Sunday, January 12, 2003

Cardinal Social Problems

Basic Problem of Civilization

Refutation of the Jensen Conclusions: Note on Curricular Corrections for Bureaucratic Work

Essay on Dangers to Basic Constitutional Rights 1984
1. Where Morality Fails, Ethics Succeeds.
2. Corporate Personality And English Common Law
3. The Dream Is Dead

Work Emory L.Warrick, Sr
Cardinal Social Problems:
Basic Social Problem of Civilization

Emory L. Warrick, Sr.

In June 1985 this writer presented a lecture on rape to a Health
Class at Valdosta State College. The entire text for the course
contained one paragraph of six short sentences on "Rape" and the
professor believed his students deserved better coverage of the
subject. Reflection resulted in the decision to present a
sociological analysis of that complex intergenderal social
relationship. The analysis encompassed discussion of the
aggressor, the victim, the aggressor's socialization (through
profiling both home and mother) and motivations, effects on the
victim, and suggestions as to how victims might ameliorate such
effects. Efforts at analysis of the aggressor's motivations
surfaced apparent meta-vectors evolving in human behavior. It
seemed possible that the psychic structure of the aggressor
could provide an isomorph for the meta-vectors.

Arguably, the constant in human history is change. The constant
concomitant of change is stress and tension. The process of
change throughout human history has been characterized by a
functional acceleration. This functional acceleration, if
graphed, has of late moved out of the relatively horizontal phase
of the graphed curve and into the relatively perpendicular phase
of such a curve. Such functional increase in the rate of change
has brought with it functional increase in levels of stress and
tension in world populations expected under those conditions.
Humans resist change; change is utterly destructive to the
unadaptable; "Future Shock" superbly describes of such effects.

The thesis of this discussion is that the basic meta-dimension of
most contemporary social problems is the INSTRUMENTAL valuation
of individuals vs the INTRINSIC valuation of the individual. It
will be argued that contemporary social turmoil arises out of an
emerging change in basic social values. This basic value change
follows from increasing educational/literacy levels creating a
shift from right-brain affective functioning to left-brain
cognitive functioning. Primacy of cognition over affect brings
about analysis of givens in social values. Basic social values
(i.e., cultural norms) are rife with inherent contradictions
resulting from ego-driven purposes of dominant social figures
running counter to the social values/norms arising out of social
needs contingent upon social conditions. Analysis exposes
untenable inherent/immanent contradictions in value systems and
cultural mores; those contradictions then become unacceptable.

The outcome of all this is a basic value shift from the
traditional tribal/catholic social valuation of the individual
valued solely as a member of a group (i.e., INSTRUMENTAL) to the
capitalist/individual/protestant social valuation of the
individual as valuable in and of oneself (i.e., INTRINSIC). The
"Doctrine of Original Sin" recognizes humans as inherently self-
centered. Humans have to learn altruism. Lenin-Marxism and all
human history illustrate this fact vividly. The meta-problem
consists in coping with this value change while avoiding the
destructive consequences of unenlightened self-interest. This
discussion extrapolates the problem to all 5 social institutions.

If one took Introductory Sociology during that period between the
elections of Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson one learned
the concept of "homeostasis" was a vital locus for theoretical
thought. Habits of synthetic/inductive theorizing integral to
modern science had not carried over into sociology, which was in
thrall to the reductionism of traditional scientific thought and
the traditional analytic-deductive scientific method. Systems
perspectives characteristic of modern science involve a multi-
variate relationship of contingency rather than the traditional
chronological linear cause/effect relationship characteristic of
traditional science. Social phenomena in flux around us were
conceived to be "seeking a state of stasis" or rest. Conflict
Sociology was a theoretical reaction to such a concept. The state
of "tension" in the flux of phenomena was conceived to be
resolving itself toward "homeostasis" was recognized, but that
state of "tension" was thought to be an un-natural state and the
causes for that state of "tension" were not very well elucidated.

The social sciences in general, and sociology in particular, have
not properly assimilated the insights and principles of Alfred
North Whitehead, Clark-Maxwell, and Lobachevsky. Theoretical
foundations of psychology as a science were formulated under the
aegis of traditional science. The inherent reductionism of these
theoretical foundations has militated toward ineffectiveness of
psychology as an applied science except as that application was
social-psychological. Purely psychological applications have
been less effective than social-psychological applications such
as group therapy, behavior modification, sensitivity groups, etc.
The search for cause and effect within reductionist frameworks
leads to a uni-variate causal perspective and can lead to failure
to take into account the Heisenberg Principle concerning the
effect of any enquiry upon itself. Only through a systems
perspective encompassing multi-variate contingency (a stochastic
perspective) can the stage be prepared for the perception of some
unifying similarity common to, and structuring, as many of those
multiple variables as possible (your controlling heuristic).

One variable having received remarkably little research attention
is behavioral outcomes contingent upon differences in functioning
of right-brain affect and of left-brain cognition. Technically
defined, a "catholic" society is an homogeneous culture where
individuals are instrumentally valued, this value deriving from
their group membership. A "protestant" society would be an
heterogeneous culture with individuals intrinsically valuable in
and of themselves, independently of other factors. Examples of
"catholic" societies would be China, England, tribal societies,
and ancient hebrews. Contemporary North America would represent
a "protestant" society. A "catholic" society would be rural; a
"protestant" society urban. Values in a "catholic" homogeneous
society are consensual and can effectively be moral in nature.
Values in a "protestant" heterogeneous society are pluralistic
and must be ethical rather than moral to be effective.

Very often the United States has functioned as a spontaneous
and extemporaneous social laboratory where changing social
conditions and social forces operated as uncontrolled experiments
yielding illuminating results. This enabled social scientists to
envision more clearly the effects of these changes when they
occur in other societies and nations. One such change involves
the functionally increasing coefficient of educational level
among the population of the United States. National Educational
Asssociation research informs us, from census data, that:

1. In 1915 only 3% of the US population had completed 3rd grade
2. In 1920 just 3% had completed 8th Grade
3. In 1940 just 3% completed 12th grade (High School Diploma)
4. In 1950 just 3% completed college (Bachelor's Degree/BA)
5. In 1960 just 6% held the Bachelor'Degree/58% held HS Diploma
6. In 1970 16% held BA and 3% held PhD (1980 data unavailable)
75% held HS Diploma

This represents a QUALITATIVE social change unlike any social
change experienced by any society in prior human history. The
consequences of this change in social conditions, both latent
and manifest, have been incalculable - future shock incarnate.

Another uncontrolled experiment in changing social conditions
came as a by-product of the increase in educational coefficient,
and as a consequence of population density increase resulting
from immigration and fecundity. In 1920 the population of these
United States was 10% urban and 90% rural. By 1970 those
proportions had reversed leaving our population at more than 90%
urban and less than 10% rural. Rise in educational level
fostered technological advance which fostered centralization of
production and services which fostered rapid urbanization.
Functional increase in population density in other societies
fostered immigration to this country which further aggrevated our
population density here. Health improvements brought on by
medical technological advances fostered by research efforts
motivated by WWII yielded fecundity of our fertile population
which further aggrevated population density in the United States.

Functional increase in population density, along with the process
of urbanization, fosters increasing contact among different
cultures. Both have contributed tremendously to heterogeneity
of urban populations. Concurrently, rising levels of education
and literacy increased usage of left-brain cognitive functioning
which has increasingly supplanted the right-brain affective
processes which were effective in shaping social relationships
prior to these social changes. Left-brain cognitive processes
are characterized by analysis and questioning of social values
and norms, and comparison of these values and norms with sensate
data and extra-cultural experience. Left-brain cognitive
processes effectively expose immanent/inherent contradictions in
value systems and institutions. Religious belief, patriotism,
and other centripetal social vectors suffer first.

In pastoral, rural, homogeneous societies there is consensus on
values. Replacements for the society (i.e., children) are
socialized into acceptance of these social values, just as
replacement parts for machines are fashioned by physical
factories. The family is a social factory producing replacements
for the social machine. Norms are behavioral expectations (e.g.,
one does not wear a tuxedo as swimwear in most circles; one does
not eat english peas with one's pocketknife). This network of
norms forms the structure of the society - the culture of the
society. Acceptance of, and familiarity with, that culture is
produced in social replacements by pressure and influence of
significant others (i.e., family) and peers (i.e., friends and
role models).

Mos are cultural values, positive or negative , perceived by the
society to be vital (in varying degrees) to the survival of the
society. Those cultural values of relatively minimal value are
social conventions. They usually involve social sanctions (e.g.,
pity or ridicule). Those cultural values of great importance
are mos (i.e., plural of more; the "value statement" of a more
being a moral). They usually involve legal or physical sanctions
(e.g., jail, fine, or beating). Those cultural values perceived
as vital to the survival of the society are called "taboos" and
are capitally sanctioned (e.g., transportation, execution,
Congressional Medal of Honor, crucifixion).

It follows that mos (morals in behavioral terms) grow out of
consensual values, which occur only in homogeneous societies.
Conscience is an affective function growing out of one's
socialization into a particular system of cultural values arising
out of a particular set of social conditions existing in a
particular society at a particular time. To speak of morality is
to speak of adherence to a particular cultural milieu in an
homogeneous society where consensual social values exist.
Something "feels right" or "feels wrong". There is no cognitive
analysis (i.e., thinking) involved. Ethical distinctions are
quite different.

Consider the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant: "So act
that if every other person in the world acted according to the
principle of your action, the world would be a better place".
The essence of our situation is that we live in a pluralistic
society. There is no ONE system of values. People have always
come to this society from every culture in the world, and value
systems (and mos) vary wildly. What is right in one culture may
be very wrong in another. This culture is not just Anglo-
Saxon/Puritan/England-West, regardless of beliefs of many people.

Humility is not a characteristic endemic to all Americans of
christian persuasion, particularly those of English descent. The
critical distinction takes account of our society as an urban,
diverse, heterogeneous, pluralistic society; homogeneous and
tribal are simply not elements characteristic of our society.
Rules, and enforcement of those rules, and control, constitute
government. Those rules, control, and enforcement are a part of
the wider system of norms, mores, taboos, and roles which
constitute culture; and which we shall analyze in terms of social
institutions. A social institution is not a building or a group
of people. Next we must define social institutions.

