Lies with Long Legs

We just cannot imagine that the protagonists of “modern science” have not always been aware of the fact that their activities were based on the meticulously accumulated activities of our ancestors. And that every experiment pre-supposes the availability of reliable knowledge. Logically there cannot be any hypothesis without a thesis, just as there is no thesis without a fundament of reliable knowledge. How is it that, despite this, “modern scientists” regard only their own activities as “truly scientific”, and consequently denigrate all former scientific achievements? And this is being done in spite of the tremendous accumulation of knowledge through the ages, based on observation, perception, interpretation, evaluation, replacement and continuous critical inspection of prior assumptions in the light of real life. Not in labs!

How has it been possible for this false premise, this forgery, to be successfully marketed all over the world? An interesting question and an important one as well. Yet, we must leave this question unanswered. But we ascertain here that this caesura introduced by protagonists of “modern science” is false and problematic as well. It excludes one major field of human experience, the metaphysics. The established culture of “modern science” is even worse. Whatever goes beyond the horizon of “modern scientists”, just cannot exist and therefore does not exist. On the other hand, we know that the capacity of comprehension of the “modern scientists” depends much on prevailing market conditions.

*****

Let us go back in time to when our ancestors begin accumulating knowledge and “storing” it in their brains. As alert observers (empiricists) of their environment, they soon notice that there are occasional mistakes while activating their “brain-memory”. So, what to do? They must have tried many ways to make sure that once the knowledge is gained, it is also saved effectively for future. We can comprehend, appreciate the fact that they must have tried out various techniques of memory storage within their scope, starting with collectively practicing to improve their memory to a point of nearly flawless recall. They must have constructed mental crutches, composing realistic stories based on various areas of knowledge and referring to many events metrically versifying strings of facts for easier storage and recall, creating recognisable sound-signs and finally developed external memory storage on long-lasting materials. And, ultimately, signs become symbols, graphical representations, drawings, the alphabet, words and writings.

The variety of „media“ having different ranges and qualities handed down by our ancestors tells us about their apprehensions regarding a possible loss of acquired knowledge, accumulated by face-to-face communication, and, therefore, saved it in as many exterior-memory-storage as possible to support brain memory. They also send us the distinct message that no “exterior memory” is a substitute for “mind memory”. The concept of “signs” in writing to indicate different sounds (phonetics) is a further message for us never to forget the danger of the sound getting lost whilst using “external memories”.

There is no doubt that the invention and development of writing facilities as a medium of language are important cultural achievements. Writing has made possible the storage of accumulated knowledge outside the human brain—though never as accurately as in mind. Thus the limitations of space and time are overcome for intellectual communication. The quantity of experience and their appraisal is thus enlarged. The range of human perception and experience has been enriched. But only as an intermediate complementary to face-to-face communication.

Where there is light, there is shade. As we communicate more and more by writing, it seems, the extent of face-to-face communication is gradually on decrease. Thus the opportunities of immediate verification and correction of erroneous communication are also getting systematically reduced. We know from our daily experiences that it is often difficult to put ideas into words, though they are clear in our minds. Even more so, when they have to be written down as a communication for others. In face-to-face communication we can mutually observe the reactions and make sure that intended messages are received without distortions. In cases of doubt we choose different words, change the sentences, resort to gesticulation and repeat at times the whole process. We provide additional explanations. We end the process of exchange in mutual understanding. Face-to-face communications are far less prone to misunderstandings.

The probability of circulating a false story convincingly in a face-to-face communication is extremely low. We remember “Pinocchio” whose nose enlarged whenever he lied. While reading we have to depend upon our ability to decipher and comprehend that the meaning is clear and therefore should be easily understandable. But what happens if some false messages are relayed deliberately? Long or short, we see no noses when reading. And our impression is that we get accustomed to “long noses”. We prefer mediated (passive) communications to direct encounters. We begin to willingly accept whatever is being communicated. Soon the fictitious, the virtual world might become our home rather than the real world.

It is not our purpose to reconstruct the process how the dominance of the external memory has grown and the importance of the “mind–memory” has been diminished. We recall only the “quantum leaps” of this evolution, as already mentioned, the invention of script, printing, film, telegraphy, radio, phone, television, Internet, digitalisation. And we also think of the negative aspects of these “quantum leaps” also. They teach us that the external memory is never a copy, but only a translation of the original. And the profiles of a translation are always more blurred than copies and the profiles of copies are more indistinct than the original (except for digital copies). There is no need to emphasise that the translations from copies and the translations of translations become more and more faulty, even without conscious forgery. Just due to the nature of the matter or caused by the “malice of the object”.

