T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)

Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000

— — — — —

     Foreword
     About the Creation and the created

     About the woman and the man
     About the mankind

     About the intellect
     About the religion

     About the democracy
     About the violence

     About the justice
     About the population

     About the future
     Addendum: Constitution of Cynicland

           — — — — —

PART TWO

ABOUT THE WOMAN AND THE MAN

           I. The Woman

     The woman is the best friend of the man, better, obviously, than the pet animals! This does not mean that the reverse statement is not true, but in the beginning we will speak about the woman, so that let us be content for the moment with this partial truth, and as far as in our review we shall resort to analogies with animals we may call her also female, and let us try to find some common characteristics of the female individual by the people (i.e. of the ancient Yin or Ing etc. — it depends on the language). The typical features are collective and this does not hinder the existence of many exceptions from the rules in various concrete cases, but, how it is known, the exceptions only confirm the rules (with their exceptionality), and, if you want, we may speak about masculine features by the women and vice versa (something what is mass phenomenon), but the piquant moment here is that these exceptions manifest itself most often by the homosexuals, where they are just compelled to show (although the sexual orientation is not necessary for their manifestation). Each of the two sexes in its individual developing is built on the basis of a kind of neutral or "children" sex, and after certain age comes again to it, so that it is reasonable to retain in itself features from the other sex; in this sense is useful to think that the neutral sex is such in which features from both sexes are present but there is no clear predominance of one of them, and not that it has neither masculine, nor feminine features. We will not only list these moments but will also motivate them going from the primary goal for prolongation and development of the kind (what, in fact, are two different things, to which we shall dwell later on), trying to show their unavoidable necessity (i.e. the life could not have existed otherwise when there are two extremely different types of individuals). The features which we will formulate are valid mainly in the sphere of continuation of the gender or in the sex and family, while in other activities they may not show themselves, as also be modified to their opposites, what, however, does not mean that they are not true; these characteristics make the bottom line in the actions of the man and the woman, or motivate them, though their manifestation may be suppressed by the influence of other factors. Many of the statements may sound shocking, but then this is the main "charm" of the cynicism, that in the search of truth it reveals many widespread delusions and thus unavoidably shocks the masses.

      1. As far as the main purpose of the woman is to continue the human race then she, inevitably, is the conservative element in this process, because to "conserve" is synonymous with preserve, or prolong the existence. A short linguistic consultation with the English leads us to the spread for the woman designation "birth box", and even the very name "woman" there must be simplified writing of the combination womb + man, and you know that the "b" in the first word is not read, so that it should have been written as "womman" but the second "m" has disappeared^*. Similar is also the origin of the Russian word zhenshchina (or Bulgarian shena), which comes from the Greek gyneka (γιναικα), what is related with the root gen (gene, or jin, written cin, in Arabic — well, in Turkish, but the word is Arabic) and means "spirit, idea for something", i.e. for the life. So, and conservative individual will say that the woman wants just the same worldly things — food, shelter, satisfaction from life — and this in the interest of posterity (what means for herself, because in her view she is the posterity), and should not be considered in sense that she wants for them to be exactly the same in their kind, because the principal quality of life is its diversity and changing. In other words, the woman is conservative in her goal for continuation of the gender, but not in the ways in which she performs this! So happens that the conservative female is not at all conservative in relation to the tranquility of the others around, but is directly revolutionary in her wishes — as quantitative (mainly), so also qualitative — and in this way is cause for the majority of induced by the humans disasters and cataclysms in the society. From here stems the well known phrase: cherchez la femme, or "search for the woman" (then, when there are no other reasonable causes for a given event). Similar meaning is hidden in the Biblical fable about the apple of the knowledge, where the woman is who turns to be the cause for all subsequent disasters for the humanity. Not only the Trojan war in ancient times, which according to the legends was fought for certain Helene, but also most of the wars, due to their economical causes, arise from the care for the offspring, or the birthing appliance. All aspirations for easy and wealthy life come again from the conservative woman′s understanding that exactly this is the purpose of life (not that this is not so also for many men, but they have other stimuli and quickly become bored by the easiness, while the woman may be bored only by the insufficient degree of her desires). But the most conservative quality of the women is so important that we assign to it the next point.

     [ * Let us not go into details about the exact etymology of the word "woman" because it is not only questionable, but gives also nothing useful, for via some old "wifmon" sends us to the name "wife", where the question about the hidden in the word ideas again remains, and then, if it is so, may be added that for the Slavonic ear this "wifmon" sounds nearly the same as their vime, what means — I beg your pardon — udder, what doesn′t sound more flattering for the women. ]

      2. From both sexes the feminine is the most egoistic one, because life is based on fight for supremacy of each individual over the others and against the others. The continuation of individual gender stays above the continuation of the kind, as far as this depends on the female; no such one will prefer the life of other′s children before those of her own, for example, or will admit (without battle, as it′s said) that the children of the others are better than hers, when they are really better (with the stipulation about the exceptions). If the woman had given life to thousands of children (as the queen bee, as an example), then she would not have been so egoistic and would have looked at all other′s children as at her own, i.e. she would have cared first of all about the kind, but with a pair of children she just has no other choice. Along with the egoism goes also the partiality and the lack of objectivity of the female, and this non-objectivity is raised on such height, that for it exists special term named "mother love". And this love is exactly so much unfair as the life which we live! As far as our life is a series of coincidences, or play of the genes, for which one should not be held responsible, it is also utterly unjust to the people, because they are praised and punished for things depending, not so much on themselves, as on genetically placed in them, so that if the females were not as much unjust to the foreign and biased to the own offspring, for to compensate for the hardships of life, then at least 90% of the children in the families would have lived as in asylums for homeless, because at least so much of them are ordinary middle (and even retarded and inapt) children and, hence, there are no reasons for showing of some special love to them. Surely that the men, too, are partial to their children, though this usually does not extent to injustice to the other ones and does not border with hatred to them, neither lessens the need for punishment of their children, but is based on the logic (that if they can′t teach all other′s children to something useful, then they can teach at least their own breed).
     All thoughts of the woman, looking objectively, come from coarse egoism and the conviction that she is better and more beautiful than the other women, that her children are the best, that her husband is the: cleverest, wealthiest, strongest, and so on (or at least he is obliged to be such), where this reaches to the extremity of envy and hatred to everything foreign. It may be definitely stated that one genuine woman is motivated in her actions first of all by the envy to the others and the hatred to them! If she wants something, then this is because some other one already has it and is with nothing better than her (in her own view). Even the owning of some man is for her a matter of personal pride, that she has succeeded to attract him and has not left him to some other one; the well known jealousy is mainly feminine feature (although it can be found also by men), because two men much easier would have shared one woman between them, if needed, than two women one man (it also from physiological point of view the latter is more difficult). The egoism of the woman is unequalled and this is very conservative feature, which might have had negative effect by one reasonable form of organization in the society (inasmuch as such form can exist), but it is necessary for the continuation of the kind! The only way to overcome this (if at all necessary) is the artificial extrauterine conception, which would have given opportunity for equalizing in the partiality to the children from the side of the man and the woman. Nothing surprising if this happens after a century or two, but till that moment the woman will remain the most egoistic, most malicious, most unjust, and most anarchical social individual, what is consequence of her conservatism in the life goals (as also of the absence of one very important masculine characteristic, to which we shall come by the analysis of the man). This is neither good, nor bad — it is just natural (or due to God, if you like it better so) ability of the bisexual way of life and is easily observed also by the animals, where, say: the bitch barks most of all (and bites, too), and this maliciousness is true also for the other mammals; the female of the praying mantis (an insect) devours the masculine exemplar after the fertilization in order to ensure the needed for her and posterity hormones; the feminine lasciviousness by the humans and the animals exceeds the masculine (and the sexual drive is an egoistic manifestation), et cetera.

      3. Another important feminine characteristic is her maximal nearness to the source of life, or to the ... animal, i.e. her animalistic nature. The man, too, as thinking animal, appears to be some animal, but in him, still, exists something intellectual, something from God, which is not present by the animals, while the woman is the most beastly variety of the humans, and this isn′t some quibble but long ago remarked and fixed in all religions) singularity. This explains also why the woman is more brutal, more unscrupulous, more lustful, wilder, and more primitive part of the humanity, what also is neither bad nor good, but just a necessity! If the woman does not eat up the man after copulation, like this mantis insect, for example, or does not put him in the pot after having been impregnated by him in order to secure later breast milk for the child, then this does not mean that she can not let him down and leave him when he grows old, or poor, of falls in disgrace, or after she ceases to love him, i.e. after he has fulfilled his purpose (and in the majority of cases the divorces and suites for child support nowadays are initiated by the part of the woman, not the man, and this in the era of emancipation, when the women win not less than the men). This in most cases is a normal reaction, because of the care for the posterity, but sometimes is come to the so called "instinct of the brooding hen", which in her efforts to warm the chickens under her squashes once in a while some of them. It is true that the man, too, can occasionally behave like a female, but by him this not only rarely happens, by him the very reaction has more civilized character and goes, as a rule, to some degree of indifference, where by the woman the rule is: from love — to hatred, what is the most primitive animal reaction to increasing emotional irritant (see "About the Creation"), so that the conclusions remain valid for a typical or average woman.

