CIRCLING THE SQUARE

by Bob Barlov
21/06/01

It was August 2000 that I had the opportunity to read Pirsig's book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance". The significance of this event for me was not small, but its significance was compounded by several other events in my life that took place at about the same time.
I was born in Yugoslavia 36 years ago, and since 1990 I have been living in London. Throughout the nineties I watched my country disintegrate in the most violent fashion. As events unfolded I struggled to find some sense in what was happening, as memories of my life in Yugoslavia were distinctly pleasant. Finding this meaning was continuously eluding me over the years, and thus was becoming just another confusing question that my mind was obsessed with. Pirsig's book renewed my curiosity towards understanding universal questions, including the question of human suffering. Understanding human suffering does not take the pain away. However, seeing nature in its wholeness helps us see suffering in perspective and therefore helps us see its potential purpose. Now I wish to write in this paper about the things that have been on my mind for some time, things of a specific and general nature. I welcome any comments on Kruzenje@aol.com
I start writing, slightly nervously, this Sunday afternoon, and when I will finish I do not know. I have come to understand that "the beginning" and "the end" do not exist.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New Humanism

After the last year's events related to the bombings of Yugoslavia but also related to all events during and after the aggression, I remained a little confused with the world. To most people those events now seem like the distant past and to the people in the West they are almost completely forgotten.
The shortness of the human memory is a feature of the linear experience of life, in which one's mind is always and only focused on the next event or on the next experience. This type of infantile existence characterises the majority of the history of Western Civilisation, even though it is precisely this history that is the only source of data that can help us understand the meaning of life around us. How many times has man understood the pointlessness of wars only to start new ones with renewed enthusiasm and with improved technology for killing, as if he had not learned anything from the past?
When in June last year the bombings of Yugoslavia stopped and the victory of "Good over Evil" was declared, the mainstream Western media proclaimed the beginning of a new era which they called "The New Humanism". A new phrase entered the world's language - "The Moral War". However, I would say that not only was last year's conflict not the beginning of a new era, but that it did not represent anything qualitatively different in history. Not only did the war not represent "The New Humanism" but it represented something very dark and evil. Last year's events were not the beginning of a new era because there is nothing new in this world. Yet last year's events were different from past historical events because there are no two identical experiences.
Every military conflict comes out of a whole range of reasons that are closely intertwined. The same is in this case. The events within Yugoslavia are closely correlated with the events in the world because no system exists in isolation. However, in order to simplify matters, in this paper I will concentrate mainly on the factors outside Yugoslavia.
There are many reasons why one can conclude that the NATO's motives were not genuine and that they were not based on a genuine desire to protect the human rights of Albanians in Kosovo. I will mention only a few motives, assisted by the writings and the thorough research of Noam Chomsky.
Columbia is one of those places where there has been military conflict for years. It is a country that falls within the American sphere of interest. The US Administration has, for more than ten years, been supplying the Colombian government with military equipment, arms and military training. The official reason for this policy is an alleged struggle against the production and export (to the US) of narcotics ("The Drug War") and the fight against the Colombian Mafia. Obviously no one can deny the fact that Columbia is indeed the world's biggest producer of cocaine which mainly ends up on the streets of American cities. However, as usual, it is a little more complicated than it appears. There has been a civil war in Columbia for many years between the Colombian government and the local Marxist organisation that has 17,000 people under arms. Some sources say that the Marxists are partly financed from the profits of the drug sales. This is used by the Americans as an excuse to carry a war of proxy with them via the Colombian government. Independent sources agree that every year approximately 2,000 people die in Columbia, mainly civilians that are caught in the crossfire between factions.
In the year prior to the bombings approximately 2,000 people died in Kosovo, whilst in the preceding years that number was considerably lower. Then in February 1999 a ferocious media campaign began with the intention of convincing the Western public that the level of violence in Kosovo was not acceptable. This was regardless of the fact that at the same time there were several other conflicts in the world that were at least of the same intensity if not worse (as in the case of Columbia). Madeleine Albright said on 1 February "...this kind of behaviour (violence in Kosovo) cannot be tolerated, we cannot tolerate an ethnic cleansing at the end of the 20th century. The democratic world has to stop this evil" (Washington Post).