We have repeatedly used the expression “quantum leap”. We withdraw this term, which has been taken from the nuclear physics, with an excuse. We had intended to indicate an “unexpectedly giant leap” in the course of a development, and not the behaviour of quanta during nuclear fission. We don’t know anything about it. But using such “terms” leaves marks; it is pretty and impressive but also a bluff and a forgery of idea, isn’t it?

Let us now turn our attention to the unexpected “giant leaps” and let us not be distracted by the “Guinness–question”: how large is large really? The leaps mentioned by us refer to the quantities and possibly to qualities of “storage rooms” and “transport carriers” of knowledge and not to a great leap forward in knowledge level. And we must admit that we don’t know anything about the jumps in knowledge. Why don’t we? This is a non-question for “modern science”. We are children of “modern science”. And the topics, which are not dealt with, are forgotten and buried sooner or later.

Now is the time to apologise for having mentioned a news agency called “Terra” earlier in this chapter. “Terra” never did exist. We admit that we played a little mischief in order to demonstrate how easily a “non existing something” can be brought into circulation in a world of virtual reality. Do we have the time to uncover lies and forgeries? Do we still have that consciousness that makes us recognise that a mountain is nothing more than a stable deposit of different layers of large stones? We must also withdraw our unintentional bluff that: It is not our aim to try to reconstruct here how the dominance of the external memory has increased at the cost of mind-memory and is still increasing. We know nothing about that as well. No research has yet been done on substitutes of mind-memory and on their consequences. This process has been marketed as the “humanisation of work”. These facilities have superior selling qualities than that of training programmes to increase the efficiency of “mind-memory”. What do we know about the functioning of our mind-memory? How far has research discovery advanced in this field? What is the extent of knowledge of neurologists, of brain researchers about the brain substance? Brain substance? Can the composition of the brain substances be analytically described and reproduced in labs? How does it function? What can it accomplish?

We cannot neglect the fact that knowledge is directly derived from perception, from discovery vis-à-vis within the immediate environment and from its analysis. The need of storage occurs only after knowledge has been acquired. But the human head as a “store” has always been there independently from our knowledge. In other words, the functioning of the mind-memory does not depend on discoveries of the bio-chemical composition of brain or on invention of “new technologies”. And language belongs to the realm of technology. The script is also a technology. “External memory” is not a discovery. It is an invented tool. A set of technologies might lead more readily to discoveries, to knowledge, but the invention of technologies is never a scientific activity. In fact, invention presupposes accumulated scientific knowledge. We think that a clear distinction between science and technology is necessary for judgement and evaluation of our realities. This distinction alone can lead us to insights into the interrelationship between science and technology. It has been important for us to realise that language, writing, printing and the Internet are mere transport facilities for accumulated knowledge. These facilities become useless when science withers, wastes away, decays and nothing-worthwhile remains to be transported. Who will gain if mere trivia is being transported hence and forth? The shooting of “grouse” on computers would then become more entertaining.

It is important to realise that mediated communication is never a substitute for face-to-face encounters. And the rapid growth of “media institutions” and “media transport”, which we have characterised as an uncontrollable “flood”, makes it impossible for us to understand, evaluate, and check the contents because there just isn’t enough time. We also miss people with whom we could discuss directly on the mediated deliveries. We cannot get rid of the impression that there is a continuous hammering to get things into our head, that the “media” themselves are the major message and not the contents they transport. The printing press, the transistor radio, the television, the Internet, the mobile phones are the messages, not “democratisation”, for example, and not the achievement of “democratic” order. We all know that this development is not a “godsend”, and by using them many people earn a lot of money, and establish their power base. How? Mainly undercover, in secrecy. Ownership is camouflaged. Profits are hidden. Can that be good? Can this be accepted?

Be it as it may, it seems to be taken for granted. Why should an individual in a democratic society become concerned about how a rich person has come to his riches? Isn’t the fiscal secret one of the most important achievements of personal freedom in a “democratic” society and protected like a sacred item? Isn’t one of the most commonly used blanket phrases: “It’s my personal business?” Doesn’t this prevent us from becoming a nation of ugly “social enviers”? Stop us from alarming the bosses and drive them out of the country to some tax paradise? Who will benefit, if they have to desert?

We, however, want to take “our rule” (Democracy) seriously and demand from our rich compatriots a precise account of their wealth. What had been the “price” for that and who paid the price ultimately? And we are not ready to accept that – day in and day out – we are brain-washed with “information” that is not checkable, not verifiable. But how can we achieve that goal? What do we have to do?

