Friends of the Nazi Party" and "Friends of the Communist Party”. About a quarter of the last 2 groups were posted afterwards ~ all to his own postal box. Of course it is obvious that it is important that the circumstances are known as well. What is the demographic composition, what are the cultures and subcultures and what was the mind-set at that time ?

Last aspects influent and determine also the results of such experiments. However Milgram demonstrated that while the observer is not observed or perceived by the “to-be-observed” the answers are more representative than when anyone would have asked such questions in case of face-2-face interviews. Think about “the cat of Erwin Schrödinger”.

The content of these 2 chapters ~ Hannah Arendt & Stanley Milgram ~ empower each other. They show us that ethical restrictions can and will be crossed when it is about individual benefit; a kind of unconditional sympathy for a leader no matter what the damage is that was caused by the decision being a follower or not. That’s Arendt’s story about Adolf Eichmann. It’s again about acknowledging bad sympathy to the one you know and no sympathy for someone you don’t. While ~ as mentioned ~ the psychological pressure was enormous for making that choice during the first experiment.

Self-survival ~ “élan vital” arises all and crosses almost all barricades and-or restrictions. Call it mass-hysteria dealing with the big names in history, where the dependent and histrionic aspects of mankind were activated till the level of hysteria as described. Where love and affection turned into hatred and evil.

Does true altruism allow you to prevent you to reach that stage of mind-set like the Christian world knows in the personification of Jesus ?