A similar but not identical example is the conflict in Turkey. There has been a long conflict between the Turkish authorities and the Kurdish minority. The Kurds are denied some basic human rights such as the right to be educated in their own language or to give their children Kurdish names (rights that the Albanians have traditionally enjoyed in Kosovo). The Kurds have been asking for minimal cultural autonomy and after the Turkish government refused that, military conflict ensued. Apart from the intense war in which the number of casualties is approximately at the same level as in Columbia, the Kurdish representatives still insisted on a peaceful solution. They saw their future within the borders of Turkey and not in the independent state. This is unlike the Albanians in Kosovo who have not been willing to accept anything other than full independence from Yugoslavia. The Turkish authorities continue to refuse all demands while at the same time they are supported externally (by the US) and encouraged to continue the military confrontation with the Kurds. Turkey as a NATO member continuously buys arms and military equipment from the US. In the mid nineties Turkey became the largest importer of American arms. Eighty percent of the Turkish arsenal is American. All these years "the democratic world" has watched this without any reaction. But in the case of Kosovo "the situation became unacceptable".
Another paradox is worth mentioning. Considering that Yugoslavia is not within the American sphere of influence, the only way to stop the violence would be either by military intervention or by promoting the peace process. Neither route is easy. On the other hand all that is needed to stop the conflict in Turkey is to "tell" the Turkish government to stop the aggression. In spite of that the US government continues to support the Turkish government whilst selling them arms. Then under the slogan of "war in the name of principles and values" bombs Yugoslavia including civilian targets.
Prior to the bombings peace talks were held in France. They were organised by the NATO member countries. The official document that was offered to both Yugoslav and Albanian delegates in France had some clauses that were not reported by the media during the conference. Only when the bombings started and when the conference was well in the past some media published the disputed clauses that the Yugoslavian delegates refused to sign. Today it is well known that the clauses in question were actually demanding that the Yugoslav government surrender the country's sovereignty to NATO. It is not incidental that these clauses were added by Madeleine Albright immediately after the Yugoslavian delegates were ready to sign the peace agreement. It seems that the document was written in such a way that it was completely unacceptable. In other words, it was expected or even planned that the Yugoslav delegates would refuse to sign. That refusal was later used as an official justification for the bombings.
Once the bombings started, and in the space of several days, the number of Albanian refugees that fled from Kosovo into Macedonia, Albania and Montenegro escalated at an incredible speed. This was obviously to be expected. At that time, General Clarke claimed that "whatever is happening in Kosovo (including the mass exodus of refugees) was expected". He was trying to reassure the public that NATO was prepared for any eventuality. He was right. NATO did know that the bombings would cause the mass exodus of refugees. Why did the bombings then start? Or at least why weren't provisions made for receiving the refugees?
From these examples it is clear that the motives that led NATO were not humanitarian motives but were motives of another sort. The question is: what were NATO's true motives? The answer to this question is more complex than it may seem at first but the answer to this question can bring us to an understanding of some wider issues.
The first assumption is that NATO's motives were economic in nature. However this is a very dubious argument. The Balkans are comprised of countries of very modest economic powers. These countries are at best in a transitional stage from state-run to market run economy. These economies have been severely damaged by the wars in the former Yugoslavia and by the many years of economic sanctions. The exceptions here are only Greece and Slovenia. So in this region there is not a market of consumers that could be exploited. Besides the West did not have any economic relationship with Yugoslavia for many years so it is hard to see a direct economic interest by which NATO would have been led. Even the countries that have been officially recognised by "the international community" such as Croatia or Macedonia have not received any substantial investment over the years. That suggests that the "international community" does not see the Balkans as a region that it wishes to develop through economic colonisation.
There have been wars in the last 50 years that have not been led purely for economic reasons. For instance the Vietnam War. The Americans were involved in that war for primarily ideological reasons. The two main reasons the Americans were involved was to stop the expansion of communism in South-Eastern Asia and to expand their sphere of influence.
One should understand NATO action as the continuation of a long policy which arms and trains the national armies of countries that are "obedient clients". This policy has been led in Columbia, Turkey, Salvador and in other similar countries. In spite of the negative media coverage in the last ten years, Serbia has been the last island of independence in Europe. This is because Serbia has not been under any sphere of influence. Therefore Serbia has not been "an obedient client". This, of course, does not explain the motives for the bombings but it explains the reasons for the method of intervention.
There are multiple reasons for NATO's intervention in Yugoslavia. The bombings were experienced by NATO as an opportunity to expand it's sphere of influence in Yugoslavia. In spite of Yugoslavia's small economic importance it is of enormous strategic importance. Geographically Yugoslavia is between Europe and the Middle East. This central location is crucial for NATO's strategic positioning in attempts to control Europe and oil reserves in the Middle East. For this reason there has been an American military presence in Greece, Turkey, Israel and throughout Mediterranean.
NATO experienced Serbia as a country that was not under it's control and therefore as an irritant. This is why NATO decided to punish Yugoslavia. By punishing Yugoslavia, NATO set an example for all other "disobedient clients" and the rest of the world. The world was indirectly told that whatever NATO wishes to do it can do it without being accountable. This automatically makes international agreements and organisations irrelevant. Here the message is also being sent to the potential rivals, primarily countries with nuclear arms (Russia, China, India, etc.)
The moment the threat of bombing was sent to Yugoslavia, NATO put its credibility on the line. As the most powerful military alliance in the world, NATO's credibility had to remain intact. To lose a war would not have been an acceptable option for NATO. In all this there is also an economic component. After the bombings the military industry in NATO countries will expect an increase in the state defence budget, primarily to fill in the emptied arsenal. This will further confirm American domination and monopoly in the field of high-tech arms.