      4. Another feminine quality, which also is consequence or her conservatism in the continuation of the gender is her mediocrity and imperfection. The continuation of life is the most important goal in nature and it can′t be entrusted to an extraordinary individual, because nobody (even the mere God) can′t predict to what this could lead when some time passes, but then it will be too late to better the tings! The mediocrity is obligatory requirement for the birth box and this is unavoidable consequence of one well organized reproductive system. By the humans this characteristic is quite disguised (because of the intellect of the men, supposedly, who had preferred to spread some pleasing for the women fabrications and compliments), but between the animals is obvious that the male exemplar is who must be (and he is) more beautiful and attractive with something, for example: by the deer — with the antlers, by the canaries — with the song, by the peacock — with the tail, by the bulls (and the men, too) — with the strength, and so on. And now compare the woman for a longer period, say, from 15 to 75 years, with the masculine exemplar for each age — only somewhere between 15 and 25 years might be said that the woman is the more beautiful one, but this is mainly for erotic reasons, and the point is questionable, while a man looks attractive at 40, and at 50, and at 70, simply as a perfect natural creation.
     The female is usually plain and mediocre: in her appearance, and in her intellect, and in her strength, and in what else not, but this mediocrity, at the other hand, because it means " in the middle", is exactly this, what she needs for to withstand easy normal living conditions (and some extreme, too), in order to succeed to fix in the posterity the essential characteristics of those males who happen to survive, because, as by the animals, so also by the humans, the females are the most enduring exemplars. These are experimentally and statistically confirmed facts. If someone prefers to remain in delusion about the question then this is one′s own right, but this phenomenon has easy explanation based on the fact that the female is who makes the choice, i.e. she plays the active role in the continuation of gender, while the male does this, what the female wants him to do! Cynically or not but the male is the obedient (and silly, if you want) figure in the continuation of gender, while the female is the mediocre exemplar, which chooses for herself the exceptional individual (as she chooses a beautiful flower to decorate herself), and this is entirely justified requirement.
     The mediocrity of the woman expresses itself first of all in the fact that she is one imperfect or not yet finished individual (what linguistically is from the same root), meaning her physical, psychical, and intellectual features. Even the very woman feels this, when for millenniums she resorts to various means to beautify or "make up" herself (at least this is what says this English word, which is, in fact, French, to enhance, heave, add something), and this that some men, too, use makeup — well, it is explainable with their feminine qualities (especially in adolescence when the individual is not finally formed), what we touched in the beginning. The woman can′t exist without a man, because she will lack the purpose of her existence, while the man can quietly do without woman, by the procurement of vital products, as also by the filling of his time with some creative or playing activities. As far as the woman is the birth box of the man she is also his appendage and has no independent existence, i.e. she is incomplete and imperfect! But then, on the other hand, she is entirely perfect birth box, what might been paraphrased so, that: the woman is perfect in her imperfection as independent individual! And here we may not touch the man′s intellect, in order not to diminish the validity of our review also for the animals, but likewise because the human being is of those who don′t like much to use their intellect, if can do fine without it.
     Well, but to avoid the possibility the author to be accused of saying only compromising the woman things, let us say also something good (at least according to him) — one nice definition, better than this about the birth box, namely that: "the woman is the post box of the man to his posterity". In spite of the fact that the feminine anatomy has some hole (only that it is more elastic than that of the real post boxes), and her "box" is initially good sealed (for to protect it from meteorological and other conditions before use), the meaning of this sentence isn′t in the geometrical analogy, but first of all in the go-between role of the woman, because the man can′t alone send his "letter" (although he has a special "pen" to write it), as well also in her intermediate place between him and the children — intermediate in sense of intellect, but also of other abilities. Exactly this intermediate position of the woman is important for raising of the offspring, at least till the children are young, what is something that neither satisfies the searching personality of the man, nor is in accordance with his abilities. And also, genetically looked at, the man is who establishes the most important feature of the offspring — its sex — and who, most often, has dominant genes (though here, too, can be exceptions). So that the role of intermediary is necessary (when we do not multiply by budding and cloning) and certain amount of specialization is also needed, because if every human individual was bisexual then the most often intercourse would have had self-reflexive character, and this would have greatly diminished the so needful in nature diversity.

           II. The Man

     In our continuation of viewing the describing of characteristics of the masculine individual (old Yang or Jang) is reduced essentially to negation of those of the feminine, but, still, these conceptions need some elaboration.

      1. In contrast to the female, the male is first of all searching personality, which, with many risky moments, aims to ensure, not the continuation, but the evolution of the kind, i.e. its modification according to the changing of outside conditions. Taking into account that the productivity of the man is such, that even by the "conventional" way of reproduction one male exemplar can beget hundreds and thousands of children, and with artificial insemination we reach now to millions, it turns out that the necessity of men is at least hundred times less. By the animals the latter is entirely valid and there one male attends to tens or so females, where the hunters and ecologists find justified to diminish the number of males even more. In the ancient times of human history the situation might have been the same also by various savage tribes, because of the hard living conditions and the numerous battles between them, but in contemporary times in the civilized countries the polygamy is prohibited (most probably by initiative of the men, to justify the need of as much men as women), but this isn′t quite fitting for the posterity. However it may be, we shall return to this in the next section, and now let us continue with the male individual.
     The most characteristic expression of the searching male principle is his passion for game and this, in fact, is the goal in life of the man, due to what is performed not trivial continuation of gender, but evolvement. For the man everything is game or play, including the life itself! You know that in English "game" is hunting but also play, amusement, because the hunting is the game of the man, or at least it was so during many centuries of human history, until the playing machines, and later on the computer games, have been devised; in the Czech language exist the word herna, which does not mean ... male toilet, as some of you might have thought (from German Herr), but playing hall, though this is again some place for men; and in Russian the word ohota means hunting, but also strong wish, from the point of view of the man (because you have hardly seen women to go hunting). And then what is the war for the man, if not one dangerous game (or at least it was a game to the end of 18th century, more or less, when there began to disappear the difference between front and rear, due to the unrealized population density — something about what we shell speak in the essay "About the population")? And what is the career for the man, if not one interesting social game? And the share market? And how many are the women (in reproductive age, not when nobody counts them for women), who you will see to play backgammon, bridge, belote, or chess — well, exactly as many as to emphasize the exceptionality of these activities for them! And isn′t the science also a game with the secrets of nature? And other examples.

      2. Contrary to the egoism of the female here is present the evident collectivism of masculine individual, especially by the humans, where the males are those who like to gather in big groups, were it in fighting units, were on sporting events, were in clubs and cafes. The man, most often, is the one, who is more capable of unselfish acts, of gentlemanly deeds, of justice (or fair play, how it is known almost everywhere), and for whom is invented the term honour (because you very well know that for the women this word has entirely different meaning). Even on wars he kills out of necessity, not out of malice and hatred (or at least it is so in the majority of cases). This isn′t hard to be explained with the motivation for his actions, which is to reveal himself with something good before the others, with something that is valued by the others, or, at least, what is interesting for him, regardless of the needs for continuation of the kind (or of personal gain). Even when the man shows himself as egoist he does this out of collectivistic motives, in the name of the family or group to which he belongs, while the woman, even when she shows collectivism, she does this out of egoistical motives, to preserve her children. This is not an apotheosis of the man but realism. And it may be formulated even stronger sentence, namely: the woman creates love going out from hatred, while the man — hatred out of love! But there is nothing to be done — inexplicable are the ways of God, or the way to hell is strewn with good intentions, or one wants one thing, does another, and it comes out something third, because neither he has known himself, as the ancient Greek wise men have wanted, nor can change something in the genetically given to him, unless to submit to the dictate of sex, which requires that the woman preserves the kind, while the man supplements and improves it (if remains alive). This is a requirement of minimal necessary mutation in the gender, which works with the slowness of millenniums, but it, still, works.

      3. While the woman is near to the animal then the man is near to God, or the reason (if we do not use the hypothesis of God). This is direct consequence of other characteristics of the man and especially of his intellect, this underdeveloped human instinct (which is treated in the essay "About the intellect"), while by one average woman is hardly to expect a notable intellect (at least higher than the average one), because she does not need intellect in the continuation of the gender (the sex may be whatever, but not an intellectual activity!). The very manifestation of intellect, in fact, is something extraordinary and perfect (to what we shall come after a while), and it is naturally to expect for it to be owned mainly by the men; the fact that there are many bright women does not mean that this is frequent phenomenon but on the contrary, and it is explainable in the majority of cases with some other shortcomings of the given woman (most often physically), which make her to search compensation in the intellectual sphere, because clever and beautiful woman is one, hmm, colossal contradiction (at least until she is still woman in the sexual meaning of the word), and this is the reason why such women are hugely honoured (because the demand is determined by the supply)! At the same time the clever men have never been especially demanded, while the strong ones, or wealthy, or beautiful (at least till they are such) are much demanded, what has to say that the intellect between the men is an usual thing (although the situation is not entirely hopeless for the clever men, too, if they are in addition to this also, for example, wealthy). This state of things, however, is wholly justified from the point of view of the dividing of activities between the man and the woman, where the woman remains nearer to the animal, where from we have come, and the man tries to be nearer to the divine intellect, where to we, by the by, are moving.