A social institution is a cultural value structure embracing all
values - positive, negative, and neutral - which relate to the
social interaction of a particular normative segment of one
culture. The analysis of an institution is the systematic
exposition of all the values existent within a society, and
relevant to one facet of social life. There are generally
considered to be five social institutions in our culture; (1)
economic, (2) political, (3) educational, (4) religious, and (5)
marriage and the family. The economic institution deals with the
relationship of exchange and productivity in three dimensions:
(1) individual to individual; (2) individual to group, or vice
versa; and (3) group to group. Exchange and productivity
relations are based upon the investment of human time and of
human vitality where the value created is directed toward others
than one's significant others, or peer group. The political
institution deals with power and control relationships in the
same three dimensions as above and directed again toward others
than one's primary group, significant others, or peer group.

The educational institution deals with the mechanism of the (or
any) social group through which members of the society are shaped
to fit the social mechanism (or social structure) of the society,
and where these "social replacements" are supposed to be fitted
and prepared to cope with social change. As the social group
becomes less sedentary and stable, education becomes more
necessary for group survival. Non-religious education tends to
be more left-brain oriented; more analytic, extrapolative,
synthetic, and objective. The religious institution deals with
the relationship of the human to the Divine; the finite to the
Infinite; the tangible to the Transcendent; the manifestation to
the Ideal; religion tends, almost exclusively, to be right-brain
oriented and to deal with feeling rather than thought; to inspire
acceptance of givens on the basis of feelings, rather than to
inspire analysis on the basis of cognitive questioning. Non-
religious education becomes a vital corrective because the God-
concept of the believer structures all relations the believer has
with what is external to that believer; other individuals, the
believer's own or other groups, and the totality of the universe.
Affect, unstructured and uncontrolled by cognition, tends toward
destructive excess, and is the most potentially destructive force
in the universe.

The institution of marriage and the family structures the social
mechanism through which replacements for society are
manufactured; through which social replacements are created and
shaped so as to fit the social structure, and to perpetuate the
group. It is through this mechanism that the social values,
norms (i.e., behavioral expectations), culture, thought patterns,
language usage, social roles, and patterns of intergenderal
(i.e., sexual) relations are transmitted, and absorbed by the new
recruits. This mechanism functions through relationships on the
primary, as opposed to the secondary, level. One relates here to
significant, as opposed to generalized, others; to primary and
peer individuals and groups. All these institutions, these
systems of values, are inextricably intertwined in such a way
that their combination forms an interrelated system where change
in any one institution results in corresponding change in all the
other institutions. Any adjustment in one institution results in
corresponding adjustment throughout the system.

A systematic interconnection - a systematic interaction - bonds
the entire system so that all institutions are integrally
involved. The total system controls and regulates the disposal
of the production goods of our society. The economic institution
has one kind of effect, the religious another, and the
educational another. The religious institution in western
culture has been powerfully influenced by the Judeo-Christian
values, particularly as those values relate to females. Those
values relating to females owe tremendously more to affect than
to cognition. The major mistake made by Mohammad Reza Pahlevi
Shahanshah was the provision of educational opportunity to
females - any change in the status of women brings down the

Certainly it is possible to take the view that the crucial point
of the Old Covenant comes when Abraham and Lot arrive at the
Plains of Jordan after Abraham has realized that their respective
entourages have grown too large and unwieldy to meld together.
Abraham offers to Lot the first choice of options and, encouraged
by his wife, Lot chooses the city life of Sodom and Gomorrah.
Abraham departs for the mountains of Palestine to become a
pastoral patriarch. The religions of Sodom and Gomorrah were
Baals (i.e., fertility cults) worshipping women as divine beings,
and equating their fertility with the fertility of the earth.
Abraham's reaction to this turn of events was to define women as
"chattel property" and "brood-stock", though it was not expressed
in those precise terms. This definition has permeated all the
religions espoused by all the physical and spiritual descendants
of Abraham, including the Judaic, Islamic, and Judeo-Christian

This definition of women meshed perfectly with the religious
development of the Hebrews. During one of the many Hebrew
sojurns in Egypt one of the pivotal authors of the Pentateuch
seems to have come in contact with the ideas of Ikhnaton
(Amenhotep IV, 1379 - 1362 B. C.), c. the eighteenth generation
of the Ptolemaic Dynasty (as was Ikhnaton's wife Nefertiti).
Ikhnaton abandoned the Theban god, Amon, and accepted the Aton.
The Aton, the Sun God, was above all gods, and under Ikhnaton the
term gods was abandoned in favor of God, a monotheistic concept.
The rays of Aton fell upon noble, commoner, slave, Egyptian, and
Asian alike. The personal relationship between the Aton and the
royal couple was emphasized, and the Aton was depicted as a
golden orb shedding rays of life upon the royal couple, each ray
ending in a tiny hand proffering the ANKH, the sign of life, to
the royal pair.

With the concept of monotheism arising in Egypt, and spreading
throughout the Semitic peoples into virtually every society in
the world, a rationale had been found for fixing the status of
women and other inferior beings. The systems of values - the
segments of culture - denominated "social institutions" had not
matured into their contemporary complexity. Cultural homogeneity
and lack of written language retarded the educational process so
as to preclude serious analysis of institutional contradictions
for millenia. Low population density and transportation
difficulty militated toward maintenance of homogeneity and
consequent predominately right-brain functioning. One poisonous
institutional fruit emerging within this analytic vacuum was the
"Divine Right of Rule". The "One God" determined caste.

Over millenia the ethnocentricity, greed, and ambition of
ordained establishments of various social institutions, both
collectively and individually, led them to take advantage of
their positions of power in such ways as to build into the
systems deep set contradictions. So long as the individual
cultures were homogeneous and protected from extra-cultural
contact by low population density and difficulty of
transportation and communication the uncritical affective
functioning of the right-brain was sufficient, through
conscience, to conduct social relationships within the culture.
Through the millenia trade, population pressure, functionally
improving transportation and communication technology, rapidly
rising levels of education, and urbanization fostered cultural
heterogeneity within the same society, and radically increased
left-brain cognitive functioning arising out of these changing
social conditions, created individual analysis of these cultural
values. With this questioning and analysis the institutional
fabric of society has undergone great stress. The ethnocentric
contradictions built into the system have become apparent, and
are no longer accepted uncritically. It is no longer possible to
relate within the ancient patterns, particularly as regards
caste, class, race, or gender.

Each of the social institutions has always embodied a single
meta-problem from which all other social problems have
hierarchically descended. The intense social analysis consequent
upon increased left-brain cognition has fostered the conceptual
clarification of these meta-problems. The social development of
this world, and the peaceful growth and perpetuation of the
world's societies, depend upon social and governmental success in
finding proper answers to these problems. Those institutional
problems are:


POLITICAL Balance between Individual Liberties and
the Commonweal

ECONOMIC The Allocation of Surplus Value

EDUCATION Training vs. Education
Analysis and Questioning of EVERYTHING
Right-Brain Affect vs Left-Brain

MARRIAGE AND FAMILY Purpose and/or Use of Sex for Procreation
vs. Recreation

RELIGION Transcendence vs. Immanence
Form vs. Essence/Substance
Systematic Theology vs. Process Theology

It should be possible better to understand and analyze
contemporary social turmoil arising in consequence of these
emerging social changes through use of this problematic
framework. The institutional bases of these problems simply
provide differing perspectives on the unique meta-dimension of
all the problems.

The basic problem of all leaders and governments has always been
the most functional proportion of individual liberties, both
economic and behavioral, to be balanced against the commonweal.
So long as the society was homogeneous/catholic the problem was
muted by the instrumental valuation of individuals. The "One God"
created and ordained the caste of people and the power of the
group overwhelmed personal preferences. One usually did not have
extra-cultural models to provoke dissatisfaction, and the power
of social control exercised by social consensus (i.e., George
Herbert Mead's "Generalized Other"), along with fear of rejection
by the group, operated to maintain acceptance of value
homogeneity. The occasional deviant who questioned the system's
value was ignored, conformed, or eliminated. Rising educational
level and extra-cultural contact brought emphasis upon this
issue, and demand for more liberty; now the problem is universal
and crucial.

Karl Marx seems to have been the first clearly to explicate the
concept of surplus value. When one subtracts from the price of
the finished product the cost of raw materials, transportation,
labor, and pro-rata unit allocation of means of manufacturing
total cost, what is left is surplus value. Urbanization,
technological improvement and innovation, centralization of
production, and infrastructural needs of increasingly complex
societies have severely aggrevated the social problem of the
allocation of surplus value. In the more simple rural milieu
this problem was not so pressing because the strength of family
ties (the marriage/family social institution) provided succor for
most of those in material or emotional need. A detour into
history should be valuable at this point. The problem of
surplus value and its allocation did not emerge full blown,
instantaneously, from the brow of Zeus.

Professor Morgan introduced a trichotomous division of the
maturation process of social organization. Morgan's well founded
theory held that humans progressed through the stages of savagery
and barbarianism on their progress to the final stage -
civilization. Humans began in the stage of savagery, where
nomadic groups followed roaming herds of wild animals, the
condition of man's having incessantly to strive with no more
return than subsistance in a nomadic existence. Under those
conditions the custom arose of taking the aged out into the
wilderness and leaving them to starve, because only productive
people could be tolerated in the tribe if it were to survive; and
the only non-productive members who could be tolerated without
endangering the survival of the tribe were the young. The
growing children were the guarantee of the tribe's posterity, and
they were put to work at the earliest productive opportunity.
This stage of human development came to an end when some
serendipitious individual stumbled upon the fact that seeds
falling upon the ground sometimes grow into productive plants
providing food for survival.

This fortuitous event caused some nomadic groups to locate
themselves in fertile areas and to engage themselves in
agriculture thereby producing more than the minimum necessary for
the survival of the members of the society. With the growth of
this surplus, brought on by the increase in agricultural
productivity, it became possible for the society to support and
sustain the process of the division (i.e., specialization) of
labor. Then, with the development of a written language, it
became possible to retain, from generation to generation, the
knowledge gained. It was no longer necessary for each generation
to relearn the knowledge acquired by the generation preceding it.
The origin of written language was the true beginning of the
development of technology because it allowed for a formal
statement of relationships based on longitudinal temporal data
impossible to accumulate prior to keeping records in writing.
With the concomitant emergence of the state of barbarianism and
the accumulation of a growing surplus came the need for this
surplus to be allocated in certain ways.