Vocabulary

"Ethnic cleansing" is a phrase that, according to the media, was the Serbian contribution to the world's language. All phrases represent intellectual concepts that identify certain realities. Reality in this instance is related to the circumstances of a war and the level of brutality that an ethnic group perpetuates over another ethic group. The history of all inter-ethnic conflicts, unfortunately, includes this brutal reality to a bigger or lesser degree, and therefore cannot be an invention by a single nation or race.
One of the largest incidents of "ethnic cleansing" took place on the territory of North America through the period of several hundred years where the American Indians (Native Americans) were gradually either exterminated or "cleansed" into the reservations. Some of the first massacres over the natives started as early as the middle of the 17th century on the East Coast (New England). But, more importantly, after the American Revolution, the American Government took upon itself to organise systematic "ethnic cleansing" of the Native Americans. The American president Theodore Roosevelt explained in 1905 the "humanitarian" motives for almost complete extermination of the American Indians in the American West by saying: "The most just of all wars is the war with the barbarians."
Another phrase that has been used by the media and politicians is "international community". There is a misunderstanding as to what this phrase really means. The politicians in the West want to convince their voters that this phrase covers the whole "civilised and democratic" world. This is why it is normally used to provide an alibi or a justification for a military intervention. The jargon that is used has been tried and tested many times. In the British public this method is today considered inseparable from what is called "spin" or modelling/packaging the information. Every piece of information is modelled before presenting it to the public with the intention of controlling the public opinion. There is nothing new here but in the Blair government this approach has made presentation dominate over substance. A local commentator recently said: "Tony Blair's policies are like a bad cappuccino, a lot of foam but no coffee."
The expression "international community" in reality means primarily the United States and Great Britain. Great Britain today can almost be considered as an American satellite state. The European Union occasionally falls within this framework depending on the level of mutual agreement. During the bombings this agreement was occasionally on the brink of collapse, with known protests from some EU member states (Greece, Italy). That protest usually ended up in general powerlessness against the world super power (the US). The biggest achievement of the protest was when the French President banned the bombing of the Belgrade bridges. That made American Generals furious.
The position of Great Britain in today's postcolonial world is rather interesting. In today's Britain there is a sense of disorientation and confusion about the future. On one hand, the Imperial past is not so distant as to be forgotten but there is also an awareness that the past is in the past. This brings a sense of sentimentality for the old times, where very often the historical facts related to the centuries-old exploitation of the colonised world are conveniently forgotten.
One of the Empire's legacies is the British readiness today to fight around the world for the British interests but this time in the name of so called "peace/humanitarian" principles. British troops were present in high numbers in the Gulf War as well as in last year's bombings. To fight on foreign land whilst not really defending Britain from a direct attack is something that has always been natural in the British society. In a historical sense there is a deep antagonism towards continental Europe. The attitude towards America is diametrically opposite. There is a clear respect for American economic success. In that sense the future of this country is seen by following the American lead. Generally the trends in economics, technology and way of life come from America to Britain very quickly and before they come to continental Europe. These trends presume a social dynamism and as Britain is a country of a long and conservative tradition, here exists a conflict. The conflict is amplified by the still clear class structure that is one of the remnants of Imperial Britain. In that gap, between the past that is idealised and the future that seems uncertain and frighteningly dynamic, exists a sense of social confusion and disorientation.


AMERICA

In September '97, during my first visit to the US, I was fortunate to see part of that country that seemed at odds with what we generally associate with America. In the shadow of giant corporate skyscrapers in some cities on the East Coast it is still possible to find the remnants of settlements built by the first immigrants from Europe. The fact that they are still there is a small miracle. In a country as young as the United States, objects that are not "new" have no value as they would have in Europe. The value of objects is measured solely on the basis of their usefulness, so old objects in time lose their practical usefulness and become technologically redundant. The relationship that Americans have towards historical artefacts is a reflection of the relationship that they have towards history. It is the relationship of a consumer towards a product, a product has value only as long it is technologically current.
At the end of the 17th century a group of religious dissidents known as Quakers, who had been persecuted in England sailed across the Atlantic and landed on the East coast of America on the territory that is today Pennsylvania and Maryland. The Quakers are a Protestant faction whose way of life consisted of work, co-operation, non-violence, respect for community, and aesthetic simplicity.
While walking around the old quarters of Philadelphia, I accidentally stumbled upon a large wooden building, of modest appearance, that looked like a shed. I discovered that the building used to be a Quaker church. In the main hall there were no ornaments or symbols to which one could feel submitted. Every week in that hall a local community of Quakers would meet and make decisions. This process would be interrupted by periods of silence during which the believers would meditate. Unfortunately this deep sense of spirituality did not exist among other immigrants. Part of the lower aristocracy which was also persecuted in England in the 1690's arrived on the southern end of the East coast (today's Virginia, North and South Carolina). Very soon they started the slave trade that then spread up north all the way to Massachusetts.
Three hundred years of economic expansion, migration of the population from Europe and Asia (including slaves from Africa), ethnic cleansing of the Native Americans and "Western" philosophy of life made the United States the most powerful country in the world. In that process of growth something has continuously been dying. Whenever economic, technological or militarily progress was made something less tangible was being lost. As the economic freedom grew the Americans slowly became slaves of their own material wealth. Today America reminds me of Orson Wells' Citizen Kane. An old and wealthy man conquered the world but lost his soul.