      4. The man, not only because of the put in him features, but also because of his incessant ambition for self expression over the others, is the most perfect and exceptional of both sexes. This is, maybe, the main reason why in Christian religion (but also in the others) the image of God (or of the superior god) is always image of man, although it is more natural this to be a woman, because she creates life or gives birth (like Gea, in Greek mythology). It is true that everyone is convinced that the woman gives birth, but no religion will win supporters if its principal god is not with the image of the perfect, extraordinary and omnipotent masculine individual. This, obviously, is related with the notorious cult to the phallus, which goes back thousands of years, but could you imagine if instead of this there was one to the corresponding (it is said homological) feminine organ? Well, your author has not so gleaming fantasy and can′t envision such cult. So that, as strange as it may seem, but the people, still, have a sense of beauty and harmony! Though this, that the man is the perfect individual, does not mean that the men are perfect in every single respect, nor that this perfection is always something good (for there are perfect alcoholics, for example). Still, the rule is that the man reaches some perfection in a given area (in order to try, though unconsciously, to pass it to his posterity), while the one and only perfection of the woman is her mediocrity, as we have marked this earlier.
     But this perfection carries in itself also its consequences, because the male individuals, being more various in the set of their qualities, are also more susceptible to external factors like: unfavorable weather conditions, greater vulnerability to various diseases, including psychical, more intensive metabolism, aggravated by their bigger sizes, more risky nature of their work, in relation with that of the women, et cetera. In two words, this means that exactly the men are the weaker sex, in contrast with the widely spread delusions (again due to the men, for to flatter the women once more time), where "weak" has to be understood as an averaged characteristic of the men. At the same time the record achievements, say, in sports, sciences, arts, etc., belong all to men, i.e. to some men, while for non extremal activities the women are, definitely, the better sex, and that is why they are those who are engaged with various monotonous, unpleasing, or not requiring special mastery activities. Put it otherwise, the men are the more specialized individuals, which could bring something new in the genetic code of the kind, and that is why there are enough a few men (but many "post boxes").

      5. But there is one more substantial element by the men, which, surely, is not present by the women (and that is why we have not mentioned it there), and this is the sense of proportion! It is related with the reason, or even with the wisdom, because in our contradictory world the most important thing is to find the needed point of equilibrium, something what has been known already in Ancient Greece (and even earlier) — the slogan "Nothing excessive!". This is a kind of instinct, which has some analogue by the women — the so called "woman′s intuition", which is again on instinctive basis (but this is only similar thing, without to correspond in full with the sense of proportion, because the women, as a rule, don′t have it) — and this instinct is very important for achieving of correct, i.e. well balanced, actions (for to reach to extremes can also an imbecile). Maybe it will be interesting to explain here why the man (as a rule) has sense of proportion, and the woman has not (and that is why she is the most: lustful, cruel, and so on "most" things)? Well, the answer is directly related with the roles of both partners in the sex, where is known that the woman ... always can (say, 15-20 coituses daily, I beg your pardon, would not have caused any special difficulties), while the man — sometimes can, but sometimes can not! This, that the man may not always be in position to do it, willy-nilly, forces him (from an early age) to become used to search the right measure also in entirely different things; this does not happen consciously, but it becomes a habit, instinct, where the woman has no such internal urge and that is why she knows only to want (were this men, were it clothes, were it to be discontented by everything). And if after all stated here turns out that for the man were said chiefly good things, while for the woman — only unpleasant things — well, and what have you expected from a cynic to tell you?

           III. The Parents

     The last section is dedicated to the union between these two diametrically opposed types of individuals by the bisexual animals, or to the pair of genitors, to their mutual relations in establishing of the dynamic equilibrium between them in the interest of continuation and evolvement of the kind. In the essay "About the mankind" we explain that the society still has no nervous system, and the only strong natural link between the individuals in it is the pair of genitors (we may say matrimonial couple, but existence of religious or legal marriage is not necessary). Such pairs exist by all bisexual animals (and also there, where is some kind of organization, like by the bees, for example), but it is not necessary to understand exactly by one individual of both sexes — just that the sex cells which become inseminated (if it comes to this, of course, but this is what is supposed) are always two different, though how this situation has happened is not important. This pair, however, is the most stable unit in the human society, and this that the very word "individual" ( individuum) in Latin means "indivisible" should not mislead us to think that the smallest indivisible unit is also the smallest stable one. The questions that arise here are generally the following.

      1. Establishing of the superiority of one of the sexes, or: who "runs the show"? Let us leave aside the insects and other mammals and take the humans in focus. Most generally looked there exist two variants of ruling: of one of the sexes, or else some, as it′s said, vertical division of functions, i.e. of spheres of ruling of each of them. If there one rules, it remains also the question who exactly, and if there is vertical division then again some supervisory control over this division is necessary, so that this variant is also the more difficult for realization, requiring deciding of the question who will be the supervisor. By the classical variant of one man and one woman is excluded each other possibility for voting, or building of ruling body. Besides, the very governing is rightly to be divided in two types, namely in: strategy, or establishing of the general line, and tactics, or immediate ruling of the actions, just as in one democratic government exists body for strategic planning or determining of the requirements (the Parliament), and ruling authorities (the Government). But it, the contemporary democracy, is one absolute mess (see "About the democracy"), because the Parliament is not only strategic body but also legislative, what means that it performs tactical activities, too (the making of laws requires higher professionalism), as also the Ministries may in principle be tactical bodies, but this without the elected Ministers (which normally don′t know anything about the specific domain), so that it will be better to take as example one big company, where one group keeps the money and consequently determines its strategy, and another one executes the actual production (commerce, etc.). In this sense may be said that there is one hidden or offstage manager, as well as one who does the very ruling — and such is the case also with the matrimonial couples. The strategy here, obviously, is determined by the continuation of the gender or the kind, and the tactics — by its developing! This unambiguously makes the woman the strategist of the family, and the man — the tactician!
     Historically looked at the things, in the earlier stages of human society has existed matriarchy, but later on everywhere has been established patriarchy, what ties well with out conclusions, because at the dawn of human existence was more important to fulfill the strategy for continuation of the gender, while in later ages this was relatively easy, but to the fore has come the necessity of performing of correct tactics for improving of the human race (or gender, nation). Put it otherwise: the matriarchy has existed when the life was very difficult, while later on, when it became easier, the patriarchy has been established! As far as it is absurdity to insist that life in current times is harder than it was in primitive communal system, it is clear that now and in the near future the patriarchy will be the best way for governing of the families, but this does not mean that the woman ceases to be the strategist or the hidden ruler, or the "neck", as some say — just the tactics nowadays is more important and that is why the tactician-man comes to power. This also does not hinder the man, fulfilling in addition the role of supervisor, to select some sphere of activity in which the woman to be the ruler, say, in bringing up the offspring in young age (or the household work). And it isn′t obligatory for the governing to be unavoidably hierarchical, it is possibly that each level modifies the functions of the other level (heterarchy). The governing, anyway, is not an easy thing, so that whoever is afraid of this then he or she may not contract marriage, eventually.

      2. The next moment is the quantitative proportion between both sexes: either to be one to one, or one to many (and who is to be the one), or many to many — realistically all variants are possible (and are applied time and again), so that we shall explore them in succession.

      a) Let us begin with the classical and approved throughout the civilized world variant "one to one". This, that something is widely spread, of course, should not be criterion for its rightness and expediency (just as for many centuries in the medicine was widely applied bloodletting, were it prophylactically — with a kind of worms named leeches, were it healingly — through cutting of blood vessels, without this being at all scientifically grounded now), so that let us abstract from the accepted in the moment and investigate a but the pluses and minuses of this proposition. From the point of view of the man this is one quite good choice, because to each man is allotted one woman, and this is better than nothing! The same is true also for the woman, although she might have preferred, possibly, to have 4-5 males, but the sex is not the single moment in the continuation of gender, and then the so called "sultan′s harem" is much more unsuitable for her, so that she may put up with this situation. From the view point of the nature, or of the necessity for continuation and developing of the genus, this is one good variant, especially if combined with the possibility for divorces and with the emancipation (to which we shell come after a while). So that, on the whole, the commonly accepted variant is good enough to be used also in the future.