We do not know everything that could be done in order to escape the dangers of brainwashing. However, we can tell what we have undertaken and what we have learnt in this process. Only this much is given away in advance: We are becoming increasingly comfortable with this stratagem. We only took small steps in the beginning: reading. For a long time many established and scholarly scientists have convinced us through their books that the contexts are extremely complicated in a democracy – no sorry – in a “representative parliamentary democracy”, in industrialised and “modern” societies. The matters are supposed to be so complicated that we as common people cannot look through the interdependencies and are thus unable to comprehend what is happening. Does it make any sense spending our limited life span trying to understand what is happening around us and with us? Why shouldn’t we as common people just learn to trust those “super-brains”, the elite, who have been trained with great effort? This elite has developed exceptional intelligence and excellent training. It has gained total understanding and an overall view of our society, thanks to our financial aid. Amongst them there are “critical scientists” with their “critical books”. Don’t they take care of the grievances in society, and don’t they evaluate the grievances and tell us exactly what is to be done? Is it not better to trust them than trying to control them? Doesn’t it make us carefree and happy learning to trust?

The “scientists” have not convinced us. Our initial enthusiasm about the description of grievances has vanished. We are familiar with these grievances as well, and to our surprise, we know a lot more details from our own practical experiences than the “scientists” do. Why do the scholars of all colours keep themselves busy on general levels? Why are they shy of plain and straight language? And there is this wretched practice of quotations. It has not only strained our nerves, it has also made us suspicious that many scholars deal with problems, circumstances, social interdependencies about which they have not learnt from their personal encounters and experiences at all. While reading them we feel that they are rather fed with written assessments and possible experiences of scholars of past generations. We are surprised to note that those writing “scholars” were and still are more credulous than we are. They do not question their predecessors about the how and where. All they want is to make us believe that they are knowledgeable and are experts. We cannot refrain from concluding that “social scientists” have always felt comfortable with their ability of blind trust in the printed words. Their motto, if the printed word did not carry truth, it wouldn’t have been printed at all.

We cannot get rid of the impression either that many publications in “social sciences” are not based on precise observations and on their description, but on prior publications on the topic. Not all of them, but a lot of them. And how much is “a lot”? How can we estimate this? We have not come across any critical reviews of citations yet. We are confronted with quotations, only as parts of former publications supporting the “writing scholar”. Without any critical distance from the sources. Is it necessary? What would be the price? Does it not require time? Isn’t time also money? If someone like us should have doubts, why not let him check? Is there not enough “bibliographic information”? Is the “bibliography” not up to the mark? Well, we have doubts. The “bibliography” only indicates books which have eventually been consulted. A complete bibliography on the topic is never supplied! And why are certain publications excluded? How can we know? Would it be too much to ask “modern scholars” to give us exactly all this „information“? And why don’t they check the quoted texts? Is it not possible that mistakes be made while copying? Is it not possible for the quoted excerpt to be out of proper context? And, after all, anyone who approaches celebrated scholars with so much scepticism has to learn to believe. The alternative to believing is time consuming and tiring: Go to the library, search the catalogue, borrow the book, find the quotation, careful proof reading, word by word. The book might not be available; it might have to be borrowed from some other library far away.

So, in practice, we don’t know precisely, how systematically the selection of books is made. The only systematic thing in the selection is that recent publications are mostly included. Obviously in the conviction, or rather in the belief that the latest publication must have consolidated the relevant prior publications.

After this excursion into the working methods of the so-called scientists we should now turn to their books. The books are supposed to have been written for readers like us. We have not understood everything in them. But we have got the essential message. We should let them make us believe that it is more convenient to leave the thinking to “scholars” and the doing to learned “professionals”. This is confusing. If books, even the intelligent ones, are written for us, shouldn’t we then be able to understand them?. And if we understood them, why aren’t we as good as the writing elite in that field? Why should we leave the thinking to them, if we can comprehend what they write? Do they keep something back? Are there errors in our reasoning?

Then the language of many critical scholars has also strained us immensely. It is complicated, encoded, uncommon, and foreign. It is shallow with a narrow range of topics. Anyway, the message has reached us, though it has missed its goal. It has failed to make us believe that without their aid we won’t ever comprehend the complicated circumstantial contexts of a “modern liberal democratic society”. No, not because they do not have answers to our questions. No! They have simply failed to explain, how rich people become rich, how already wealthy people become wealthier and the needy majority increasingly poor. And there is so much of secrecy. On one hand almost all written documents are kept beyond our reach, documents which display the activities of our “Deputies” (Representatives) in the parliament and in the government, and on the other hand the flood of information and (hi)stories whose authenticity is doubtful. So, we have to ask questions. Always new questions. The following ones for example.