With the agrarian group settled in one spot and producing a
surplus it now became possible to support someone who engaged in
non-food-producing activity. This first person to be supported
out of the surplus was the priest. He was supposed to
propitiate those unintelligible transcendent forces which evoked
disasters and misfortunes. The job of the priest was to prevent
horrors befalling the group. The surplus not only gave the
advantage of having a priest to propitiate the evil spirits; the
surplus created the problem of protection against those evil
people who would rather steal the surplus than to raise their
own. Out of these social conditions arose the necessity for, and
the first dim amorphous origins of, a social contract.
The surplus was vulnerable to theft and demanded protection.
This evoked the need for, and the arising of, a protector; and
as the surplus and the group grew apace the protector had to have
helpers, which created the need for rules and control and
acceptance of those rules. Rules and their enforcement, and
control, constitute government. Government is a manifestation of
the political institution, just as allocation of surplus value is
a manifestation of the economic institution. Government is faced
with the necessity to determine the allocation of surplus value.
As in our society today, what proportion of the surplus value
should (or must) be allocated to social infrastructure, or social
services, or to the owners of the means of production or
providers of raw materials or transportation or technology, or to
the labor producing or commerce disposing or financiers financing
those production goods became a source of contention.

The social institution of education is no more clear nor
consistent than were the political or economic institutions.
Education as an institution differs in that the basic need met by
that institution was much later in maturing than the needs met by
the other institutions. The educational institution was embedded
in the institutions of religion and of marriage and the family
until about the dawn of the industrial revolution. The thrust of
those social relationships structured by the educational
institution are twofold: The first purpose overlaps the role of
family socialization in shaping and preparing the new replacement
for society; the second purpose is to prepare the new replacement
to cope with social change. Changing social conditions have
created changing social needs and changing social outcomes to be
produced by the educational process. Once again a clarification
of purpose is needed and thereon hinges the basic problem of the
educational institution.

The Scopes Trial in Tennessee of the 1920s and the "Creationism"
furor of the Reagan Presidency are both part and parcel of the
objection by the ordained establishment of the religious
institution to the liberation of the educational institution from
the controls of religious values; the growth of feminism is a
reaction to the ordained establishment of the institution of
marriage and the family against this liberation process vis a vis
that institution. The educational process in these United States
of the last half of the Twentieth Century is in turmoil because
the issue of whether the young of the society are to be trained,
or are to be educated, has not yet been settled. The crucial
question is whether the young are to be prepared to cope with
radical social change, or are to be left unprepared to face the
"future shock" that is upon them now, and will be a part of their
social milieu for the foreseeable future. Are the young to be
trained to accept givens uncritically and to believe without
question whatever they are told; or are they to be educated to
question EVERYTHING and to analyze all data with which they come
in contact without regard to preconceptions or prejudice. The
issue resolves to the proportion of right-brain affect and of
left-brain cognition to be fostered in the process. The issues
involve specialization vs generalization; values vs. facts; how
things should be vs. how things are; and subjectivity vs.

The dichotomy between non-religious and religious education leads
into the basic problem of the religious institution. One's "God
Concept" structures all one's relations to all external to one;
one treats the universe, both people and objects, as one feels
the Infinite treats oneself. The growth out of, and separation
from, traditional science by modern science has forced the
analogous growth out of Systematic Theology (based upon the
syntactical structures and concepts of traditional reductionist
science) of Process Theology (expressed in the systactical
structures and concepts of modern science). In terms of Pop-
Theology "God-Out-There" has become "God-In-The-Gut";
"Transcendence" has been supplanted by "Immanence". Whitehead
explains in Religion in the Making: "It is the difference
between the enemy you conciliate and the companion you imitate."
Does the "ordering" of the Universe flow from the imposition of
the Will of the Divine, or does man have the option of creating
that order through the use (or non-use) of man's own will.

All of this is complicated by the interrelationship of the roles
played by each institution in all the other institutions.
Parts of the ordained establishment of the social institution of
religion want to promulgate uncritiqued concepts that "feel
right", that are socially and individually destructive in the
extreme, and that arise out of the failure of the educational
process adequately to inform practitioners as to root languages
from which translations flow, and of historic social conditions
out of which the original writings arose to fulfill social and
spiritual needs. Does the Systematic Theology, mandating formal
social behavior patterns, or the Process Theology, dealing with
intentionality, principles upon which the patterns of
relationships should be based, and upon the necessity for
essential GOODNESS of behavioral relationships, obtain. All of
this revolves around the roles of reason, analysis, critique,
consistency, education, and social responsibility in the social
institution of religion. Is the proper role of the religious
establishment simply the validation of government policies and
actions, the fostering of feelings of resignation and
helplessness among the populace, and the imposition of cultural
homogeneity upon the society, or should religion be inclusive in
such a way as to implement the peaceful and loving co-existence
of pluralism and cultural heterogeneity within that society. Is
the Divine, in essence, Whitehead's "Benign Urgos" or is the
Infinite simply a magnification of all human faults and flaws of

In Red Lamp of Incest Robin Fox tells us that as a governmental
entity emerges, from the process of growth from clan to tribe,
the first act of such a governmental entity is to co-opt access
to sexual interaction. History has demonstrated that sexually
permissive societies are pacifistic in nature - the truly warlike
societies are all Puritan/repressive in value structure. Truly
to prepare for war, pornography and prostitution must be
suppressed and sexual relations stigmatized. Physiologically the
sexual activity acts as a potent tranquilizer; physiologically
the most effective form of birth control is male frequency
(after three times a day for two weeks a male may be potent - but
he is surely not fertile). If the Infinite of the dominant
Religio/Political establishment of a society is patterned after
an imperialistic warlord, then institutional imperatives will
mandate an adversary marriage relationship so as to keep the
partners apart until they are fertile; depriving the young of
sexual activity so as to make them more warlike and aggressive;
and the use of sex solely for the purposes of procreation so as
to populate the society with soldiers, the better to conquer the
world for one's Infinite. The Aytollah Khomeini, when he came to
power in Iran, said it best: "You women don your chadors, return
to purdah in the harem, and raise up twenty million soldiers in
this next generation who can go forth and conquer the world for

At the time of Christ there were two hundred fifty million people
on earth, it having taken all that previous time to reach such a
population level. In 1650 the population of this earth was five
hundred million, it having taken one thousand six hundred fifty
years to double. It doubled the next time in two hundred years,
reaching one billion in 1850. In 1920 there were two billion
people, it having taken only seventy years to double, and only
forty years to double again - reaching four billion by 1960, five
billion by 1990, and projected to reach twenty billion by the
year 2050. The admonition to "Go forth and be fruitful, and
populate the earth" seems, so to speak, to have borne poisonous
fruit. The use of sex solely for procreative purposes, as do
animals, apparently leads us directly into ecological disaster.

Dr. Reuben Lamar Norman, Jr., of the New School for Social
Research, is wont to say: "There ain't no morality between
groups." Immanent within the culture of virtually every
homogeneous/catholic group is hostility toward people and groups
that are different, and an imperialistic drive to correct them
and "make them just like us". Dr. John Calhoun, National
Institute of Mental Health, determined, through research in the
1970s, that overcrowding and deprivation of "personal
space/territory" caused harmonal and adrenal changes that
resulted in much intensified levels of violence and aggression.
Cross-cultural conflict and social heterogeneity apparently cause
the same phenomena. It would seem that a major value
redefinition is in process within the marriage/family institution
through which marriage will come to be defined as a
cooperative/companionate relationship based upon emotional
commitment rather than upon sexual exclusiveness; restrictions
upon sexual activity sharply diminished, and sexual activity to
be valued as a tranquilizing recreational activity to be enjoyed
uninhibitedly by all participants; much more sexual activity
outside marriage, with marriage coming to be taken much more
seriously and becoming much more permanent; and emphasis upon
reduction, rather than growth, in size of family and population.
The alternative solution to the dilemma would seem to lead
straight to disaster.

Analysis of the basic problems of social institutions discloses
that there is a uniform meta-dimension to all these problems.
That meta-dimension is the state of tension arising out of the
value conflict between the instrumental valuation of the
individual and the intrinsic valuation of the individual. It is
precisely this meta-dimension which has paralyzed the Reagan
Administration in attempts to deal with terrorism - terrorist
ideology vs. western/christian valuation of life. A terrorist
is defined as one who values an idea more highly than the life of
an innocent person. A terrorist believes that one's end
justifies one's means - the ultimate sophistry according to
Socrates. Any true ideologue is, at the very least, a closet
terrorist; Eric Hoffer was very clear on that point (i.e., THE

Socrates, Mohammed, the Gautama, and Christ all make the obverse
point - human life is far more valuable than any idea. The
hidden agenda of Islam, Reaganism, Lenin-Marxism, and many other
ideologies is the instrumental value of the individual. The very
essence of christianity and democracy is the intrinsic valuation
of the individual. This copernican change in values from ancient
cultural instrumental valuation of the individual has created the
conflictual tension underlying the increased degree of social
change and turmoil which we have termed "future shock". Our
meta-problem involves the coping with this inexorable value
change while avoiding development of destructive, unenlightened
self interest/greed/ambition/imperialism/selfishness. "Original
Sin" in the Judeo-Christian tradition is defined as self-
centeredness; the downfall of Lucifer/Satana.

Winston Churchill hoped that Western civilization would emerge
into the "broad, sunlit uplands" of liberty. The backlash
against this prevailing shift in individual valuation from
INSTRUMENTAL to INTRINSIC has militated toward an emerging
dictatorship in most societies, specifically including our own.
The problem arises as to whether "grass-roots populations" will
come to value these individual liberties over "Law 'n Order"
before it is too late; the basic eternal question - "Can people
cope with radical change?". The choice lies between the social
regressiveness of the blind affect of "Reaganaut Ideologues" or
the lucid cognition of a Thomas Jefferson. The emerging social
danger in all this is limned by the "Doctrine of Original Sin";
Marx' failure to comprehend this doomed Marxism to ultimate
failure as it faces just this issue. The ultimate survival or
destruction of civilization will hinge on capacities of social
institutions to control and bridle unbridled individualism - from
whence will the necessary discipline come?

The Constitution of the United States was designed "to shield the
political process from the frailties of any one man's ambition";
the wisdom of our forefathers was manifest. It is obvious in
American society of the 1980's that our basic socialization
process has failed markedly in many instances to enlighten self-
interest. Ideologues of past values cannot comprehend that
radically changed social conditions have made past solutions
dysfunctional, precluding return to the behavior structures of
the past. The great values of the past must be bottled in "New
Wineskins". Different behavioral structures and social relations
can manifest identical principles and values. World civilization
must discover and implement these "New Ways" soon.