      b) The next variant is one man for many women, or the "sultan′s harem", which is the worst variant for the averagely taken man (i.e. if he is not a sultan, or has not enough money to buy himself ten or so women), because the peculiarity of the case is that it is not applied well with a pair of women — they will most probably scratch out their eyes, and the man will be forced to buy later other ones — while with ten or more, the women, in their wish to hate one another, become confused and by the by learn to get along one with the other, because the sultan, anyway, visits them quite rare! Most successfully this approach was applied by the biblical king Solomon, who, as they say, have had thousand wifes and concubines and still succeeded to cope with them. If one man has not enough money for women, and from here for continuation of his gender, then nobody hinders him to enroll in the army and in this way to lessen a bit the affluence of men in the country; or he is left with the homogeneous sex for consolation. But if this method is good at least for the wealthy men, then it is the most unsuitable for the women, because they are rarely used (in the old times, occasionally, an eunuch has helped a little, but this was only substitute, something like, say, the caffeine-free coffee — has similar taste but the effect is not the same). From the point of view of the continuation and developing of the gender this might have been good if it was obvious that the wealthy men are also the most endowed in genetic and other aspects, but this is not the case, so that also in this sense this variant is not acceptable. It is thoughtful some modification if in particular way (e.g. by euthanasia) is diminished the number of masculine individuals, and even better if via timely diagnosis of the sex of the future child (about the first-second month of the pregnancy) and subsequent painless abortion is maintained proportion of men to women as one to ten. If this is done randomly the nature will be more or less satisfied, the man, being very few, will remain satisfied, but the women, again, will be in the worst situation, even worse than by the harem (because there will be no eunuchs). So that, all in all, it isn′t bad that this variant is rejected by the contemporary society, because it has more drawbacks than advantages.

      c) The third variant is reciprocal to the latter and it is "harem of men", if we may name it so. For the man there is nothing good in this, though is possible to be applied the time sharing method of servicing the woman by the males — stipulated that their number and the continuation of ... her cycle are mutually prime numbers (if we use the language of mathematics — in order not to turn out that one and the same man is always the loser), but may be used also some grouping in permanently or varying groups of men. For the woman this variant is good enough, but must be mentioned that here is preferable if the group does not exceed 4-5 men, for to avoid bigger complications and bloodshed between them. From the point of view of the natural requirements, however, this is pure overuse of "planting material", and the nature likes elegant decisions! Here also is possible the modification with the decreasing of the percentage of women, what will make this method the best one for all women, but the other minuses remain. So that, on the whole, this method is the worse of all discussed till the moment and maybe that is why it is not applied nowadays, but will not arise some necessity for it in the future can′t be said definitely.

      d) The fourth variant of "many to many" has several varieties, because the one "many" may not equal the other one, but as far as this does not bring special changes in the observation we will consider equal (or almost such) quantity of men and women. Such communities exist by some religions (the Mormons, if I am not in error), so that this isn′t pure abstraction, and besides, in this way is alleviated the question of superiority, where may exist some governing body of the community. From the point of view of the man this is quite good variant, where for the continuation and developing of the gender it is the best from all. This method can be applied, for example, by two present-day families, and it isn′t that this does not happen sometimes. There exists also a variety good for a big apartment building, or for an entry in it, where the low three floors are filled by three children ages (beginning with the kindergarten), then follows the floor with the common kitchen and dining area (there may be also small booths — why not?), and above this follow modest apartments for each man or woman. In this way we come, in fact, to some modification of Plato′s Republic, where all children must have been common and property of the nation. By this "big building" variant can easily be had also guest rooms in disposition, so that the likeness to the Plato′s ideal becomes full. In this way can easily be realized at last the dream of the Frenchman, namely: going on the street to have all reasons to fondle each met child — for, who knows, it may happen to be his own? Despite the comic character of the situation there is nothing unnatural in this case, except that it is not yet accepted, but it may become reality in a pair of centuries, on the background of growing emancipation and eventual extrauterine conception in the future.
     If the main characteristics of the male and female individual change and equalize, remain in force only the requirements for developing and bettering of the kind, which come to substitute the classical form of belonging of the children to their mothers and taking care only for one′s own posterity (for the children this variant will be worse, but nothing hinders some mother to take care also for her own child, as long as she can find enough time for this). In one sufficiently developed society there are all reasons to suppose that the minimal unit (the family in the moment) will grow further, comprising greater and greater part of the society (though it may also diminish to one parent, where to we, as it looks, are moving), and in this way will create prerequisites for greater organization in it, because the goal of each system is to organize itself better.

      3. Let us at the end look also at the question of emancipation of the woman, which is one, still, misunderstood process. Originally this word means liberation or escaping of the woman (from the yoke of man) and this is the right treating, but the women are not between those who will begin to think much, and also often lose their sense of proportion (as much as they have it), so that they have no reasons to be vexed when somebody (like your author) calls them emancipatesses — for that is how correctly must be build a noun of feminine gender from the verb "emancipate" (but the point here is that the salt of the invented word in Bulgarian — "emancipatka" — is that the ending "patka" as a whole word means ... a goose, she-duck). So these Emanze (now according to the Germans), in the worst case (which they don′t dare to admit, but nevertheless think so) imagine that this movement is for establishing of superiority of the women or matriarchy, what we have shortly explained to be motivated with nothing absurdity, and in the better case understand this as equality of the woman with the man, but to look for equality where the nature has created the biggest possible difference (Yang — Yin) can enter the head only of a typical woman, because this contradicts to the common sense! It can be spoken about equality before the law, or for equal with the man position of the woman, what is one big achievement of the 20th century, although this shook vigorously various set norms in the society, but it was unavoidable, going out of the many social changes and increased standard of life throughout the world. But let us be clear that one real equal positioning of the woman with the man can at most lead to ... proving of her inequality with the man!
     Generally speaking, when we talk about equality this means also that, for example: the woman must also be subject to military service, when the man is; the man must also learn to breast-feed, or then the woman is to give it up (this latter thing now became a mass phenomenon); that the man has to learn how to give birth, when the woman does this (what, according to the radio Yerevan, has not yet happened, but the experiments still continued), or, what is easier, the woman has also to cease to do it (what is not at all a chimera with the possibility for extrauterine conception); that by divorces the children should not be given as a rule to the mother (how it is from the Roman law) but only the girls to her while the boys — to the father (if they are older than, say, three years), where the mothers pay their alimony on equal footing with the fathers; that the women must exercise male sports together with the men; and other similar things. More of these things are possible even in the moment, and some others — in the near future, but the point is that from this the women will only lose their female advantages and the pleasures of maternity, while it is very doubtful whether they will gain something more than new obligations, more difficult for them because of their not yet transformed feminine nature. So that the question here is very much like what is stated in our saying about the frog, who, on seeing that they were shoeing the oxen, also lifted her leg.
     Up till now the emancipation has led only to active inclusion of the woman in social life (it, the democracy, in principle, is one "feminine" governing, but about this in the corresponding essay) and in productivity (while earlier her work was not openly seen), as also to disintegration of the families (still not entirely but with obvious tendency in this direction), and even to more often expressed homosexuality (because when the woman does not need a man, then he also can do somehow without her), and to various paradoxes here and there, but is seems that has helped with nothing for one really relieving of the life of the woman, what should have been the goal of the activity. And in addition to all this, when equality exists (or even when there is a talk about it), it turns out that also the emotional attachment (understand, love) significantly diminishes, because it is based chiefly on differences, opposites, complementing! It is mind not the family related "philia", which is one forced by the circumstances feeling of belonging to some group, but the real sympathy, passion, love, need or desire, Greek αγαπη, and so on, which never arises between equal — for the simple reason that one wants strongly this, what one has not; it is usually related with the sex, but not always, and there, too, or at least in the classical (and till now taken for the only decent one) case, the things also reduce to "is — isn′t", "1" or "0". The equality, if it leads not to some collective feeling (and in the last times we began not to like much the collective and comradely indications), can at most lead to rivalry and struggle for superiority (what isn′t, and could never become a goal of some heterogeneous group, in order not to say family or married couple); and even in the most collective group again arises struggle for supremacy. So that, if we want to obliterate the differences between the both sexes, we shall do without the love and sympathy, too, and then even the sex will not help us (as substitute for stronger emotions), because there also exists inequality.
     Well, the situation is not utterly hopeless and may be expected (the hope sustains life) that, after the initial inebriation of excessive freedom passes, the women will succeed to feel how fare to reach and whether they gain something from their equalizing with the men, because, as it was said above, the family, still, is necessary (until the society has not proposed a better minimal unit), and also the patriarchy is the best form of ruling in it. The important thing is to realize that the interference in the "God′s work" of continuation of the kind may cause much greater disasters than the environmental pollution and here must be handled very carefully, and even better if noting at all is touched, limiting us only to relieving the painful moments in life and leaving Caesarian to Caesar, masculine to the man, and feminine to the woman.