How does the elite become an elite? Are they elite by birth, or do they become elite by training? If by training, how do they get access to the centres of training? By social heritage or by acquired intelligence? How do they find topics for their diploma and doctoral thesis? How are candidates being selected for a doctoral thesis? What is the cost of a thesis? Paid by whom? Who patronises the elite? How much do they earn? Who employs them? What is the main activity of the elite—to advise their employers or enlighten the public? Are they allowed to utter their opinion in public? And even if they were permitted to do so, could they express anything publicly, which would contradict the interests of their “masters”? And are there means to educate and to enlighten the “common people”? How does it happen? Through „media“? Who are the owners of „media“? Do these owners also have specific and particular interests? Do the „media“ publish everything? Are they able and willing to do that? Do they select items? According to which criteria? And so on, and so forth.

There seem to be endless questions. In practice, we have detected that there are many different kinds of questions. In theory we all know about that. And in practice we have learnt to identify questions that lead to knowledge and questions that distract from knowledge. An eye–opening practice indeed. We have learnt gradually to put precise questions. We have frequently consulted reference books, whenever the stock of our own memory was exhausted. Later we have started to wonder, how are reference books actually compiled? Who determines the catchwords? Are there also omissions? Why? According to which criteria? Does publisher want to earn money only? Does the publisher also have his own ideas about morality and values? Does he combine these with money making? How does he know that he has listed all important catchwords? How can he be sure? Whom does he call for consultations? Researchers? Scientists? Do they also have their own ideas about moral? Would there be reference books without scientists, without scholars? Are we back to the elite?

For two reasons we have spent time on “reference sources”. Whenever we do not know something, we turn to references, get an answer and feel “informed”. We accept it. We are convinced. We do not have any alternatives. Very seldom do we ask: who has written down all that? From where and how do the authors of the texts obtain the information? Have their writings also been edited, revised, patched, shortened? Why is there more than one “source of reference”?

The second reason is even more serious. Since when had there been demands for references? How did it develop? Do “reference sources” also exclude some keywords? Isn’t it that all media“ always have limited space for publication? Isn’t there that all important cost–benefit–ratio to consider? Are there other reasons also to exclude keywords and thereby also fields of knowledge? Was the first publisher of a “reference” conscious of the fact that he was also standardising the answers to key questions? Thus ultimately standardising them too? The exemplary battle against the “references” in the “internet” is quite tough. The publishers of the printed “references” accuse the “internet” publishers that they take short cuts and shorten explanations in order to compete. We are led to believe that these criticising publishers are more concerned about our knowledge than about their profits. Have they not fought exactly in the same manner to win the market? The “war” reports should not divert our minds from the consequences of standardisation by “reference sources”. Standardisation? Standardisation or exclusion of fields of knowledge?

Who are the writers of sellable texts for the publishers? And where do they get their knowledge? Knowledge? Aren’t we back to the elite? What if they are wrong? If their sources were inadequate? If they are deliberately misleading us? What is going to happen with those excluded areas of knowledge? Is it not common knowledge that all sorts of short-lived stories are presented to us which then vanish into thin air in next to no time? The Germans may very well remember the gentlemen Kanther, Koch and Kohl and the many tricks of financing political parties in a “representative democracy” or we all may remember Viet Nam, Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo. Don’t we hear daily from the political elite and other namesakes that they are constantly “occupying” topics and “selling” ideas to us? Are they ashamed of doing this, just a little bit? Do we have even the slightest indication, in spite of the growing number of “talk shows”, that the elite in any country, elite in any field, are inhibited while they talk of “selling” ideas? Is there anything today which can not be bought?

No one will deny that after the invention of the script, after this first big leap in the area of communication, a lot of changes have taken place. There is diversity with a quantitative growth of „media“ on a high technological level. But do we also possess measuring or verification rods in order to judge, whether the variety and increased number of the „media“ do transport more „information“? Or do they deliver the same “information” in many different wrappings? We should all be able to recall also cases of “disinformation”, of misleading information, provided our memory has not been damaged already by the “freedoms” within the “information and media society”. We shall not embarrass Germans or Europeans reminding them of their illegal practices of financing political parties or of corruption. We shall not ask how often their top hundred-odd celebrities became victims of slips in their memory (black-outs) whenever their illegal activities were exposed and they were publicly asked to explain.