DUALITY

Western civilisation (Europe, Post-colonial Americas and Post-colonial Australia) is primarily characterised as a culture that perceives the world in an exclusively rational way. This means that there exists nothing that cannot be experienced by our senses with or without the help of technical instruments or explained by our intellect. On one side there are objects and on the other side there are phenomena. Phenomena have none of the characteristics of objects such as colour, size, smell. The characteristics of phenomena are those that intellect can identify, such as thought, feeling, system etc. - or what we may identify as "abstract". This system of thought is so solid and developed that it is considered to be an axiom that needs no proving. The 2500 year long development of philosophy and natural sciences is rooted in the principles of analyses and dialectics. All knowledge that Western man has at his disposal and that has made possible any social, economic and technological progress is based on the "scientific method."
The foundation of everything that we today consider to be normality was laid 2500 years ago in Ancient Greece. In his desire to systematise all then available knowledge and understanding of nature Plato concluded that there is a clear division between "objects" (nature in all its forms) that are observed, and us, the observers of nature, or the "subjects". Between subjects and objects there is an unbridgeable gap. An object "sends" information about itself (size, colour, smell etc.) that a subject receives and organises intellectually in what could be called an "understanding of the observed object". After Plato, Aristotle takes over this model and systematises it further, creating thus a root of the tree that is called the "Western Civilisation". This tree is today of a gigantic size, highly developed, strong and firm. During 2500 years of growth every pore in the tree has been dutifully filled with more knowledge and more logic.
All great (Western) minds contributed to its growth. Descartes convinced us that definitely and without any doubt we exist. "I think therefore I am". When I was in high school this phrase sounded so accurate to my teenage ear. It radiated simplicity and logic. However, today I wonder what happens when we do not think, do we still exist? Also, is thinking really a proof of our existence? Perhaps something exists, but not necessarily us.
This duality system says that the observed objects are nothing but a sum of data collected by our senses and organised by our intellect, and that there can be nothing else. I am not certain of that any longer. All that our senses receive are the properties of an object, but not an object itself. The reality of an object, or the object itself always eludes our understanding. We do not perceive an object, we perceive it's properties. Then our intellect organises and "packages" these perceptions into an intellectual concept. So objects (or nature) are bound to be our mind's intellectual structures, constructed from the object's properties. All these centuries Western Science managed to completely separate subjects from objects because that is the essence of the "scientific method". A subject observes an object in a an "objective" way without "subjectivity".
Western philosophy proclaims that reality can only be experienced through the separation of objects and subjects. Anything that does not fall into either of these categories does not exist. Anything that cannot be classified as a substance or a non-substance does not exist. Western man believes that nature exists in as much it is in his interest for it to exist. For him, nature is something that has to be tamed to serve his interests. Even the Western languages are adapted to recognise this concept, every sentence has (indirectly or directly) a subject and an object.
This duality separated thought (mind) from matter. Thoughts are in a "subject" and matter is in an "object". Mind and matter and an unbridgeable gap in between. And clearly this is absurd, as mind and matter are in constant co-dependency. While I am writing this paper, my thoughts order my fingers to hit the keyboard in an organised fashion. Co-dependency exists in the other direction too. For instance, after a number of alcoholic drinks (matter), one's thoughts (mind) are not very clear any more. This is an example of matter affecting mind.
The essence of Western thinking and primarily Western science means ignoring the immeasurable as it is considered to be irrational, and therefore secondary to quantity. Rational thought is based on quantities. In fact rational thinking believes that colours are nothing but different wave lengths of light, sound and music are changes of pressure in air waves, smells are different molecular configurations. A signal comes to our senses where it is converted into electrochemical impulses and via nervous system reaches our brain, where in the end it is converted into a subjective perception. These are all phenomena that we have come to understand by being analytical. Analysis deals with quantities only. On the other hand the qualities of light, sound or smell that cannot be measured are ignored. These qualities are ignored because analyses reduces the reality of objects to their properties which are received by our senses and organised by our intellect.
This is probably why Western Civilisation always had a problem understanding immeasurable phenomena such as religion, ethics or aesthetics. Indeed, many in the West have believed that these phenomena are just results of social conditioning. Through the "subject-object" paradigm these phenomena are beyond grasp. Does it mean that reality cannot be experienced through the "subject-object" duality? Does it mean that our tree of knowledge is rotten at its root? Are Newton's Laws reality or just intellectual concepts that do not exist outside our minds? Should we not be able to experience true reality as a process that is in a continuous state of change?