           — — — — —

ABOUT THE MANKIND

     The mankind is the amount of people living on our planet, but whether because of annoying blunder of God, or of divine wisdom, or then of random necessity, this quantity of people is extremely divided. The people are dispersed over the Earth globe nearly so as the space dust is dispersed in the interstellar space — here and there are a bit more than in other places, there are some forces of attraction and repulsion between them, similarly to the gravitational, there is some level of organization and structuring, as in every kind of matter, there is dynamics and evolvement, but all this is wide away from enough for to may speak about an organism. The ties between the indivisible units, called individuals (individuum in Latin), are in very rudimentary state, and the people are a kind of intelligent terminals — capable of independent actions, but tied in some wireless way in the society — only that they most often work in "autonomous mode", and if in the body of some animal each organ works for itself, then this organism will incessantly give defects. And exactly this is, in fact, what our society does, beginning from the moment of "descending from the tree" and up to the end of the bloody 20th century, because the humanity, alas, has still not learned to live as a whole organism.
     It is not needed special genius to spot that the universality of the human being is a double-edged sword, on which blades we constantly cut ourselves. The universal mechanism is convenient when there are to be performed different activities, bur it is maximally ineffective in relation of each one of them! This should have been obvious and we spoke about this question in the essay "About the creation" (in the part about the human), so that one slightly more intelligent God should have found some way for predisposition of the functions of different individuals from the very moment of their birth. This predisposition should have been in some limits, allowing substitution and competition between them, but not of everyone with everyone, where in the human society only in the area of reproduction exists strict division in two classes, so that two men, for example, as much as they strengthen themselves, can′t produce offspring. Without some fixing of the functions of each individual in the society can′t exist united functioning of all of them within the community, can′t exist one organism, we can not reach perfection. And this leads us to the thought that the mankind is some pretty new thing for the nature (or God, if you like it so better) and the things are yet to be developed and bettered, forcing arising and passing in heredity of some more substantial differences between individuals (exceeding the racial and proprietary ones), which are to bring also greater harmony in the future. But let us look consequently at the: society (with its drawbacks), and the civilization (which tries to overcome them).

           I. The Society

     The society, torn apart by the selfish interests of its members, does not possess various attributes of a complete organism, and for this reason it does not differ much from any gathering of specific kind of animals — wolves, hares, fishes, locusts, etc. — or, more precisely, has the features of each one of these groups (inasmuch as the human being is universal animal). More specifically the society has not

      1. Specialization. This means that the society has not its own intrinsic differentiation of activities, by which each individual, already from the moment of his birth to know what are his specific rights and obligations and to what group he belongs, i.e. who will be in the services, who in the technical production, who in the farming, who will create and distribute art, who will rule the masses, who will be engaged in the sciences, who in the sports, and who with upbringing and education of the offspring, and so on. If we use again the same example with the sex, then there everything is precise and clear, though some differences and exceptions obviously exist, but they have no significant impact on the growth of population (what is the goal in that case). The ideal decision here supposes some classification on psycho-physiological types, where the level of belonging to each of them must be checked periodically (say, in 5 or 10 years) with tests that have justified themselves. If today this looks still in the realm of fantasy, after a century it can become a reality, at least on the basis of some more thorough statistics, similarly to the zodiacs, which, though they are mainly "black magic", in many cases are indicative, because they are an artful treatment of some inaccurate statistics fulfilled in ancient times (let us remind that the constellations not at all look like their stylized pictures, what says that not the characters are defined by the constellations, but the constellations are named so because of the characters of the born under their sign people!).
     This idea, as we see, is surely not new, and if the humankind sets itself the goal to solve it (at least with sufficient precision) then there are no principal difficulties, because now we don′t doubt that the genes, anyway, serve exactly to establish the boundaries of possibilities for developing of each individual. In this case the task is reduced to precise decoding of encoded genetic information, what would give immense perspectives for personal development. Such tests must be used before beginning of whatever education and be taken in consideration by appointing to work, but having in the beginning just recommendatory character, till we become convinced in their truthfulness during long period of time. This, naturally, would have facilitated significantly also the healthcare, as much as the prevention of crime (in which direction were made many efforts, but from this, that they have proved to be unsuccessful, does not follow that the direction is not right). The specialization of the individuals does not imminently mean differences in their appearance (because one rarely uses directly his limbs in his working activity), but in the propensity of the individual to a given type of activity. The whole subtlety is for these tests to be able to work from an early children age, if not from the uterine growth.
     Further on the society has not

      2. Organization. This means that in the human society is not clear who whom must govern. By the animals the question is easily solved applying the right of the stronger, but by the humans, because the strength has different aspects — physical, moral, economical, intellectual, and others — the things stay pretty bad and cause almost all bloodshed in the human history. There are no chances for this question to be solved in a near time, due to the benefits of the power, and, naturally, its radical decision consists only in taking away the privileges of the power and rendering it to a kind of working activity, as each other. Some beginnings of decision, however, exist, because the management is exactly science for managing (as much as it, anyway, can be observed as a science), but until the manager depends on the capital and receives additional benefits from the very power (besides his salary) he will not be real manager. One such treatment has nothing to do with the aristocratic, or racists, or other similar conceptions about the "chosen" (by God) class or nation, which are preaching about once and for all and passed by inheritance predetermined division of people in governors and governed; neither this presupposes privileges of the one group before the other. This does not contradict also to the democratic tendencies the benefits of power to be distributed by those, who do not gain directly from them (i.e. the governed to choose their rulers), but requires dividing of the power between people capable to perform this activity.
     As much as this question at the moment remains in the sphere of fantasy nothing hinder us to offer one such decision, namely: the whole tactical management, i.e. by given laws and concrete strategical goals, to be put in the "hands" of artificial intelligence, which has no reasons to be egoistically partial. In this case each member of the society will know from his birth that he (or she) is not born to rule, and then he will have nothing else left unless to listen and obey — as simple as all genius, isn′t it? In any event, though, can′t exist organism in which the question of superiority of one or another organ is not decided in advance. If we use one metaphor from the zoology can be said that the human society as a whole has practically no nervous system and resembles the jellyfish or the worm, which have some beginnings of organization, for they can move in a particular direction, but it is most often arbitrary chosen, or this is the direction of the least resistance! Different smaller groups of people, like tribes, nations, or states, have higher level of organization, can set goals and fulfill them, but the whole society, still, has not learned how to do this, by the simple reason that it lacks predetermined by its nature organization or structure. This is extremely important moment and until it finds some solution the human society (as also each other animal community) will maintain the semblance with the jellyfish, but will show nothing really human.
     And let us remind that the ruling is not necessary to be always hierarchical, there can exist also heterarchy, or dividing of the power according to the area of governing, or some alternating in the time, or common voting for various questions, or arbitrary choice using some lot, and other variants. The important thing is this to be decided once and for all in the society, and not: there have hardly flown a pair of centuries and let us make revolutions (i.e. revolt the things, or put the society with the feet above the heads; from this root comes the word revolver). The revolution is the harshest way for making changes in the society and it speaks only about the incapacity of the existing system; it gives no guaranties about the reasonability of the new order, neither proposes reasonable transition to it! The contemporary democracy mainly "throws dust in the eyes" of the people with its boasting, but it is only one temporary decision, which is not new (but from 26 centuries), and is some compromise of the classical Greek democracy with the dictatorial ruling (see "About the democracy"). The fact that we return nowadays to something from before so much time leads us to the conclusion that it has have many shortcoming, so that the question is not at all solved but stays open! Still, it is easier to be solved within a given country, where for the humanity as a whole the chaos is almost the same as it was in the time of old Babylon.
     Then the society has not also

      3. Reasonableness. It is minded that the reasonableness in the behaviour of the society, at least up till now, has been lower than the average level of the individuals that make it (what is one a priori and hard to be proven assertion, but is highly plausible), and, obviously, much less than that of its most intelligent members! In other words, we may state that the society satisfies the law for diminishing of the reasonableness, or increasing of the chaos, due to which the big amount of people takes, as a rule, the most "stupid" decision! To be added that this law depends significantly on the number of people, where such smaller group can take sometimes right decision, but asymptotically, with the increasing of community to hundreds and thousands (more so to millions), its heterogeneity leads to gradual suppression of the voice of reason, or its "noising", using technical language. If we go in the other direction, i.e. to the diminishing of group of people, we will mark also some diminishing of the reasonableness of their decisions by very small groups (of one-two persons), but this is because of the lower average level of the individuals, not because of the effect of the group. This leads us to the conclusion that exists some optimal number of individuals, who can take right decisions, and this number coincides with the, hmm, ... number of our fingers (possibly adding also the toes)! We may call this rule law of the small numbers and it is easy to be explained with the capacity of human psyche, for which reason one can get used to work good only with a small number of persons (or the better level of acquaintances we want to have, in the smaller group of people we must look for it). Anyway, this is well known and because of it most of the commissions are chosen in number of 10 – 15 persons. The society, alas, greatly exceeds this optimal number and that is why the reasonableness of its decisions is something practicably unattainable.
     If we try to find the causes for this suppressing of the reason of the masses we will reach to the root of evil, i.e. to the autonomy of the individual, who, in order to be able to show free will, must have some conviction in his decisions. But this conviction can be got, either by the way of the reason, or by the way of unjustified self-confidence (i.e. of the lack of reason), if we do not mess here the instincts (or the "call of the wild"), which exist also by the animals, and we observe here, after all, the human society. This is quite elementary and, surely, right decision from the point of view of the Creator, but if we monitor the things at the level of individuals, while at the level of the whole society this produces big problems. And really, if the more elementary people, not endowed with any special thinking abilities, were conscious of their inability to take right decisions, then they would have permanently suffered by inferiority complex, and for this reason when one can not logically justify his actions (or grasp that of the others), he simply acts how he finds it suitable and denies the logical considerations. This isn′t unjustified in the general case, because the logic of the ordinary person is often imprecise, so that even if he has always set on it, the errors wouldn′t have been rarity. In any event, though, the simpler one is, the more he defends his errors, for they are his own and he insists on them (see also "About the democracy"), and for this reason the common people have always silenced their great personalities. It seems by everything that this is one insurmountable contradiction and each solution can be only compromise one, but such solution is necessary in order to make the society to something more than a swarm of locusts, for example, because if there exists some human feature which makes him differ with something from the species of animals, this should have been the reasonableness of his behaviour, and the reasonable criterion, naturally must be the minimal level of sufferings and cruelties in human life. From the point of view of the nature this also would be reasonable, because the purpose of life is to continue the life, and if this can happen with less wastes of biological matter, then this is one more economical decision, and, hence, preferable.