Cardinal Social Problems-
Refutation of the Jensen Conclusions:
Note on Curricular Corrections for Bureaucratic Work

Emory L.Warrick, Sr

It can be demonstrated statistically, and irrefutably, that
ninety five (95%) percent of all alcoholics and substance abusers
started out drinking milk. This statistical fact in no way
proves, or even implies, that milk drinking leads to
substance abuse and alcoholism. Much the same type of
specious generalization has been utilized in explaining the
decrease in traffic deaths since 1973 on the basis of reducing
the speed limit. Nothing has been said of the introduction of
Emergency Medical Technicians and their mobile emergency
rooms to American highways simultaneously with the decreased
speed limit, yet the decrease in the number of traffic deaths
almost exactly matches the number of people leaving wreck scenes
alive in ambulance/hearses and dead on arrival at the hospital as
opposed to the number of live accident victims surviving
the trip to the hospital in the mobile emergency rooms. No one
has studied carefully who caused those accidents involving
drinking drivers - the assumption simply is made that the acci-
dent was caused by the driver who happened to be drinking.
Good statistics can be used to draw very bad conclusions,
and bad conclusions form very poor foundations for solutions.

A great deal of public policy has been founded upon just such
poor conclusions drawn from irrefutable data. An equally great
amount of public policy has been founded upon the conceptions of
how things "ought to be" of persons in positions of political
power which are diametrically opposed to how things have been
irrefutably demonstrated by good research ACTUALLY TO BE. The
case of President Richard Nixon's "Presidential Commission on
Pornography" comes to mind. There was consensus of forty-nine
members of the Commission that research demonstrated
incontrovertibly that virtually no sex offenders in prison had
ever been exposed to pornography: Then President Nixon accepted
the statement of the fiftieth Commission member, an octagenarian
theologian, that pornography HAD to cause sex offenders
regardless of what any research showed. Public policy founded
upon the acceptance by President Nixon of such a minority concept
based upon affect rather than upon cognition could hardly be
expected to be successful. Behavior based upon uncritiqued
"ancient truths" which are to be affectively accepted without
question quite often yield extremely dysfunctional contemporary
social behavior.

It is hoped that this short consideration of just such a
situation will point up how an innocent ethnic group has suffered
calumny. A scholar who, it is to be hoped, is perfectly sincere
in his belief in his objectivity has apparently let his affective
beliefs interfere unconsciously with his cognitive perceptions.
His data is irrefutable; the conclusions he has drawn from this
data leave a great deal to be desired - there may be a Socratic
"third-man" causative factor leading to association of the
elements of his data rather than the implication which he has
drawn. It is to be hoped that such a "third-man" causative
factor will be explicated herein, and adequate corrective
rectification suggested. A number of mechanisms for dealing with
the conditions illuminated by the Jensen data will be found
outlined in various sections of this consideration, and some
possibly tenuously relevant observations. Let us now consider
Professor Arthur Jensen of Harvard University.

Lo!, these many years, we have heard the scandal of the Arthur
Jensen data. It seems self-evident that the data qua data is
incontrovertible. The scandal inheres in the interpretations and
conclusions reached by people reviewing that data. Reaction to
Dr. Jensen's conclusions has clouded public perceptions of the
raw data and has obstructed formulation of different conclusions
properly based upon, and supported by, that data. Given social
conditions, past and present, the socialization of different
ethnic groups has differed, resulting in cultural differences
between groups. It is possible that some elements of some ethnic
cultures and socialization may not cope functionally with
contemporary societal demands.

Such dysfunctionality would tend to appear in instrumental
assessment of skills necessary to cope with those contemporary
societal demands. For decades lamentation has been heard in the
land that such assessment instruments (i.e., W A I S, Stanford -
Benet, etc.) are culturally biased. Such lamentation seems
lucidly factual. Such lamentation also is totally irrelevant.
Such instruments measure skills minimally necessary to cope with
our bureaucratic/technological milieu. If one does not have
those cultural skills one does not cope successfully in our
contemporary milieu - it's that simple.

A glance at the political power analysis of Max Weber should be
instructive. In the Weber analysis were detailed three types of
political power. Charismatic power, the first, is based upon
personality; people obey the charismatic leader because they WANT
to obey him. Traditional power, the second type, derives from
custom and tradition; people obey the hereditary monarch because
custom and tradition demand obedience - they OUGHT to obey.
Legitimate power, the third type, derives from statutory law and
is accorded by consensus of the governed; people obey because the
law sets forth the power of the leader - and the limits of such
power. People accept "legitimate power" because they THINK a
reasonable interpretation of such applicable statute REQUIRES
such obedience.

Legitimate power eminently is bureaucratic in nature.
Bureaucracy can be defined as "the application of reason to the
affairs of men". By the Sixth Century B.C. Socrates, Pythagoras,
and Meno were applying deductive analysis to the measurement
practices produced by millennia of Egyptian culture, and
formularizing them while Confucius was doing the same deductive
analysis on the elements of political/governmental organization
(as was Lao-Tzu upon the social morality of men). The
bureaucratic organization of Confucius proved enormously
effective and successful. By the Eighth Century A.D. the Islamic
Caliphs Abd al-Malik, Hisham, al-Mansur, and al-Madhi had
established a like pyramidal bureaucratic structure for the
Islamic empire and brought rational control out of chaos. It is
cognitive skills that are essential to functioning competently
within any very large, complex organization of any type.

Discussion should begin with the capabilities and functioning of
deoxyriboneuclic acid (i.e., DNA). Genetic information is coded
into the double helix molecule of DNA. The location of every
pore of any human skin, and the arrangement of every human hair,
is determined by such coding. The memory pool also consists of
DNA. Every experience (be it tactile, visual, cognitive,
affective, or what have you) is coded into this DNA memory pool
in identical fashion as is genetic information. The codes may
differ, but the coding process is identical.

The DNA memory pool is capable of absorbing Five Hundred Trillion
(i.e., Five Hundred Millions of Millions) information bits. Even
Einstein apparently used less than two percent (.02) of his total
learning capacity. Given natural selection, nature does not
tolerate lacunae indefinitely. There is some natural usage for
that remaining ninty-eight percent of total learning capacity.
As early as the Sixth Century BC Socrates used the slave-boy of
Meno to demonstrate that fact. Part of this apparent difficulty
lies in failure to make a distinction between "memory" and

A thorough familiarity with Elizabethan and pre-Elizabethan
english, combined with a passing familiarity with ancient,
archaic languages, has created an awareness of archaic
implications in word usage by people who could not possibly have
experiential contact with such usage. This, and other relevant
phenomena, gave rise to the conclusion that knowledge and
experience of past generations could be genetically transmitted
through coding of the DNA in the memory pool. Even though this
conclusion seemed self-evident twenty years ago, it has only been
recently that information concerning current research on just
this phenomenon at Berkeley and M I T was passed on by Prof. Ron
Barnette (Head, Department of Philosophy, Valdosta State
College). This "unconscious memory" would only be available for
"conscious recall" under stress or necessity. Genetic
transmittal of such coded information in that volume would help
to explain the natural selection of such apparently unused
lacunae of memory capacity. Many other questionable phenomena
might also find scientific explication given such transmittal of
past experiences.

It is to be understood that information coded into the memory
pool at the unconscious (memory) level by genetic process does
not control the individual. This coded (i.e., filed) information
does, however, have varying degrees of influence upon the
organism - depending upon the demands levied upon it. Intense
stress can bring into the field of "recall" information coded at
the "unconscious memory" level. This "recalled" information
both informs and influences (i.e., triggers production of
chemicals by the amagdala which create moods in the human
psyche). The bulk of information "filed" in this way can impel
(not compel) along particular courses of action. In a very real
sense humans conform to their sociological heritage.

Various ethnic groupings have brought various historical
experiences to their present existence. Over the millennia there
has been, historically, much more inter-cultural warfare in the
northern hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere;
specifically, there has been much more such "culture shock" in
Europe than there has been in Africa. Wave after wave of
conquerors has rocked Europe. In THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN
while intra-cultural relationships can be conducted adequately
through use of right-brain affect, left-brain cognition is
required to conduct inter-cultural relationships in a socially
heterogeneous milieu. One cannot simply do what "feels" right
when dealing with those socialized into other cultures; one must
think out how this is going to affect the others, given their
cultural imperatives. Reactions to strong negative culture shock
can be quite violent.

Jaynes postulates that "revelation" ceased when the discovery of
agriculture and consequent trading brought about the birth of
urban settlement. The Prophet will nearly always seek
"revelation" while fasting in the wilderness. The inner voice
tells one how to deal, morally, with members of one's own
culturally homogeneous group. Dealing with multiple groups with
diverse value systems in a heterogeneous social milieu is quite a
different matter. This places demands upon the left brain for
greatly increased cognitive functioning. Morality is
dysfunctional for an urban milieu; ethicality is a necessity.

This necessity for ethicality, for security while dealing with a
heterogeneous society, and for understanding how other groups
think, greatly fostered the primacy of left brain cognitive
skills over right brain affective skills. This primacy of left
brain cognitive skills made possible the development of much more
complex and centralized social organizations in the northern
hemisphere than in the southern hemisphere. This complex and
centralized social organization both created the opportunity for,
and required, development of "legitimate power" and of
bureaucratic governing structures. Out of these social conditions
was created a "feedback loop" both requiring and developing much
more functional left-brain cognitive skills. The cumulative
effect of all these social conditions probably provoked the
Renaissance, created conditions favorable for the economic,
political, and educational organization of Europe, and fomented
the explosive development of technology, science, invention,
manufacturing, and humanistic democratic ideals. At the core of
all these developments and conditions lay the awesome power of
highly functional left-brain cognitive skills to create and fuel
social change.

In the southern hemisphere, particularly Africa, the social
structure and organization was tribal. Conflict tended more to
be intra-cultural than inter-cultural, probably because of
environmental and geographical conditions. In this sedentary,
rural, agrarian culture there tended to be consensus and
homogeneity of values. Since morality is culture based upon
folk-ways arising out of the demands of social conditions, and
conscience is based upon doing what "feels right", then
relationships within homogeneous tribal cultures can be
affectively based. Because affective skills were adequate for
social functioning, there was primacy of right-brain affective
skills over left-brain cognitive skills. The overwhelming
experiential knowledge/cultural heritage coded into the DNA over
millennia was that of right-brain affective functioning, and the
predominance of right-brain functioning "filed" in the DNA memory
pool created a propensity to use right-brain skills in
functioning in (and coping with) society.