REALITY

A few years ago I visited Stourhead, Wiltshire. Stourhead is a famous example of English gardens. The English garden is the biggest contribution of English culture to mankind. Most of them were built in the early 18th century, including Stourhead. The gardens were inspired by the French classicist paintings by Lorraine and Poussain. Unlike French gardens, English gardens look at first sight irregular and disorderly. The landscape is arranged in such a way that it appears natural. Every view is carefully designed. Water features are added to look as though they have always been there. And just like in Lorraine's and Poussain's paintings, architecture is carefully inserted in the landscape. Usually there is an elegant but small bridge, a modest fountain, and a humble building that is circular in plan with a small dome on top. The English call them "follies", i.e. buildings in a landscape without particular function. The architecture is in the Classical style with the intention to recreate an ideal landscape - Arcadia.
So I stand in Arcadia without words because words and thoughts would destroy this experience. Man united with Nature. Man and Nature as one. Complete peace.
Later in the car I ponder some strange thoughts. I have come across undisputed beauties so many times in my life. Sometimes it was architecture, sometimes it was a mountain river, and sometimes it was children playing in the schoolyard. And despite the undisputed beauty in front of me, I would often, preoccupied with my own thoughts, walk on without even noticing it. Sometimes I would think: "It is beautiful, and so what? What can I do with it?" Later I understood that this is how a Western man reasons, a man that is led by rational "subject-object" thinking, a man that is alienated from nature, from another man, from himself.
The real question is not what I can do with that beauty, but what that beauty can do to me. Within this question lies the possibility of a relationship. Relationships are what give meaning to our existence, while "subject-object" duality denies this possibility.
Whether objects around us truly exist or whether they are just a result of our imagination is a separate question in its own right. I am certain that neither we nor the objects exist in the way that the "subject-object" orientation (i.e. West) claims, which is as independent entities in space and time. It is clear that following this logic objects exist only as our intellectual construction made out of the objects' properties. In such case we never truly get to know what the objects are but only their properties. In the end all that there is is a pile of intellectual concepts that are not reality.
On the other hand the only possibility of experiencing reality is through establishing relationships. The quality of a relationship determines the quality of our experience of reality. Here I mean the relationship between a subject and an object, between social and individual, mental and material, etc. The basic shortcoming of Western thinking is in experiencing objects as independent parts of nature. Everything that there is, from the inorganic substances to the human intellect (as two extreme stages of the evolving Universe), exists in mutual dependency, including a mutual dependent origination. A typical Western man/woman observes the world around him/her in a distanced fashion, so that he/she can perceive its reality in the "most objective" way. By perceiving it with analytical detachment he/she sees objects in isolation from one another.
For example, when observing a chair, a Western man/woman sees an object with specific properties such as colour, texture, size, etc. The mind then categorises these properties into certain types/groups (it is a wooden object, it is part of the furniture, it's function is to be sat on, etc.) What he/she fails to observe is that the chair at that point in time is in one of many stages of continuous transitions that are mutually dependent. Before becoming a chair, a tree had to be cut, sawn, crafted and put together. At the same time a whole range of decisions had to be made which were dependent on other factors. Before that, the tree existed as inseparable part of living nature and its survival depended on a number of natural and human factors. For the tree to grow, a whole range of conditions had to be satisfied (water, sun, soil etc.) Before becoming a tree, molecules and atoms interacted and created "life". The observed chair cannot exist independently from its causes and conditions.
It is clear that there is dependency between parts and the whole. Without the parts there would not be a whole. Without the whole the concept of parts would not have any meaning. Also the parts are wholes that consist of their parts. A chair is a whole and a part at the same time. There is not a single property of a chair that would be sufficient in itself to describe it fully, so the word "chair" is only a linguistic convention.
This thinking can be applied to non-material phenomena such as thoughts and consciousness. But if we expand this understanding, we can see that everything exists in close mutual dependency. Thus every part of the whole functions in harmonious co-operation with other parts to enable the existence of the whole. Sensitivity to even the smallest change makes the systems of all kinds potentially unstable with implications for both the parts and the whole. So reality is nothing but the most complex web of dependencies. The quality or the nature of relationships (dependencies, links, connections, etc.) is what determines subjects and objects. It is not the other way around as the "subject-object" orientation claims.
Human reality is contradictory in it's nature. Man does not choose to be born and does not choose to die at the end of his life. Both events are inevitable. In the period between birth and death, man tries to overcome his alienation from nature, from other men and from himself (from his true nature). This alienation originates from man's position in nature. Man is part of nature but he also transcends nature. Unlike animals that are capable of surviving in nature from their birth (or soon after) man is unable to survive without external help. At the same time, unlike animals, man is equipped with intellect and with consciousness of himself as the highest stage of evolution. Being conscious of himself is the biggest blessing of man but also his biggest downfall. Intellect allows man to rise above the natural world that is at the lower stadium of evolution but also allows him to be aware of his separateness from nature.
According to Erich Fromm, man spends the whole of his life trying to overcome this separateness. This separateness exists not between man and Nature but also between man and the nature inside himself. Man tries to live in the way that is in his true nature. Considering that Nature functions as a system of complex dependencies, man's existence is in conflict and in disharmony with the existence of Nature that surrounds him.
The "subject-object" paradigm just increases this disharmony and alienation. In that sense, Western man tries to transcend this alienation in the way that Fromm calls regression. Regression is man's attempt to symbiotically connect with what he mistakenly (but unconsciously) experiences as nature and what consciously he experiences as so - called security. For instance, he develops symbiotic relationship with mother, father, family, nation, status, money, God, etc. This attempt lies in man's illusion that Ego (that starts with the appearance of consciousness) can be satisfied. The illusion that Ego can be satisfied is one of the central problems of Western man.