           II. The Civilization

     The civilization, in its development, has incessantly strived to overcome the explained in the previous chapter "nos" in the society, i.e. the lack of specialization, organization, and reasonableness in it, which are consequences of the lack of predetermination of the individuals, and has tried and tries to bring the amount of people nearer to some complete organism (and let us say that in this chapter we will use one collective meaning of the word "civilization", i.e. all previous civilizations). This, of course, it has failed to do, were it because of the lower level of knowledge to which we have come, were it because of the difficult for solving contradictions between the society and the individual, put in each one of us. The experiments, though, continue and will continue until this proud two-footed animal, called himself intelligent, exists, because the life is one accidental experiment in the Universe, which only meaning is to see ... whether other experiments have to be made.
     So, for example, in its efforts to the whole organism, the civilization imposes the necessity of education, and this not only as way for understanding of the world, but also as means for specialization (i.e. restriction) of the individuals in order to receive more profound knowledge in a given field. The civilization imposes also the necessity of some organization in the society, which must simulate the nervous system of the organisms and force the individuals to do not only this, what they want, but also what is useful for all the people. Since ancient times, though, was known the radical method of organization, which exists also between the animals, namely: the right of the stronger, or the centralization of power in single hands, or the hierarchical form of governing; as were known also the drawbacks of this method, and that is why other forms have been sought, which are not so military. This, in fact, says the very name "civilization", what means some civil governing, with specialization and dividing of the powers, where this is possible. The civilization imposes also reasonableness in the society, which has to be, as far as this is possible, greater than the noisy reasonableness of the crowd, and to contain the experience and conclusions of the greatest minds of their time. For this purpose it discovers and spreads the religions which, using some form of delusion, succeed to make the masses to jump a bit out of their own skins and begin to feel themselves part of the entire Creation. Thanks to the civilization are developed also the arts, which propose one more intellectual occupation for the people and method for avoiding of their bare animal instincts, and likewise for beautifying of their life. There are developed also the sciences as a quintessence of human intellect, and the sports, as cult to the physical beauty and perfection, and other things.
     The civilization, generally said, is the only thing that succeeds to make the human society to something different from the aggregation of all animals of a given kind, just that it has too many shortcomings to be taken for well done! If we return to the etymology of the word we have to admit that up to this day there is not a singe really civil form of governing, because there is no one state or community where do not exist army and some forces for maintaining of internal order, which are not at all civil structures but military. In addition to this the mutual relations between the countries continue to be established from the position of strength, though this strength not always is military, but may be also economical, for example. The ideal civilization, obviously, must be one worldwide state, with its unchanging government maintaining the status quo (i.e. the stagnation), what has to be performed with sufficient dose of intellect (not necessarily human), in which state must be precise specialization of the activities according to the genetic makings of people, and which has to aim at equilibrium for all biological kinds and harmony with nonliving matter. The main efforts, though, of the contemporary democratic form of governing are not in the direction of unity of humankind, but in the direction of its fragmentation in autonomous units, combined with attempts for minimization of their confrontation, i.e. not to structuring, but to greater degree of freedom of the groups (states) and individuals, what is not movement in the right direction! This is explained with the fact that the democratic freedoms are propagated chiefly by the stronger and more developed countries, as well by the rulers in a given country, in which case they, unavoidable, defend the interests of their communities, not of the whole human society.
     After these more general observations of the civilization we will focus on some well-defined subject areas of its activity, discussing their concrete problems and eventual ways for their solving. Many of the theses may seem fantastic, from the point of view of our everyday life, but with such global problems we have no right to restrict us with current reality but must apply one more all-comprising add starting from the goal view to the nature of things. We will begin with the contemporary

      1. Medicine. It is wide away from its goal: to eliminate the sufferings of human body, proposing one moderate way of wearing or aging and revealing all his hidden talents. Such has to be the etymology of the very word, whose root in Latin is "medi", what means "middle", and has to be formed under the influence of old Greek view about the moderation in everything. Despite the fact that the contemporary medicine is wide ahead of its level from two centuries ago, for example, it, still, does not propose the most reasonable way of life, according to the characteristics of individual, of course. The main goal of medicine nowadays is based on the power of medicaments, but this power is double-edged sword, and the question is not: how to fight with the illnesses, but how to prevent them, or to make the organism to fight them alone, after we have caught them already. Most of the victories of medicine consist in this to eliminate the illnesses imposed by the civilization, or, at least, having received a wide spread by its own fault! The mass epidemics, with which we have managed to cope in the last pair of centuries, have originated somewhere in the times of Babylon, because of the unreasonable aggregation of large human masses in one place, and surely were not so widely spread at the time of the caveman, for example. The present-day AIDS also receives particular expanse in the age of mass communications and promiscuous sexual contacts (though the inter-tribal sex has had its own disadvantages). And what to say about the cardiovascular diseases and malignant tumors, which are causes for more than the half of the death cases? Earlier people have died, say, from a single cut of the finger, but today they die simply because live in the towns, not between the nature! The harmful influence of the civilization on the health of people is fully commensurable with the positive contribution of the medicine, so that, on the whole, the people still can′t live to the allowed them century life. (By the way, Russian word "chelovek", meaning man, according to the most often folk etymology was made combining the words "chelo"-forehead, which maybe is not present in contemporary Russian, but exists in the Slavonic languages, where has come from the Latin, because may be found in Italian and in the music — cello —, and the Russian is very near to the Latin in its vocabulary and grammar, plus the word "vek"-century, what will say: to each forehead a century.)
     The average life span, surely, has increased very much in the 20th century, chiefly due to the really fantastic decrease of child mortality in the civilized countries, as well also to the significant bettering of labour conditions, and these are big achievements of the medicine, which we should not ignore. At the same time, though, while the surgery cuts out one damaged organ and does not heal it or substitute, the medicine will be wide away from the goal. But the lizard can grow its torn out tail, can′t it — hence some hidden mechanisms exist also in our genes and we should be able to grow oneself new hand or foot! The same can be said also about the stomatology, which still has not learned how to make the organism to produce new tooth on the place of the sick or fallen one — when this happens once in our life it can happen also a second time! The nicotine and alcohol are well known poisons for the organism, but the medicine has still not found substitutes for them, i.e. something as harmless as them (almost not inflicting the psyche, on the contrast with wide amount of modern medicaments), but what has almost instant effect; and this effect is wide-spectrum, what means, that if we want to sleep, one cigarette (or cup of vodka) will make us drowsy, but if we have important work to do then the same dose will increase our working ability — because these are natural products which force the organism to cope alone with the situation, they don′t block its efforts, as do the greater part of medicaments! The long-living persons (over 100 years) today are hardly (in percentage) more than 10 – 20 centuries before, and they are such not because they make use of the services of medicine but regardless of it, or even in spite of it. The main merits of medicine nowadays are in the mass prolongation of the period of life of the people, but this only increases the overpopulation of the earth globe (see "About the population"), and in many cases (especially to the end of his life) one just suffers longer, what puts on the agenda the question "About the harms of the benefits".