This brings us precisely to the Jensen data with which we
started. A standardized intelligence test (e.g., the W A I S)
measures the capacity of an individual to deal with a
novel/strange situation in a minimum length to time.
Specifically, an I. Q. test assesses functionality of left-brain
cognitive skills. I. Q. can be increased dramatically through
reading and study of great quantities of particular types of
literature - because this fosters activity of the mind and
provides more and better tools for cognitive functioning. There
was no genetic selectivity involved in the congregation of people
involved in the space program at Cape Canaveral, Houston, and the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory at Berkeley. Nonetheless, schools at
those locations produced certain classes in which ninety (90%)
percent of the students had I. Q.s of 180 or better.

This highly skewed I. Q. distribution seems to have resulted from
a social milieu in which intellectual excellence was viewed as an
extremely desirable social good. In that unique set of social
conditions students of every ethnic derivation responded by
massive I. Q. development. The genetic heritage of knowledge
from past generations coded into the DNA "memory pool" did not,
under those circumstances, hinder development of very high I. Q.,
but the data still stands. The concept still stands that
knowledge/experience coded into the "memory pool" influences, but
does not compel. The Jensen data, none-the-less, must be dealt
with. Let us consider an actual case.

A black former student was very bright, and was being considered
for State Highway Patrolman; he had passed the security
screening, the character investigation, and the personal
interviews, but had failed the standardized test. Passing grade
for black applicants was seventy, while passing grade for white
applicants was ninety five, and he had not made even seventy - he
had failed. The Highway Patrol Captain told me that he - the
Captain - had to have the former student, and that I was to
prepare this black applicant to pass the test (I had thirty days
to accomplish this). The applicant was given preparatory manuals
(ponies) for Civil Service, Georgia Merit System, and Highway
Patrol Tests, along with scan sheets; he was to take every test,
grade them from the answers in the backs of the books, and bring
the books and scan sheets (upon which the wrong answers were
marked) back for tutorials. The reasoning and logic behind each
correct answer for each "missed question" was carefully explained
and covered in semi-weekly tutorials for the next thirty days.
When another form of the test was administered to him on test day
he exceeded the "white cut-off score" of ninety-five on the test
and for years has been a superlative State Patrolman.

The point is that the black former student had the innate ability
to do tremendously well on the standardized test; he simply had
not adequately been prepared for the demands of such a test while
attending school. The mass of "information bits" filed in his
"memory pool" influenced him to operate on a right-brain
affective basis in his problem solving efforts when the nature of
the test (and of the social milieu) demanded left-brain cognitive
skills. The Jensen data predicted his difficulty with the
standardized test, but did not posit any inability - genetic or
otherwise - to master the necessary cultural test-taking skills.
The problem then becomes a curricular problem of dealing
adequately with educating those in similar cultural milieux and
circumstances so as to insure competence in those necessary
left-brain cognitive skills. Test results countrywide, and the
loss of our competitive technological edge, illustrate vividly
our failure so to educate students in our school systems that
they can cope with the demands contemporary social conditions
levy upon them. Elegantly stated, the fact is our American
school system is a failure.

The solution to such a problem seems so simple: Educate students
in such a way as to stimulate and foster usage of left-brain
cognitive skills. The matter is, unfortunately, not so simple.
The contemporary basic problem in the social institution of
education involves a decision as to whether to educate the young,
or rather simply to train them. Training enhances and involves
usage of right-brain affective skills leading to uncritical
acceptance of givens and drill in techniques of performance
providing competency skills for doing one (and only one) job well
(e.g., plumbing, medicine, BBA/MBA, theology) without carryover
or penumbra. Education enhances and involves usage of left-brain
cognitive skills leading to unrestricted questioning of
EVERYTHING (including ALL givens) and exercising abilities to
apply principles to problem solving in all manner of novel and
strange situations, as well as strengthening ability to cope with
"future shock" (e.g., mathematics, science, philosophy,
sociology, etc.) with minimal concomitant stress. There are many
in our society who consider education to be a dangerous
innovation, and see schools solely as loci for moral

Unfortunately the curricular problem carries implications
involving other social aspects. A popular prayer begs strength
to change the changeable, courage to bear the unchangeable, and
wisdom to discriminate; such analysis seems in order here.
Difficulties abound: (1) The religious community does not want
to educate the young to question givens (Oh! Ye of little faith!
God created brains, also); (2) There is no consensual social
uninimity that intellectual excellence is a highly desirable
social good; (3) The pool of educated people adequate to serve as
such teachers is sorely limited - very few current teachers would
qualify since the Certification process screens out educated
people; (4) Family literacy of a high order is virtually
essential to such achievement, and such literacy is not endemic
to our society. Rapid social change, radical improvement of
literacy, and religious tolerance of education are unchangeables
we must have wisdom to recognize and courage to bear. Curricula
and (possibly) teachers could be changeables upon which we can
focus. These factors offer potential for development.

The ability to abstract is a left-brain cognitive skill. A quick
informal method of testing abstractive skills is having your
subject attempt to solve word problems. This method assumes the
subject literate. The speed with which the subject abstracts and
manipulates relevant data embedded in such a mass of data will
correlate very closely with measured I. Q.. The area of a table
top is a function of length and width independently of whether
the table happens to be made of cherry or walnut in Chippendale
or Queen Anne style and mayhap 31.783 inches in clearance for
legs. The "culture bias" resides in the ability to abstract
relevant data, not in experience of middle-class WASP aesthetics.

The U S Air Force has realized the implications of this fact. In
combat the tactical squadron or wing commander is faced with an
overwhelming mass of chaotic data; the speed with which he
abstracts relevant data from that chaotic mass, and is able to
organize action properly based upon that relevant data,
determines his success or failure in battle. Testing in Air
Command and Staff College (and Air War College) may manifest
serious deficiencies in test-construction skills, but the
motivating concept is clearly limned in the relationship between
question structure and answer. The same motivating concept holds
when the tactical fighter wing undergoes Phase II of the
Operational Readiness Inspection. In the more common scenario
the wing and base are attacked by land, sea, and air in every
possible permutation in an everchanging kaleidoscope of thrust,
feint, deception, pincers, and Kamikaze attack. As the
Inspectors General arbitrarily change the scenario the
abstractive abilities and cognitive organizing skills of the
commander are tested to the maximum degree.

The clear relationship between phenomenology and Operational
Readiness comes as a surprise mayhap; none-the-less, the
effective battle response must come from pure phenomenological
observation. Successful political responses from higher echelons
of government, as well as commerical/business responses from
higher corporate echelons, are (and must be) arrived at in the
same patterns. The operative cognitive mechanism is pure,
rigorous analysis of the entire mass of data without ANY
preconceived structural perceptions of how things OUGHT to be.
It is at this point that "culture bias" enters; one's cultural
norms and values operate to distort one's perceptions and tend to
structure perceptions so as to organize reality as it OUGHT to
be, and operate to cloud, distort, and conceal reality as it IS.
Philosophy is the supremely practical discipline in which the
young must be exercised rigorously; it was the Greeks who
analyzed the normative measurement practices developed through
millennia of Egyptian and other cultures, abstracted relevant
patterns, and formularized the essential principles in
universally applicable form. The study of philosophy, for value
analysis and familiarity with logical fallacy, is the
quintessential antidote for the epidemic malady of the modern
world - "future shock".

The major obstacle to the teaching of philosophy and symbolic
logic in grammar school is inability to read. Given proper
circumstances any child (not physically brain-damaged) can be
reading at freshman-college-level by age 5; this writer was
reading Elizabethan english fluently at age 5, and knew the
multiplication tables to 20 by age six. The credit for this goes
to a loving grandmother aged 66 (with a third (3rd) grade
education) who, between the child's third and fifth birthdays,
read the King James' Bible completely through to him three times,
at least twenty books on the Bible, and the complete Shakespeare
more than once. The Bible would approximate 100 million
information bits, the complete Shakespeare perhaps 150 million,
and the twenty books on the Bible possibly 250 million more; this
totals some 500 million information bits, being just one
millionth the capacity of the DNA "memory pool". It does not
appear that school would tax the capacity of the young (the child
AAW had a 200,000 word vocabulary and was writing short stories
and poetry prior to Kindergarten). There is a very high
probability, however, that a vital element was lying hidden in
all this.

There were two vital elements influencing the learning described
above; (1) there was loving affectionate approval displayed for
success in learning, and (2) both children were held on a lap and
read to for thousands of hours from birth to five or six years of
age. It is important, also, that neither child was exposed to
television; the parents in both cases were avid and enthusiastic
readers; the literature read was not contemporary children's
literature - GRIMM'S FAIRY TALES, the nursery rhymes and stories
Shakespeare, and other works of such ilk were established fare;
neither child was ever asked to read aloud, so no conscious-level
"feedback-mechanism" was ever built in; and absolutely NO
censorship of reading material was ever practiced (Charleston,
West Virginia, having more censorship of books than any other
place in our country, produced both Charles Manson and Jane Moore
- attempted assassin of President Ford). Children can learn what
they are expected to learn when vigorous, enthusiastic,
affectionate approval is given for success. The educational
establishment has grossly understated our children's capacities
for learning because in that way the educational establishment
could be made to appear indispensible. Most truly bright people
became bright in spite of school, not because of it. It is highly
probable that Certification procedures would screen out any
gifted individual before they got a chance to corrupt the minds
of gifted students with analytic thought.

Television can be an asset as well as a liability. If one should
use a split screen format with story/pictures on the left and
printed page on the right, with a dot or point of light
indicating the word being read, and have a truly challenging
literary selection being read by a great actor/speaker (e.g.,
Burton reading Shakespeare comes to mind), then by showing that
tape multiple times over a period of years interspersed with
hundreds of other tapes of like quality one could teach reading
painlessly. These tapes should be shown from earliest infancy to
infants and children being held in the laps of loving people.
This process would code the words and sounds directly into the
DNA "memory pool" in their proper relation to each other; the
process of reading would trigger recall of this coded information
when necessary and literacy would be almost automatic. Proper
reading aloud of good literature would attract and hold the
attention of the very young as does any superlative music. The
greater functionality of this videocassette format is that the
tape can be used at home while the child is being held in
someone's lap; mayhap even some illiterate parents might become
literate (the use of illiterate surrogate-grandparents, who might
become literate, from the Retired Senior Volunteer Program - RSVP
- comes to mind).