DIRECT REALITY

The relationship/connection between us and other components of the whole (the whole being the Universe) is what defines both us and other components. Relationship in this instance means more than just our visual perception. This is a relationship that our whole being establishes with other parts of nature (including other human beings). Such relationship, as far as its quality is a complex event. It consists of the part that is by its nature dynamic and the part that is by its nature static.
The static part of the relationship between us and the Universe is, in my opinion, similar to Jung's "collective memory" but in a wider evolutionary sense. Here I do not mean Darwin's evolution, but the evolution of the whole Universe. This evolution comprises several key stages of development that cover the entire history of the Universe and includes four organisational systems: inorganic, organic, social, and intellectual systems. If we take the Big Bang as the starting point of what we consider the Universe, then in the period immediately afterwards there are only inorganic systems, i.e., chemical elements and quantum forces. And then, in the successive phases of evolution, plants and animals developed from inorganic systems and society developed from organic systems and intellect developed out of society. Systems were, therefore, developing from lower quality to higher quality. This development of the Universe has arrived at the stage of such quality that it can ponder itself. Evolution of systems, and here, the evolution of the Universe, has a particular meaning in the sense that there is a pattern in relationships between various stages of development. This pattern can be understood as a universal ethical system, as I will endeavour to elaborate later.
This aspect of reality is static in the sense that it is unchangeable during the process of us experiencing reality. It is also an abstraction of the experienced reality. It would not be erroneous to state that the moments when we are free from this conditioning are truly very rare. The majority of people, most of the time observe reality through the lenses of evolutionary systems. This does not deny free will, on the contrary, free will is a part of the intellectual system.
The other part of reality is dynamic in its nature, and I would call it "direct reality". This is an experience of reality that characterises the absence of thoughts, words, or concepts and an experience that is in a constant state of change. This is also an experience that, considering that it is characterised by the absence of words, cannot be described by using words. It cannot be defined, analysed or intellectualised, it can only be experienced.
The philosophy of Buddhism and Zen Buddhism is based on the experience of direct reality. Because of the habituation to the "subject-object" orientation, the Western man generally struggles to understand those philosophies as well as the traditional Eastern civilisations.
Until the 17th century, contact between Europe and the Far East was minimal. This allowed the East (China, India, Japan) and the West to develop separately. Consequently the East was not influenced by the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle. In the West, the foundations of philosophy were duality and analysis. The Eastern philosophies had very different foundations.
Zen refers to a specific state of mind that allows us to experience reality in the present moment in all its complexity and mutual dependency. Most people in the West spend their lives doing what they think the world expects them to do. This attitude leads to the illusion that we are nothing but a sum or a collection of characteristics which define our personality. This is in the same way that Western man believes that the properties of the object represent and define the object. Because of this belief the true experience of reality continues to elude us.
Meister Eckhart is one of the few Europeans that was aware of this direct reality, as early as the 13th century. Recently I read some of his papers related to the absence of words and thoughts when meditating on God. His understanding of God is distinctly different to the conventional understanding of God by the Church. His God is not reality outside of reality of the world. His God is closer to what we would describe as the Universe. Below I quote some of his lines that are of particular beauty because of their simplicity and richness:

I never thought other than
That God is that great absence
In our lives, the empty silence
Within, the place where we go
Seeking, not in hope to
Arrive or find.
(Meister Eckhart)