      2. The jurisprudence, or justice, is a kind of misunderstanding of civilization, because its goal should have been making and applying of equal for all rules in order to protect the society from harmful for it elements, as well as to prevent the crime, but looking at the absurdity of contemporary justice one involuntary comes to the conclusion that the ancient monarchs, who have judged without whatever laws, in many cases have taken more justified decisions than those, which are observed in the current days legal trials. When one commits some offence or crime this is not because he does not know what is right and what not — he may not know the letter of the law, but he surely knows its spirit (otherwise, at least nowadays, the laws would have been studied even before the children have learned how to read and write) — but because he hopes to "pass between the drops", i.e. to outsmart the others, and then the jurisprudence is only "grist to this mill", thereby bestowing favours to the judicial system! If one judges personally, then he at least represents (or misrepresents) himself in result of this, and when he judges according to prepared in advance laws, then he, in fact, does not judge but just receives his salary for compliance with certain (well paid) procedure.
     It, surely, is clear why has come to this detaching of the judge from the very decision — all people are egoists (or sinners, if we use the religious terminology), and when so it is better to decide what must be the punishment before knowing the concrete offense, than to judge about the punishment only based on the given situation and personality of the offender. Logically looked at the things this is a right decision (i.e. the idea is understandable and correct), but it is simply not implemented properly in the reality, because if the judge must not be partial to the lawsuit then he must also not know who he is judging, as well as the reverse thing — the offender must not know by whom he is judged! Themis only on pictures is shown blindfolded, but have you ever seen some judge with blindfold and face mask? At most he can put on a wig because of greater vanity, but not to remain unknown. Besides, if the truth is to be searched, then it has to be independent of material benefits. But why are then allowed the paid lawyers in the lawsuits (and paid exactly by the interested part and in connection with the concrete suit)? And something more: if each concrete case can′t be included beforehand in the laws, but are provided only typical situations of offenses, while the guilt in the specific case is established during the law trial, then the decisive word must be given to some arbitrary selection of the population, not to paid officers. But even in the countries whose legislation chooses jurors for each case from the ranks of the people, they can be rejected by each of the parts, and this now isn′t arbitrary choice but a parody of it; or is searched unanimous decision (in the suits for murder in USA, for example), and this is not natural situation which leads to compulsory decision. Objectively looked, it turns out that the only positive element in the present-day jurisprudence is the conception of prosecutors as defenders of the interests of people, because there the mercantile considerations are reduced to minimum.
     At any rate, the ways for bettering of the things are clear, so that let us say first what can be done in the near future — this is the introduction of some conditionally free, i.e. paid in advance judicial insurance, in the same way as there exist medical and labour insurances, and the lawyers of both parts are to be fixed by the judicial authority by some established procedure. If the advocates-lawyers are only some kind of "translators" from the natural language to this of the laws (add + voce, in Latin, or voice in English, i.e. a kind of megaphones), and not mechanism for gaining of personal financial benefits for each of the parts (how is the situation by the civil cases in the moment), this will be wholly rightful decision (and for the criminal cases, too). The very fact, which can be confirmed by each lawyer (to say nothing about the common folk), that the suit is won by the better lawyer, means that the goal of the procedure is not establishing of the truth but the personal combat (in order to get benefits from this) of the lawyers, as also of each part in the suit. If the proposed here is not yet introduced as practice, this is only because the laws are made by jurists and they are not so silly to "cut the branch" on which are sitting! The judges, also, must be called simply chairmen of the court (or ushers, if you like), because they don′t judge themselves, but just monitor the compliance with the rules. Together with this measures in all cases where this is possible the court procedure must be simplified and substituted only with judges, but without lawyers, and even with some computerized systems (what already begins to be done in some countries) — it goes about act fines, divorce proceedings, and even financial and other civil cases at first instance. The last instance, in any event, must be some national court, where to be chosen the corresponding number (7, 11, 15, or 21, for example) of jurors from significantly big pool, but in the day of the suit and by arbitrary method, who exactly are to give their say on each point from the formulated by the chairman accusations, and the decision, which must be kept anonymous, to be taken as by voting, and/or via averaging of the votes (together with their eventual weighing when several options are present).
     The future tendency must be towards increasingly throwing away of the human from the judicial processes and using of some artificial and impartial intelligence at least at lower instances. The chairman of the law suit, if and where he is human, must be maximally separated from the parts, where they neither see themselves, nor hear, nor know one another, but communicate via some terminals in different rooms, and should even not be allowed using of their real names but of some conditional names like accused, accuser, witness_No1, and so on. In higher instances, where the decisions must be taken by arbitrary chosen jurors, they also must not be known to the parts of the suit and must remain anonymous. In especially serious cases must be provided as last instance also some computerized procedure for nation-wide voting (according to the points of the accusation) via phone-cards, or through terminal net. These are things that will be realizable everywhere after about half a century, if the civilization comes to the right decision whether the courts must remain only spectacular events for the people, from which each part, and the very judicial officers, take personal benefits, or are obliged to become instruments for impartial condemnation of anti-social actions and crime.
     The other variant there is to perform real judicial court, but without laws and punishments — for lighter infringements — something what we called "comrades′" courts under the totalitarianism (not that they did much work, because of the total penetration in them of the guiding ideas of the Party and the deformed selection of people, or the manipulated peoples opinion). Anyway, this is not some fictitious idea and can also be performed by terminals, so that the person can remain anonymous, as well as his judges. In this way we will have some variant of confession, that is used since centuries by some Churches, and, hence, is psychologically entirely justified for the offender, and what concerns the role of confessors we may be sure that there always will be enough people wanting to be included in that circle, because people are very prying (not inquisitive) and everything, that is some secret, will be interesting for them. Again no obstacles, except the willingness of the people.

      3. The management of the society is the main stone in which for millenniums the civilization stumbles, because it is clear that we can′t do without strong central government, neither without feedback from the people, but all forms have together with their advantages also their drawbacks. It is clear that must be found some compromise, because otherwise the middle point ... again is reached, but in the time, i.e. through the incessant changing of the one form with the other (something that is very similar to the muscle tremor of the old folks)! The contemporary democracy is one such compromise variant, but it has too many shortcomings, on which, though, we will not dwell here, because they are extensively discussed in the essay "About the democracy". The future management of the society will be, in any case, some form of democracy, but in it should not be excluded some dose of artificial intelligence. So, and let us go now to

      4. The education, which is one enormous acquisition of the civilization, but which has two contradictory aspects, namely: enlargement of our knowledge about the world in which we live, as well as restriction of the examination in a given narrow object area, in order of its more profound studying! This isn′t a paradox but elementary consequence of the limitation of out abilities. Let us remind you that the achieved long ago negative meaning word "scholastics" comes from Latin (and old Greek) word for school (or shkola in Russian, or Schule in German) and says just something, that can be learned at school; it is true that the first schools were in the monasteries, but the disregard to such kind of knowledge comes not at all from the positions of atheism, but from the perception about the uselessness and narrowness of many educational disciplines, and stresses that not always the "learned" is the right one. In any case, the unbiased children psyche in many cases thinks more rationally than people with some education, and the higher the education is, the more restricted and professionally deformed become they in their ability to think, while there are not at all rare the cases of some self-educated persons with broader and truthful knowledge about life. I can′t restrain myself from citing here the known aphorism of Oscar Wilde, who says that: "This, what must be learned, can′t be learned, and this, what can be learned, there is not much need to learn it!". (It is mind that this, what one wants to know — say, which ticket in a lottery to buy for to win, or which girl to marry in order to become happy, or to what party to adhere for to succeed in life, et cetera — there is no way to learn, and this, what can be learned, it is already known and, hence, it doesn′t pay to fill his head with it.) In this sense there is no danger at all (if one of you has become troubled about this) that the education will make people very clever (educated — yes, but that isn′t the same), what, for the most part, is right, because in a society must be maintained some reasonable proportion of the more intelligent, or wise men, to the more mediocre, even if with tertiary education in a given narrow area.
     This, what is learned in the school or the university in mainly some factual data allowing to the student to unite with some professional group, or with some "flock", because exactly this shows the analysis of the English word "student", which was formed from merging of stud + end, where one of the meanings of the first word is a flock specially of horses (which word is common Slavonic, stado, and Teutonic, where from is their current Stute as mare). In other words, the student is like a young horse (or mare), that has not yet learned to run together with the flock and for that reason is somewhere at its end; though the second word may be just an ending, because in the Latin he is studiosus. Or else: if we try to translate (better in Slavonic) the German studieren as "stadieren"-flocking we will not at all be in error! And this what people need is the ability to think correctly, but the thinking is one enigma and mystery for us (see "About the intellect") and we can′t grasp to the end its secrets, we only try to (chiefly via studying mathematics in school). For this reason the goal of education becomes to "pump" us with certain facts, so that to be able to understand given professional jargon, and to be used as instrument for selection according to the makings of everyone; this is the way in which must be looked at each form of education, even at the compulsory. Checking of the abilities to think, where possible, is done, and will be done, but teaching in thinking, alas, lacks, because it is not clear how to do it.

      5. The sciences are the core of the civilization, because only the knowledge can make our life more interesting and happy! They, obviously, are related with the education — via the double meaning of our knowledge, as also through the educational character of the activity of scientific workers (in order to obtain resources for their work). Still, the sciences mean getting of something new, not just applying of already known truths, where this yearning for the truth for the very truth, or as it is also said: for speculative knowledge, is one, really, divine human feature (no matter whether we admit the existence of God or deny it). Some negative moment in the sciences occur mainly during the 20th century, which moment is related with their very fast, i.e. revolutionary evolvement (because, naturally, the evolutionary movement is preferable, for the lesser number of cataclysms), but the things gradually will normalize having in mind the enormous complexity of our world, with which we inevitably collide digging more profoundly in every direction. The immense volume of knowledge begins to conflict with the creative character of scientific activity, where it remains a kind of industry, and this for its part diminishes its attractiveness, so that may be expected that the grown percentage of scientific workers will continually fall down to some reasonable level of 2-3%, what will pacify its explosive rate of evolvement.
     In all events, however, we have no rights to blame the sciences for our human shortcomings and inability to use the new given capabilities. It is normal that a child who gets for the first time knife in his hands may wound himself, so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that we "wound" ourselves with each new and epochal scientific discovery. Ultimately, the variants are two: either the humankind will recover and learn to use the new acquisition, or will become ill and perish from this world, but this will be because of innate defects of the human beings and society, not because of the very scientific discovery. It is true that the sciences are one of the most dangerous aspects of the civilization (a moment maintained by all religions), but they are also one of the most reliable ways for achieving of civilized society, so that: if we want civilization we can′t do without sciences.