Not only would this videocassette format be functional for the
creation of literacy in American english, but it also would be an
efficient tool for the teaching of other languages. One could,
for instance, stage very short, very simple plays on the
"picture" side with printed dialogue shown on the other side, the
spoken dialogue being denominated in print with our moving point
of light. A virtually infinite series of plays of increasing
complexity of both plot and language could be prepared and
presented serially in whatever language it was desired to teach.
It is particularly desirable that both latin and greek be well
taught at the elementary school level, and such plays could be
presented in these languages as well as in contemporary
languages. In advanced language study words could be parsed and
sources of derivation shown with pictures as well as root parts
demonstrated as component parts of the complex word. Elementary
students in Russia read Shakespeare, Bunyan, Donne, Whitman,
Sandburg, and Twain in english; why cannot our own elementary
students learn these skills as well?

If, with the help of video technology and superlative human
communication skills, we begin to utilize and develop some of the
potential of the very young, then we may reach the point of
challenging that development in elementary school. It was only
while taking symbolic logic in graduate school that the
understanding dawned: "Math is a game played according to
rules"; Lobechevsky formularized the data of counting and
computation practices arising out of millennia of human culture
into the "Lobechevskian Theorems". I should have been made
clearly to understand that math is a game played according to
rules while in grammar school; unfortunately, State Certification
procedures successfully screened out every teacher who understood
that fact (or understood any math for that matter). So much
potential is wasted because student teachers are taught in
Schools of Education that children are incompetent and lacking
in brains; any really good teacher knows the totally opposite
reality. The place to begin the teaching of philosophy, symbolic
logic, sociology, scientific curiosity, and reasoning, is
elementary school. When that is done properly then the
stimulation of left-brain cognitive activity will yield amazing

Analysis and decision making require enormous amounts of cathexis
(e.g., personality energy). It is for this reason that
stereotyping and prejudice are so prevalent; it is much less
taxing to utilize pre-made judgements based upon sensate
characteristics than to assess a stranger as an individual.
Norms are behavioral expectations that are culture based, and the
more normal one's behavior the fewer analyses and decisions are
required, and therefore the less cathexis expended. It is for
this reason humans resist behavioral change with so much
tenacity; to change behavior would require expenditure of
enormous amounts of cathexis during the period of adaptation to
the new behavior. Radical behavior change requires massive
social support from the social milieu to encourage such change.
Normal behavior is, by definition, totally affectively based.

Popular television programming and advertisements contribute
heavily to this primacy of, and dependency upon, right-brain
affective functioning. To foster left-brain cognitive
functioning one must resolve the addiction to television of those
young who most need to have their cognitive faculties stimulated.
In AIMS OF EDUCATION Whitehead is very clear that one learns
through contrast; one learns by comparing elements of chaotic
experience and noting similiarities and differences. Causes for
"television addiction" are very clear - ANYONE can learn
successfully from network television in contrast to failure to
learn in school. If, while teaching philosophy in elementary
school, one can teach logic well - especially the ten most common
logical fallacies - then one might begin to resolve this
addiction by provoking and fostering awareness of the logical
fallacies endemic to all popular television. If one can destroy
the faith of the young in the validity of what is presented on
television, one has made a very large first step toward

The educationally and culturally disadvantaged, and those of more
rural milieu, seek the excitement and action of Fairs and
Circuses as contrast to the drabness of their normal lives. In
like fashion the plantation field hands of the Mississippi delta
flocked to the tiny delta towns on Saturday nights (increasing
the size of the town 200 fold to 300 fold on Saturday nights)
drinking and fighting and philandering and creating riot and
mayhem, all the while seeking contrast and surcease from normal
lives of semi- slavery. The "television addiction" of the young
stems from essentially identical causes; boredom, failure,
drabness, and lack of any type of challenge. It should be
possible to make education challenging and exciting enough to
lessen or eliminate the need for the "television tranquilizer".
Technology has provided us manifold tools while the greatness and
creativity of the human spirit has provided bounteous resources
for the task. It is our job to integrate tools and resources,
and apply the meld to the quality of human life.

In a conversation at Yale University with Stewart Alsop it was
agreed by John Hershey (Master of Pierson College and novelist)
and Professor William Kesen (Psychology; Yale): "Today's young
(1970) have an odd sense of futurelessness - they never seem to
want to talk about their own future at all"; they seem to suffer
from a sense of crowding - the feeling of too many elbows. This
would tend to reinforce what appears to be objective behavioral
data from our young in schools that they have lost their sense of
purpose - they do not know who they are or where they are going,
and feel totally impotent and at the mercy of a capricious
destiny. If one is at the mercy of a capricious destiny then one
cannot create one's own achievement and success, and so effort
and hard work have no purpose since what will be will be. If
one's effort and work are to no purpose then what purpose does
one's true self have? The only antidote to this depressive
reaction was prescribed by both Socrates and Christ: "Know
Thyself!". Many of our contemporary young have responded to this
challenge by inundation in amplified "music" so loud as to blot
out contact with reality, and engulfment in drugs to the extent
that reality no longer exists for them.

One of the most debilitating psychic/emotional conditions for any
human is a sense of absolute impotence. Because those people
born prior to 1940 had such a vivid experience of the American
depression of the thirties they strove heroically to make sure
their progeny suffered no such deprivation and frustration. As a
consequence two full generations have come to maturity without
ever earning anything for themselves or accomplishing anything
they considered to be of lasting importance. These two
generations have, de facto, grown up with this sense of absolute
impotence and neither the schools nor the society at large have
provided adequate challenges or opportunities to earn that vital
sense of potency. Again, the question arises; of what import is
a sense of purpose if one is absolutely impotent? One is
defeated by affective depression.

In 1973 Valdosta State College was sued by the parents of a
student; these parents wanted the courts to direct the Valdosta
State College administration to give a "letter-grade" to their
daughter who had completed a "Pass-Fail" course. The hidden
agenda for the educational establishment is to act as a
stratification mechanism to determine who gets what access to the
scarcer rewards of society. This is part and parcel of the
negative orientation of western society growing out of their
calvinistic tradition. Perfection is expected; it is only lack of
perfection to which reaction and sanction are appropriate. This
negative orientation permeates the educational establishment like
a pernicious miasma. B. F. Skinner made it clear: "Positive
feedback functions as a stabilizer of behavior patterns; negative
feedback functions as a change agent" - and students affectively
rewarded for cognitive successes continue to strive harder for
cognitive successes.

The two generations born since 1940 carry an additional burden;
they carry the burden of a potential nuclear holocaust.
Ironically, this burden is heavier for those with a propensity
for right-brain affective functioning than for those who tend
primarily toward left-brain cognitive functioning. Those with
adequate cognitive functioning can rationalize the balance of
terror and realize that there is a high probability no nuclear
holocaust will occur because of the certainty of universal
annihilation. For those primarily affectively functional people
there is the sense of imminent doom pervasive at the unconscious
level acting continuously to depress and undercut any positive
optimistic outlook which might arise - acting to provoke and
create a morbid depressive Weltanshauung. If the school is going
adequately to prepare ALL students for the future then the milieu
of the school and the curricular structuring of the school must
operate to transform this depressive Weltanshauung to a positive
optimistic Weltanshauung which conduces to that vital sense of
purpose which underlies any significant achievement. The eternal
dilemma of the educational institution - whether affectively to
train or cognitively to educate - arises again in another guise.

All this leaves for the school, and the society, a reasonably
clear mandate: (1) Educate the young to read exceeding well; (2)
In some way provide opportunities and challenges to foster and
create a sense of potency in each individual; (3) Structure the
school milieu in such a way as to foster and provoke development
of the primacy of left-brain cognitive functioning; (4) Provide
such a positive milieu in the schools that ego-enhancement of all
students can take place; (5) In some way so redefine the
social/political milieu of world civilization as to enable the
young to rationalize the potential for nuclear conflict and
neutralize that cloud of impending doom which afflicts them at
the unconscious psychic level; and (6) In some way create a
perception of social desirability of intellectual excellence that
can neutralize and overwhelm the prevailing consensual social
contempt for the need for intellectual excellence that is endemic
to, and pervasive in, our society. The mechanics of, and the
tools for, accomplishing this mandate are not self-evidently
obvious. Aids for enhancing reading skills and literacy have
been mentioned. The introduction of reflective thinking and
logic, as well as ethics, and wide exposure to scientific
reasoning and observation, have been sugggested under the rubric
of philosophy and science; ancient languages were also suggested
for elementary school teaching. Dr. John Dinan (Education;
Georgia) posits subjective perception of reality as the
distinguishing characteristic of "losers", and objective
perception of reality as the distinguishing characteristic of
"winners"; philosophy and science conduce to objective perception
of reality as a function of left- brain cognition. This is,
again, relevant to our original problem posited by the Jensen
Data, and so poorly handled by the Jensen conclusions.

The learning process must, at a minimum, accomplish certain
behavioral objectives. The student must learn how to organize
input into his memory pool in such a way as to enhance "recall"
of that data. This entails the creation of an attitude of
universal critique so as to create a boundless pool of questions
- as input answers those questions it is sorted and "filed" in
such a way as to enhance "recall". Relevant information is much
more accessible than the uncoordinated and meaningless bits of
information heaped upon recalcitrant heads; the information may
be meaningful to the teacher, but until the teacher makes it live
for the students it is dead and meaningless information "soon
forgot". Questioning EVERYTHING, answering those questions,
organizing and structuring information, learning how languages
work and how our language was built - of such is the substance
and essence of education. Children of elementary age love to
play games, and so much of this suggested activity can be made
into games.

The ability of children to learn these things at such an early
age constitutes no difficulty - they can do it. The basic
problem lies in finding people who can aid the child in this
process. The educational establishment has made every possible
effort to screen such individuals out of the educational process
through such mechanisms as required educational courses and
Certification procedures. Certainly every one of the nine (9)
education courses taken by this writer functioned in precisely
such a way - one feels very lucky to have escaped elimination.
Nearly two decades of teaching Band and Chorus in the public
schools demonstrated clearly which teachers would be retained and
which terminated. Those who truly educated students were
terminated, and those who tried to train students and maintained
"order in the classroom" (the clods) were retained.