We may not even discuss, for example, the reaction of Roman Herzog on television while holding the high office of President of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany. As we may recall the public disclosure by the obnoxious right wing extremist Dr. Gerhard Frey, Chairman and Financier of the Neo–Nazi–Party (DVU) immediately after Professor Theodor Maunz, the most celebrated German expert in Constitutional Law, expired. Both had been clandestinely meeting every week to discuss the legal constitutional fights of DVU against the German democratic government. Roman Herzog told the reporter that he almost exploded on hearing the news. The reporter didn’t ask any further questions during that television report. Did the reporter know that Dr. Roman Herzog had been an academic assistant to the same Professor Theodor Maunz, already as a young senior law student and later became his colleague for many years? Did the reporter know that the most used commentary of the German “Grundgesetz” (Constitution) carries the names Maunz-Herzog as authors and that all constitutional experts in the Federal Republic of Germany still keep Theodor Maunz in high esteem? How many top „media“ people know that Theodor Maunz was also one of the most renowned constitutional experts in Adolf Hitler’s “Third Reich”? He contributed to the establishment of the primacy of the “Fuehrer–Prinzip” (principle of absolute leadership) overriding the Constitution. Despite all this, one of the top German reporters was content with that hypocritical reaction of Roman Herzog posing on television that he “was about to explode” on getting the news of Maunz meeting the Chairman and Financier of the Neo–Nazi–Party (DVU). Assuming that the reporter did not know much about the “Mr. Hyde” side of Dr. Maunz, shouldn’t he have at least enquired, tried to find out whether Roman Herzog was still fit to continue as the topmost Watchman of the Constitution, since he had miserably failed to detect the real political conviction of his mentor and colleague, Theodor Maunz, for so many years? Naturally no public pressure was put on Roman Herzog, the uppermost guardian and protector of the Constitution of the new German Republic. We won’t know whether there would have been public pressure against Herzog if all facts were made public. Anyway. Roman Herzog himself left this high office soon. Voluntarily. Only to become the President of the Federal Republic of Germany. No, we do not wish to raise all these issues. They are so out of date. Who would be interested in chronicles like these?

But we have to raise a few more questions in the context of „might-media-manipulation“. What is the correlation between the expansion of „media“ and the progressive decrease of our memory? Should we overlook the monotony every morning, when we see the same kind of headlines in our dailies despite the diversification of media institutions? Can we just ignore the disappointment that more media did not lead to more detailed and varied information and news? Just accept it that all newspapers, magazines, the radio and television are fed by the same agencies, same sources? But then, if all “eaters” are cutting their share from the same cake – advertisement budgets or multinational corporations – where could any alternate programmers with a different and fresh line of thinking come from? Why would anyone risk veering away from the status quo in the media? No wonder that the “Guinness-principle” holds – more rapid, more thrilling, more entertaining and better in technical quality. All that counts is the ratio of consumers. Is there a demand for complicated historical background of events? Are such (hi)stories also entertaining? And, are we not addicted to entertainment? Entertainment does not need memory. Memory only burdens. Don’t we spend enough time already on our fight to overcome the travails and tedium of daily life?

We may also not recall the “freedom of the press” during the Gulf War. We hope, we have not completely forgotten, how powerful those daily press conferences from NATO headquarters were, while the “humanitarian action in Kosovo” was on. We were to believe that the “military action” was inevitable if human civilisation was to be saved and that NATO was only dropping “bomb–carpets”, which were intelligent, sophisticated and civilised enough to distinguish between “Milosevics” and innocent Yugoslav children and women. We may still remember those press conferences from the “White House” during the “Campaign” against international terrorism in Afghanistan, another “unavoidable military attack” to destroy the evil. There too we were to believe that US bombs do not kill human beings, but only the “bin Ladens”. Well, there were a few “collateral damages”. Collateral damages? Moreover, the civilised “international community” never drops bombs. Those were only punishing “air-strikes” to restore freedom and peace. Enduring peace. And what has really been achieved? This will become evident later in Iraq or in Syria, in Somalia or in Sudan or in Iran or in North Korea. And then?

Do we still remember what happened in the “Gulf War”? Do we remember its end? Our “mind–memory” does not seem to have any capacity left for the “Gulf War”. This has apparently been deleted as trash. Today we may be prejudiced enough to think at best that the Iraqi children born after 1990 are responsible for Saddam Hussein still being in power. In spite of the “Gulf War”. How are we otherwise to understand the continuous missile and bomb attacks on Iraq by the British and US forces? Are these attacks approved by resolutions of the United Nations or by any proforma decisions of the “civilised International Community”?