SYSTEMS

As a boy there was one question that always intrigued me: What is behind the furthest star that the most sophisticated telescope can see, or behind the furthest star that there is? And the thought that this would be everything that there is, that there is nothing else, would usually make me shiver. Perhaps out of fear, a fear that the Universe is finite. My confusion was the result of the linearity of my thinking. My view of the Universe goes in a straight line with the desire to find out what is behind. I equally questioned the idea of time. Where is the beginning and what was before it?
Time is a concept that was invented by man, without man there would be no time, because there would not be anyone to think about the concept of time. There would exist only reality. For centuries man thought that time was a linear function that exists completely independent from nature, until Einstein told us differently at the beginning of the 20th century, by creating the space-time concept. The particular problem with time is the present. In a practical sense, there can only be the past, because as soon we think of the present that moment has gone and is in the past. Theoretically speaking, the present could be subdivided into an infinite number of moments, and that infinite moment would be the present. However what is very important in all this, is that past, present and future are mutually dependent, as is everything else. Without the past there would not be the present and the future, etc. The questions of "beginning" and "end" are the typical type of question that the Western man asks. And clearly those are the questions for which we still do not have satisfactory answers, perhaps because the questions are not appropriate.
It is interesting that the West is traditionally represented in a visually symbolical sense as two parallel lines, whilst the East is represented as a circle. This is not too surprising knowing that the Western understanding of space is based on Euclid's geometry and his five axioms. So the Western man wishes to know where the beginning and the end are, or in other words where the two parallel lines meet. Euclid tells us that they meet in infinity. As a result of our desire to find the infinity through linear thinking, we continuously move away from the possibility of understanding the whole.
The science of the 20th century is characterised by this effort to understand the whole, by defining a unifying theory or a range of theories that would "explain" everything. Einstein's Relativity Theory explains the phenomena related to the macro world, the world of very large spaces. On the other hand Quantum Physics explains the phenomena on a micro level, on the level of atoms. Both of these two theories are still valid and undisputed, but are also limited in their applications. The laws of Quantum Physics cannot explain the phenomena in Space, nor can the Relativity Theory be used to explain the behaviour of atoms. The last 30 years of his life Einstein spent trying to unite those two theories, without success.
One of the recent fields of mathematics and physics that developed in the last 20 or so years is Chaos Theory. It deals with entities that are in a constant state of change (so therefore they constitute systems) in all scales, from atoms to the Universe. Those systems are characterised by non-linearity and extensive complexity. Because of our fragmented perception of the world and because of their high complexity these systems appear to us "chaotic". However, it has been established that even the most chaotic systems have patterns. What exacerbates the complexity of a system is feedback of information.
The obvious example of such a system would be annual records of the human and animal populations. If starting from an empirically derived equation, i.e. X (next year)=rx(1-x), where x signifies the current population, and r signifies the annual rate of growth, and if this calculation was done every year for a number of years, then the value X(next year) would be inserted back into the equation as x in the next year's calculation. That would be feedback.
The effect of feedback is felt on the Stock Exchange, because the values of shares represent chaotic systems. Again, because of our narrow and fragmented perception, the changes on the Stock Exchange seem extremely chaotic and unpredictable. However if we were to observe these systems over a longer period of time (say 10 or 20 years), we would find that there is a clear pattern and the lack of randomness, even though the value went up and down within one week.
Chaos Theory seems to me to depict a closer and more truthful reality, whilst Newton's Laws seem to be an approximation of reality.
All chaotic systems exist in mutual dependence with other systems, but there is also mutual dependence between the parts of a system. This sensitivity is what makes change possible, change that can be either evolutionary or revolutionary in it's nature. Also this sensitivity and openness confirm that there is nothing that exists independent and isolated from its surrounding.
The purpose of this process of change through the evolution/revolution is to assert self-regulation within a system. Fragments within a system are in a continuous state of mutual dependency. This dependency is particularly complex, this makes determining clear causes and effects very hard. Our experience that A causes B, simplifies reality in a similar way that Newton's Laws simplify nature. More realistically there are many causes that produce many effects. For example, Earth with it's Moon represents a simple system that after a period of "chaotic" behaviour during the early stages of the Solar system, arrived into today's state of relative equilibrium. If a third planet entered such simple system, this state of equilibrium would be destroyed. From a very simple system we would have a much more complex system, in which it would be hard to determine what causes are for the observed effects. Still, after a period of chaotic behaviour this system of three planets would go through the process of self-regulation and again arrive at the state of equilibrium. Systems gravitate towards the state of equilibrium.
Th Universe, including Mankind, is a large, complex system of relationships, in a constant state of change that never remains the same. The elements of this system, however, remain the same, but are continuously rearranging themselves into new positions and forming new relationships.