On the basis of the Jensen Data some policy decisions should have
been made long ago. If this country expects an ethnic group
having trouble coping with its bureaucratic/technological milieu
to cope successfully then the country has the obligation to
provide the educational process necessary to prepare that group
to cope. Some suggestions thought to be effective have herein
been presented. Intensive research would probably develop
others. This much is certain - no group qua group is genetically
inferior to any other group. There is a special obligation for a
society to forsake its allegiance to affective traditions when
those traditional givens discriminate against those who need
assistance in coping with changed social conditions for which
they have not been socialized; now is the time for cognitive
effort to solve those problems.

Cardinal Social Problems:
Essay on Dangers to Basic Constitutional Rights

Emory L Warrick, Sr.

1. Where Morality Fails, Ethics Succeeds.
2. Corporate Personality And English Common Law
3. The Dream Is Dead

1. Where Morality Fails, Ethics Succeeds.

It would seem that the Essay on Moral Equivalence and Moral
Equivocation missed the point entirely. The crucial distinction
is not between "virtue and vice", but rather between the uses of
ethics and morality. In The Origin of Consciousness in the
Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind Julian Jaynes suggests that circa
the time of the "Homeric" rendering of the bardic collection of
the "aoidoi", spanning some six millenia, divine revelation
ceased to be recognized. Jaynes surmises that this occurs
because the shift from a pastoral/rural society that was
homogeneous to a heterogeneous/urban society produced a shift
from predominantly right brain functioning to predominantly left
brain functioning. This means that there was a shift from
predominantly affective functioning to predominantly cognitive
functioning; a shift from "feeling" to "thinking". The
development of cities and trade begat a process of change
continuing to this day (and vociferously resisted to this day).

In pastoral, rural, homogeneous societies there is consensus on
values. Replacements for the society (i.e., children) are
socialized into acceptance of these social values, just as
replacement parts for machines are fashioned by physical
factories. The family is a social factory producing replacements
for the social machine. Norms are behavioral expectations (e.g.,
one does not wear a tuxedo as swimwear in most circles; one does
not eat english peas with one's pocketknife). This network of
norms forms the structure of the society - the culture of the
society. Acceptance of, and familiarity with, that culture is
produced in the social replacements by pressure and influence of
significant others (i.e., family) and peers (i.e., friends and
role models). Mos are cultural values perceived by the society
to be vital (in varying degrees) to the survival of the society,
whether positive or negative.

Those culture values of relatively minimal value are social
conventions, and usually involve social sanctions (e.g., pity or
ridicule). Those cultural values having great value are mos
(i.e., plural of more; the "value statement" of a more being a
moral) and usually involve legal or physical sanctions (e.g.,
jail, fine, or beating). Those cultural values perceived as
vital to the survival of the society are called "taboos" and are
capitally sanctioned (e.g., transportation, execution,
Congressional Medal of Honor, crucifixion). It follows that mos
(morals in behavioral terms) grow out of consensual values, which
occur only in homogeneous societies.

Conscience is an affective function growing out of one's
socialization into a particular system of cultural values arising
out of a particular set of social conditions existing in a
particular society at a particular time. To speak of morality is
to speak of adherance to a particular cultural milieu in an
homogeneous society where consensual social values exist.
Something "feels right" or "feels wrong". There is no cognitive
analysis (i.e., thinking) involved. Ethical distinctions are
quite different. Consider the categorical imperative of Immanuel
Kant: "So act that if every other person in the world acted
according to the principle of your action, the world would be a
better place".

The essence of our situation is that we live in a pluralistic
society. There is no ONE system of values. People have always
come to this society from every culture in the world, and value
systems (and mos) vary wildly. What is right in one culture may
be very wrong in another. This culture is not just Anglo-
Saxon/Puritan/England-West, regardless of what many people
believe. Humility is not a characteristic endemic to all
Americans of christian persuasion, particularly those of English
descent. The critical distinction takes account of our society
as an urban, diverse, heterogeneous, pluralistic society.
Homogeneous and tribal are simply not elements characteristic of
our society.

One of the truly misguided and disasterous concepts of our
culture is that of a "christian society". The inherent, innate
contradiction in this misconception is easy to accept if one
really has no intimate familiarity with the Four Gospels of the
Christian Bible. People who carp of "christian societies",
advocate "capital punishment" and "the Right-to-Life" in the same
breath, advocate war and hatred of strangers in the name of "The
Prince of Peace", and want us to be sure to "Kill our Commie" for
Christ today are much more likely to quote from the Epistles of
St. Paul or from the Old Testament than from the Gospels - the
Word of Christ.

If one truly understands the essence and structure of the
teachings (and the model set) by The Nazarene, then one
understands fully that the concept "christian society" like unto
the concept "square circle" is potentially conceivable but not
possibly existent. There ain't no such animal. The implications
of the teachings of The Nazarene and the implications of
"Christian Morality" are quite different. They are, in fact,
almost diametrically opposed.

Dr. Ruben Lamar Norman, Jr., now resident in New York City, was
won't to say "there ain't no morality between groups." Soren
Kierkegaard said of the writings of Hegel "value statements can
be double-edged swords", and so the statement by Dr. Norman is.
At the time Dr. Norman made this statement, the statement
referred to the obvious lack of christian compassion and concern
displayed by inter-group relationships as contrasted with intra-
group relationships. The statement can carry an even more cogent
meaning: Moral relationships between groups are impossible
because morals are based upon consensual values, and the
resultant conscience (FEELING of right or wrong) based upon that
cultural milieu. Since different groups have different value
systems, this means that moral inter-group relationships are
impossible (e.g., cf. the Montagues and the Capulets, or, more
recently, the Hatfields and the McCoys). This means inter-group
relationships which are effective, constructive, and productive
must be ethical (i.e., cognitively based) in nature rather than
moral (i.e., affectively based).
Even though a "christian society" is impossible, and, indeed,
even involves a contradiction in terms, it is possible - and
highly desirable - for there to exist a society based upon
christian principles. It would, even, be an extremely practical
and productive society. It would have to be inclusive, not
exclusive; tolerating of diverse value systems by all groups,
including those fundamentalistic and evangelical groups who call
themselves "christian" and yet maintain that they have the ONE
POSSIBLE value system and would exclude the value systems of all
others; compassionate toward all in need and willing to share
accumulated bounty voluntar-ily and enthusiastically (farmers
understand and accept tithing because they know that one must
RETURN some of the product OF the soil TO the soil or the soil
will become sterile and non-productive; the same dynamic operates
in any society - the "bottom-line-boys" kill the society, and
greed and selfishness are contra-productive); forgiving of
deviance from ethnocentric, single-group norms (i.e., it is truly
unchristian to vote against gambling, drinking, or abortion and
thereby to deprive others of the exercise of their will in
choosing what they will do - to be a moral entrepreneur and seek
to inflict one's own values on everyone); understanding that
those who have different value systems have just as much right to
their value systems as one does to one's own values (why do you
think those English Dissenters came over here in the first
place?) - that God loves those different from oneself as much as
God loves oneself; loving enough to put the welfare - the
commonweal - of the group above one's own pride and
acquisitiveness, and loving enough to help those who need help;
and, finally, to be humble enough to realize that while humans
may differ in what they HAVE (e.g., beauty, wisdom, health,
wealth, or power) that all humans ARE the same - all humans are
of EQUAL value.

It must be understood that liberty and freedom are not
synonymous. The French Philosophes never mentioned freedom, nor
does the word appear in our Constitution or Declaration
of Independence. Liberty is a function of external controls,
conditions, and constraints; freedom is potential exercise of the
will. Jean-Paul Sartre said "man is condemned to freedom". One
must choose, and not to choose is to make a choice; our life
history flows from our choices. A novelist tells us "our lives
are dominated by a Georgia slattern because a London cut-purse
went free". One uses one's will (i.e., FREEDOM) to effect
choices - choices which either aid or hinder one's adaptation to
that which one is not at LIBERTY to evade. An American is not at
liberty to evade diversity and pluralism, and is condemned to
choose either an ethnocentric, imperialistic morality or an
egalitarian ethic to cope with that diversity. Of the proper use
of freedom is christian love exercised.

Our essayist speaks of "allergy to elemental distinctons"; among
these elemental distinctions one may distinguish that war may be
moral, but war is not ethical. In any conflict at least one of
the combatants is operating on affect, not cognition. Compromise
is ethical, not moral. The true gift of the statesman is to be
able to compromise without being compromised. Compromise is a
cognitive function, and through compromise each party may be
allocated more than the winner could salvage through conflict
(while destroying enough to deprive the losers of everything).
What does one want - what is the purpose and aim of the exercise?
Prejudice is pre-judgement (i.e., decision without data) which is
an affective - not a cognitive - function. Analysis is more

A most disturbing element of our Essay was "how (the essayist)
parsed the problem". Republicans can be imperial-
istically moral in their homogeniety. Democrats must deal with
pluralism and diversity, and thus must employ a truly christian
ethic if they are to survive the heat of their own caldron, and
ultimately to prevail. Democrats try to go for decent treatment
of people, while our Republican friends go for ideology. Let's
parse this problem by defining "terrorism". Terrorism is that
state of character and psyche which values an idea more than one
values the life and welfare of an innocent human (i.e., the
morality of terrorism holds that the end justifies the means -
shades of Socrates and the Sophists). One can support a
murderous dictator so long as the dictator espouses the proper
ideology. One could state contemporary American foreign policy
as "label them as Communists before you murder them".

To use the language of ethics rather than the language of
morality is not to debase the lingual currency. The language of
morality appeals to the affective hemisphere of the brain, not
the cognitive (e.g., appeal to Bones, not to Spock; Kirk is the
effective melding of both). If affect is blind, then cognition
can certainly prove unfeeling. Immanual Kant tells us, again
quite accurately: "Concepts without percepts are empty; percepts
without concepts are blind;" Kirk is Commander of the
Enterprise!! Our prayer should surely be: God grant me both the
compassion of the liberal and the principles of the libertarian.
Grant, we pray, that our society be neither empty nor blind.