      6. The industry inevitably accompanies the civilization because it provides ways for enhancing the effectiveness of human labour in every routine activity. It frees up more time from direct obligations to the society, permitting in this way happier life of the people, only that this possibility is not at all always used by those who work in the given industry, but this also is not fault of the industry but of the social order. Like everything immoderate, when is set too much on the industrial productivity, can be reached to not very positive situation, which will depersonalize human labour and turn the people to a kind of draft animals to the technique, what often happened during the 20th century. This is well known and we try to fight with it, but the temptation for easy achievements is too high to withstand it. Because of this now our food is almost entirely artificial, and our clothes, too, and the entertainments, and so on. The industry confused the whole nature because for very long time we have thought that the point is to make much noise and dust (where from comes Bulgarian phrase that "I work so that dust is raised up"; as also the very word "industry" is split in: in + dust + ry, what says "something in the dust"), and the industrial methods entered in the sciences, in the arts (if we may call so the proposed en masse by the media surrogates), in the sports, and even in the sex and pornography, and where else not. Still, we began now to realize that only the effectiveness isn′t all, and can hope that in the future will learn to use the serially produced things only as substitutes, in order to save time and money, but not as something satisfying the seeking nature of the human. Life will show whether the things will get better, or worse (before getting better).

      7. The trade and the market are very significant achievement of civilization, though some kind of exchange of goods has existed also in the primitive tribes. The establishing of precious metals as single equivalent for assessment of all results of human activity is of extraordinary importance for reducing of the multi-coordinate space of values to one and only ordinate. This is not always a good assessment, but it allows for comparison and exchange, and the introducing of invented and endowed with some value money units now facilitates the very process of exchange. The facilitating is relative, because in reality becomes necessary also the existence of intermediate market of currencies and valuables, but there is no need to discuss it because it has the same common characteristics of every market. The money are some substitute of valuables, or "hot air", "mente" as jargon in Bulgarian, but this view exists for milleniums because you know that in English "mint" is both, the herb menta-mint, and the place where the money (monetas) are made. As far as the market is the place where the very changing is performed it is naturally that it will gradually begin to dictate also what to produce (for to change it with something else). This is natural evolvement of the things, but it is not at all the most correct and reasonable decision, because it applies chaotic methods for control, and the chaos can never be good decision in the society! So that the market is one temporary decision, for lack of better one, but this does not mean that it is the right decision.
     Let us look here more precisely, proceeding from the interests of the producers and the buyers. The third group of the merchants (dealers, or brokers) is not necessary to consider for simplicity, because they, staying between the both above-mentioned groups, fulfill to each of them the role of the other one, so that they do not give anything principally new. The small producers definitely lose from the market, because is not in their possibilities to analyze and predict it; the big producers also can′t predict it exactly, but only is rough strokes (because if they could have done this then the whole trade would have been reduced to exact analysis of the data, and on the contemporary level of techniques this would have been just a combat between two computer programs, not attractive intellectual activity), but exactly this gives space for their manifestation. Inasmuch as the small producer can′t fight effectively the market his salvation is: either to unite with other brethren in misfortune, in order to gain "critical mass", where he is not so dependent on it, or then to work for some big producer (or wholesaler). But these are only ways for suppression of the market, not for its using. In other words, the market is profitable only for such producer (wholesaler), who is big enough (one out of ten or so biggest in the branch or region) to influence it!
     Similar is the situation also with the buyer — if he is small he will almost always lose, because by subsequent verification there is no way not to find that: either he could have bought the same ware cheaper, or could have bought better ware (or both), or then, if he has strived to study better the market in order not to make a mistake, he could have spared himself the time (and the nerves, too) making rough and arbitrary choice where from to by it (because in one saturated market all similar wares are more ore less equal in their prices)! Only the large buyer (company or person) may win by the market. The much touted market economy is a pure deceit, widely circulated by the large scale business, i.e. trickery for the small "fishes" (to become fry for the big ones)! The market is the most ineffective way for regulation of productivity, and it has the single advantage that is more adaptive than the centralized planning, but because the letter also has his drawbacks it turns out that each decision can be only compromise! The current compromise decision is not good, and the ideal decision is some form of unified planning of production for the first ten (for example) largest units in the branch, based on dynamical monitoring of the customer demand, but by separate structure, different from the very productive units, which must give directions, in some limits, about the quantity and assortment of production types depending of their economical indicators, defining for them marketing regions, but not excluding the needed competition between them. Not that this is easy, but this is the way in the future.

      8. The ownership, mainly over the means of production, is cardinal question, which the civilization, still, has not succeeded to solve satisfactory. It is clear that here the solution must also be compromise, because there have always been things which not everybody could own, as well as there will always be things, which each one must have, but there are many speculations on the question, so that let us also say a pair of words. The principal controversy between the capitalism and the socialism (or communism) is at all incorrectly set, because it doesn′t matter whether the ownership of production means is private or common, but whether it is personal, i.e. whether that who works owns this with what he works! From this point of view the difference between these two ways of organization in the society vanishes, because even in the developed countries (as also under different social orders, like slave or feudal ones) only about 3 to 5 percent of the people owned these means of production (but these pair of percents do not work with them).
     The ownership, from times immemorial, has served mainly as means for exercising of supremacy of some persons over others and for choosing of rulers (something what the communists name, and not without reasons, slavery of the capital), what returns us again to the shortcomings of the society, which we discussed in the first chapter. By reasonable choice of the rulers (based on personal genetic makings, suitable tests, and statistics of their personal successes) in one natural way will vanish also the question of ownership of the production means and will remain only the dividing in personal property (habitation, means for transport, etc.) and non-personal (or necessary for the society). This, however, does not mean that the non-personal property will be free or mismanaged (not owned), not only because it will be wasted, but also because one can not work well for the others (as part of the social organism) without some degree of compulsion, or exploitation! As far as this question is discussed in the essay "About the justice" (as well as also in "About the future") we will not expand here more, but will mention that society without any exploitation is simply unthinkable!

      9. The army and the police, as we already pointed out, are not civil structures, but, as far as pure things in the nature rarely happen, there is not a single period in the history of civilization when we have succeeded to do without them. It seams by all that it will continue to be so in the future, too, though the army in one worldwide state may turn to some rapid reaction force by natural disasters (and /or eventual cosmic invasions). But the police will remain, because society without whatever prohibitions is unthinkable, and, hence, there will always be people who will violate them (what, by the way, is seen by the Roman understanding about the police as derivative from the town-polis).

      10. The arts are also common characteristic of each civilization, because they propose (alternative to the religion) way for beautifying of our existence on this world, or a kind of escapism. But as far as the author is not a man of arts there is nothing left to him but to admire them (well, if these aren′t mass stuff, of course).

      11. The religion is indispensable element of civilization because the people are weak souls and will always need some delusion and support (or the needed for them "opium"). There are many things to be discussed here, but we will skip them now, for there is special essay dedicated to the religion.

      12. The media are a kind of alternative to the official religion and/or propaganda! Their power rose mainly during the 20th century, because of the possibilities for mass information, but we must always have in mind that they are means for mass manipulation of public opinion (although in interest of the very society), for the simple reason that there have to be used all methods for opposing the law for diminishing of the reasonableness in the group, about which we spoke in the beginning. (Instead of manipulation we could have used the word "insinuation" which speaks about sticking of something in whichever "sinuses" this is possible, and if we look in the Italian then there the word for teacher is insegnante, read ′inseñante′, what stay pretty near to insinuante, though this isn′t very sound etymologically, for their teacher comes from the segno-sign, but maybe this relation is made by the people.) The achieved decision here also isn′t the best, at least because the media, financed by the big business, defend, surely, its interests, and not these of the masses (but the masses not at all always realize their interests good, what is regrettable for them).

     Therefore, the civilization supplements the human society, striving to make it more humane and happy, only that it rarely succeeds in this because meets with problems by entering of the reason in action. The human society can′t, for the present, appear as a whole organism, and even less as reasonable one. But there′s nothing to be done because such is the material with which we are forced to work — the unreliable, cruel and egoistic animal, which can behave reasonable, sometimes, but not until he has used all unreasonable ways for achieving of the goal!? After we have appeared on the world, however, we just have no other alternative, except to live our live. Let us hope that each new generation will make this a bit more civilized than the previous.

           — — — — —

Сконвертировано и опубликовано на http://SamoLit.com/

Eng. № 3. B. Ten Cynical Essays

T E N C Y N I C A L E S S A Y S

(POPULAR WORLDVIEW)

Chris MYRSKI, Sofia, Bulgaria, 2000

CONTENTS

PART TWO

ABOUT THE WOMAN AND THE MAN

ABOUT THE MANKIND