NATURAL SYSTEMS

I have already spoken about natural systems in the discussion on Direct Reality. There are four main evolutionary natural systems: inorganic, organic, social and intellectual. Even though each of those systems came out of the chronologically previous system, each one has its laws of functioning. Physical laws (i.e. gravity) govern inorganic systems, the law of the jungle governs organic systems, the law of co-operation governs the social systems, ideas of freedom and human rights govern intellectual systems. From the analysis of the evolution of those systems and their patterns it is clear that each next system on the evolutionary ladder is more sophisticated and superior to the previous one. Superior in one crucial sense, each next system has more freedom for development.
In chaotic evolutionary systems where a level of interaction is so complex, it is not possible to determine or predict their development. Even Quantum Physics talks only of the probabilities of developing patterns. This means that those systems function through the probability of interaction. Interaction is not always of a constant quality between different objects. Because of this unevenness it is possible for evolution and development to take place. After the "Big Bang", the distribution of substance in space was uneven, which allowed gravitational forces to emerge and attract substances to one another. This produced the compression of substance to the point where nuclear reactions could start and thereafter start the emergence of stars. Without the initial unevenness, the universe would today be only an evenly distributed mixture of gases and dust.
On the other hand all systems gravitate towards equilibrium, even if to reach equilibrium a revolution is needed. Human history is an obvious example. Marx was not far from the truth when he claimed that human history is nothing but the history of the class struggle. This struggle between classes over the centuries always in the end produced social systems that offered more freedom for system development than the previous one. This in itself can be understood as the basis for a universal ethical system, independent from social conditioning. However, one must not forget the human and natural casualties in the process of this development. In the animal world these casualties are part of an evolutionary development or as Darwin called it "survival of the fittest". In the human world the tragedy of evolutionary/revolutionary victims (or as recently marketed American phrase calls it: "collateral damage") becomes even more apparent as man is conscious of himself, of the world and of his own death.
The history of man is not only a series of class struggles. History is also full of human misery and human and natural destruction. This was usually done in the name of an ideology or in the name of so called personal/national interests. I completely agree with Fromm when he claims that the West was never truly Christianised. Although the West considers itself to be Christian (in the form of various sects and denominations), the West never accepted in practice the Christian way of living. All the West did was accept the Christian Church to which it was predominantly submitted. In the last couple hundred years this submission to the Church has receded dramatically, mainly due to the development of science and the expansion of materialism.
As a Christian hero, Jesus Christ is an antithesis of a Western man. Jesus had no power, he never used force, he never wanted to rule, and he did not want to own anything. He was a hero of being, giving and sharing with others. After the failure to Christianise the West returned to its pagan values. The value of the pagan hero lies in his ability to gain and retain power, in owning and exploiting, in conquering, in greed and pride. If we look at the main values that Western "success" is based on, we shall see that they match pagan values: to be stronger than others, to be a winner/conqueror and an exploiter. Behind all these values lies the desire to satisfy human ego and thus to transcend an inner powerlessness and alienation. Two World Wars, colonisation of Africa and Asia, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and the Crusaders Wars are just some of the conflicts that were started and carried out by the Christians.
With the development of intellect, man finally separates from nature and from organic (animal) systems. Unlike the inorganic and organic systems that are in a relative state of mutual equilibrium, the social and intellectual systems are in a constant state of conflict. During most of human history society dominated over the intellect. More precisely it was the social (or class) relationships that defined reality. Social systems went through the evolutionary/revolutionary process of development, but always in the direction that allowed a higher level of freedom for development. When it exhausted itself the Ancient world with its system of slavery changed into a system that allowed the human society to survive and develop through more harmonious class relationships. However it was not only the class relationships that were changing, the position of an individual in the society was also changing towards higher levels of freedom and human rights. The development of human thought (i.e. intellect) allowed for individualism to become a key factor in today's world. Until the 19th century, individualism was a secondary force in comparison to the forces of social homogenisation. Society sometimes was identified with the state, nation, ideology or religion, and consequently wars would be led by entire societies, states or nations and wars would be fought in the name of those systems. The last such war was WW2 where the whole populations of countries were involved in the war conflict. That was particularly applicable to Germany as a fascist and a totalitarian state, in which an individual was completely suppressed by the state (social system).
During the latter half of the 20th century in Western Europe and in North America, an individual and individualism begin to occupy a central position. In that period in the West individualism fought a battle for human rights and tolerance. That has to be seen as the highest achievement of man. However, in this struggle, individualism did not achieve a harmonious relationship with the social forces. By making continuous demands for individual rights and freedom, individualism has turned into it's extreme - selfishness.
Even though society had its repressive role in the past, it still has not lost its purpose. Freedom does not mean giving an individual the right to do what he/she pleases, as is often is understood by individualism. Freedom does mean the right to do what one pleases but only if such action does not harm either an individual or a society. There is a danger that the infinite demands for more individual freedom could make the functioning of the social systems impossible. As a result, as individualism gets stronger (whilst fed with pagan values), we are witnessing the process of an internal destruction, both the destruction of individuals and a society. Today the Western societies (led by the USA) are societies of wealthy ("well fed and well clad" as Fromm would say) individuals, but also alienated and neurotic individuals. Social institutions such as family, marriage, neighbourhood, school, parenthood, etc. are slowly disappearing. In other words the social forces that used to keep communities together and that used to fight the pagan egoism. Unfortunately, despite the illusion that there cannot be too much individual freedom, in the end, it is the individual that suffers. Today 20% of Americans are on Prozac, 50% of marriages end in divorce, millions of Americans (and West Europeans) suffer from the psychosomatic disorders (obesity, anorexia, bulimia etc.), and all this while enjoying enormous material prosperity.
Last year Yugoslavia was not bombed by the American society, but by American individualism.
Starting with the president who saw himself as a pagan hero and who wanted by the end of his term to have won a war; via influential individuals in the military industry in their drive for higher profits; via generals who wanted "glory"; via politicians who wanted to win votes by wining a war.
Ultimately Yugoslavia was bombed by pilots that were completely detached from the reality of their actions. With the buzz of adrenaline they experienced it as a computer game.
The bombings participants' individualism compels them to regression.
Before the bombings, American and British governments did not consult Congress/Parliament (as representatives of respective societies). American establishment did not inform its citizens of the details of the Kosovo conflict, it did not inform its citizens of the details of the Peace negotiations, it did not even consult its citizens about NATO involvement. This means the absence of democracy, but also it signifies the power of individualism in the West.
And on it goes. The duality of our thinking will continue to distort our experience of reality. The misunderstanding of reality will deepen our alienation from nature. The alienation from nature will produce more individualism. And the wheel of inexorable change will continue to spin, as change is the only certainty that there is. Through the continuity of change the system will seek to arrive at the state of harmony, because all systems gravitate towards equilibrium through the process of self-regulation...