The just pluralistic, diverse, heterogeneous society can have no
moral issues, particularly if it is a society based upon
christian principles. The behavior of others cannot be a moral
issue for the observer, either individual or group, but only an
ethical concern. Where the Pharisee or Sadducee would have
stoned the Samaritan woman at the well, The Nazarene counseled
her to go get her act straigntened out. The blurring of moral
distinctions is not our social problem, nor does it cause our
"breakdown of Law and Order". It is our unethical, unchristian,
imperialistic efforts to force our individual value system upon
everyone which leads to conflict, lawlessness, war, famine, and
breakdown of respect for, and adherence to, the social institu-
tions of our nation. As Dean William R. Inge asserts: "A nation
is a society united by a delusion about its ancestry and by a
common hatred of its neighbors."; "THERE AIN'T NO MORALITY


The concept of a "Corporate Personality" is contradictory to the
meaning and purpose of English Common Law upon which our
Constitution and our legal system are based. To designate an
abstraction as a living entity is absurd. To accord authority
without that authority bearing responsibility is reckless. Even
Ethelred the Redeless knew better. The root word of
"personality" is person, which is a living, sentient,
intelligent, individual being. The framers of our Constitution
never envisioned an impersonal entity with virtually absolute
power over our health, wealth, and welfare and bearing no
responsibility to us at all (i.e., a power totally disregarding
our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of

Our Essay begins with an appeal to understand bureaucracy. Max
Weber, the great German sociologist, wrote several important
works, among which was a study of power. In this study of power
were listed three types of power, by source; charismatic power,
traditional power, and legitimate power. Charismatic power
derived from the "star quality" of the leader, and the followers
did what he said simply because he was himself. Examples are
Fidel Castro and the Ayatollah Khomeini. Traditional power is in
the vein of a monarchy, and derives from tradition. Legitimate
power resides in rules and statutes, accepted by consensus,
detailing the power, duties, responsibilities, and privileges of
the occupant of a position in a rationally organized
administrative structure.

Weber tied all this together in his book The Protestant Ethic and
the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber was responding to conclusions
drawn in Das Kapital by Karl Marx, and with which Weber
disagreed. Richard H. Tawney in Religion and the Rise of
Capitalism responded to the perceived errors in both Marx and
Weber. Weber holds that bureaucracy is the application of
reason to the affairs of men. Reason was viewed as a Divine
Attribute. Plato used this as the "Method of Recollection" in
the Meno, where the questions of Socrates lead the untaught
slave boy to reason through and to state the theory of surds. He
also refers to this, implicitly, as the "music of the spheres" in
the Symposium and the Timeaus.
It is also contemplated in the legend of "The Tree of Life" in
the book of Genesis.

Aristotelian deductive logic and analytic arguments derived from
this. As set forth in the Gospel of John in the Trinity God the
Creator was the divine intelligence which created the universe.
All of this led to the humanist view. Unfortunately, as
demonstrated above, any argument carried to its logical extreme
becomes absurd. This is what Plato meant (in Republic IV) when
he spoke of "saphrosyne", the principle of temperance, the Golden
Mean, in the state - to make the state practical. In our own
time we have such reality statements as Murphy's Law and Cooper's
Second Corollary Thereto, Parkinson's Law, and the Peter
Principle, which refer to the same thing.

As people manage to fulfill the requirements of one position and
are moved upward until they can no longer adequately fulfill
their responsibilities, and are promoted to their level of
incompetance, there happens in the organization (by and through
which all big business and government is run) a hardening of the
arteries. This condition, atherosclerosis, is analogous to the
condition which leads to a stroke (i.e., a cardiovascular
accident) which occurs in an unexercised, middle-aged body. Just
as the unexercised, middle-aged body cannot function - and when
taxed, dies - so this condition has come to represent the
condition of a great deal of our government, industry, and
commerce of today. Many bright people have suffered from this
disinclination to countenance any type of new idea or change, and
have been rejected by the society wwhich did not want to view any
possibility of different ideas.

The process of ageing is the process of loss of flexibility and
tensility. The Lenin-Marxist societies, especially China and
Russia, and our own Department of Defense, are prime examples of
bureaucratic atherosclerosis with accompanying rigidity,
senility, and inability to adapt. Given this, it becomes
imperative to understand from whence come the concepts liberal
and conservative, and to understand the difference between these
concepts. As they are used in the vernacular, the difference in
the terms is stated as the conservative wanting to keep things
the way they are, to preserve (or conserve) the status quo; the
liberal is viewed, in the vernacular, as being willing to accept
change - or even fostering change for change's sake.
Philosophically, as these people stand, the conservative derives
from the Protest (i.e., he is Protestant). The liberal derives
from what Tawney calls the "Medieval Synthesis", the social
organization of feudal Europe under the aegis of the Roman
Church, that made the individual only a cog in a machine (there,
for the glorification of God - Jehovah; in the Lenin-Marxist
countries, for the glorification of God - the State). The
liberal values the individual only functionally - as a member of
the group. The only value of the individual is functional, and
derives from membership in that group. The conservative values
the individual intrinsically, in and of himself, rather than as a
means to an end of the common good of the group, as does the

The Protestant - Catholic dimension forces itself upon us. The
Liberal - Conservative continuum is congruent with the Catholic -
Protestant continuum as these terms are technically defined.
Church organizations follow the technical definitions, not vice
versa. A catholic society is defined as being an homogeneous
society characterized by functional valuation of the individual.
The individual derives value from group membership; "I am a
MARINE whose name happens to be Jones". Religious examples of a
catholic society would be the Roman Catholic church, the Anglican
Communion, the Baptist Church in all its sects, and the Islamic
Faith in all its branches, as well as the founding exemplar - the
Jewish religion. Political examples would be the Lenin-Marxist
societies, principally Russia and China, African tribal
societies, the United States Military Services, and what our
United States is becoming if it continues as under the Reagan
Administration. A catholic soociety is absolutely necessary for
the development of a dictatorship. In 1984 the First, Fourth,
and Fifth Amendments went first.

A protestant society is defined as a heterogeneous society
characterized by intrinsic valuation of the individual; "I am JOE
SIGSPAK who happens to be an American from Georgia (or a
Mississippian from the U. S.), and a Methodist, or a Unitarian,
or etc. Religious examples, political examples, or any other
kind of examples are becoming increasingly difficult to find.
Catholic societies function affectively, using right-brain
skills, and are "moral" societies with generally repressive
governments. Protestant societies function cognitively, using
left-brain skills, and are, necessarily, "ethical" societies
since they are pluralistic. Intergroup relations based upon
morality tend to be aggressive and destructive. Intergroup
relations which are ethical in nature are much more likely to be
constructive and ameliorative (i.e., christian). A negotiated
compromise settlement will almost always leave both parties
better off than the winner would be after a war. War is moral;
negotiation is ethical.

The basic political problem of any government is the balance
between the commonweal and individual liberty. The basic
economic problem of any government is the allocation of surplus
value; whether this is to go to the person who produces the
surplus value, or to the person (or corporation) who provided the
means of production, or whether this is to be absorbed by the
government for redistribution within the society in accordance
with social or governmental priorities, or any two or all of
these. Liberals, basically, are caste oriented and elitist,
believing that the individual should not be coerced into
conformity (in some cases), but that commerce should be
controlled. They accept the Hebrew concept of usury from the Old
Covenant. The alleged conservative is liberal, also, because
while he believes in commercial laissez faire, he believes, also,
that the individual should conform rigorously to his
"conservative" group norms. The conservative is no believer in
democracy; the conservatives want to get the government off our
backs so they can put it on our fronts.

True conservatives are hard to find, and, certainly, Ronald
Reagan is not one of them. Nelson Rockefeller was, in fact, more
of a conservative than is Reagan, who is very strongly liberal
(i.e., controlling) in some ways. This whole concept of catholic
and protestant, of liberal and conservative, is a very important
concept to understand. By catholic is not meant the Roman
Church, but the concept of the body catholic - the Corpus Christi
- and its extrapolation into the "Medieval Synthesis". The whole
concept is meant having to do with the group being more important
than the individual. This applies, basically, to Lenin-Marxism.
Tawney calls Marx the "Last of the Scholastics". Marx took
degrees from the universities of Jena, Bonn, and Berlin,
including doctorates in both Law and Philosophy. He carried over
into Marxism the basic social structure of the "Medieval
Synthesis" of feudal Europe.

In fact, this is a superior explanation for the fact that Lenin-
Marxism has presented a threat in almost every basically Roman
Catholic country, and will represent a threat here only insofar
as the Reagan administration coerces us into becoming a quasi-
homogeneous country. Insofar as we have followed the dictates of
our founding fathers Lenin-Marxism has never presented a threat
here. Laissez faire is anathema to Europe by reason of this
social structure. Europe, even in its predominantly Lutheran
sections, has never been truly comfortable with pragmatic
protestantism. The people in Europe have never been able
completely to free themselves from the caste orientation inherent
in the "Medieval Synthesis", or to be able to accept the
intrinsic value of the individual. Laissez faire developed in
Britain, and the role of the channel in all phases of British
life was to set it apart from the continent. Through the
disruption of geographical continuity there was also a
disruption of philosophical continuity that made it possible for
Anglo-Saxon common law to develop in England in contradistinction
to the basic Roman cast of law as reflected in the Napoleanic
code on the continent. The common law is congruent with
empiricism, while the Napoleanic code is congruent with
continental rationalism; in the U. S. only Louisiana laws derive
from the Napoleanic code.

This nation is much too huge to grasp affectively. For this
reason the "Melting Pot" has not worked. We need neighborhoods
and ethnic groups. Pressure groups have been able to exert such
powerful pressure in our society through their role in reducing
social imperatives to "graspable" size. This diversity results
in the conflicting demands of different groups being very
strongly upheld and pursued. Sociological research has
established as fact that it is very much easier to relate to, and
to be loyal to, a finite group than it is to relate to the
apparently infinite, abstract nation. The whole meaning of the
Bi-Centennial resided in the fact that it made the nation, the
national abstraction, concrete for many people. The other
opportunity of the Bi-Centennial arose from the fact that most
highly educated folk had the folk-ways of both questioning and
criticizing the system, and the basically non-verbal, non-
educated, electorate of this country has for so long been told
all the defects of the country that most are seeking desperately
for a reaffirmation that this nation does in fact represent the
greatest of human dreams. Liberalism-Humanism derives, as we
said, from the social structure of the feudal "Medieval
Synthesis", from the medieval caste system.

The conservatives, basically, are Platonic in bent. They see man
as the expression in the many of the One. A basic conservative
looks to the structure of behavior. Behavior expresses the
essential values and/or living skills which have proven
efficacious for survival in society. This is the relationship
which, ideally, religion should have to the political
structure. This is not to require that the politician go through
a certain given religious form like everyone else (e.g., Lincoln
as an example), but that his personal integrity be a gyroscope, a
steadying force, throughout all the vicissitudes and temptations
present in the occupancy of political offices up to and
including the Presidency. Essential behavior in diverse
circumstances should be shaped by core values. To integrate
means to make whole, and to have integrity means to have
wholeness, or to be whole, and honesty and honor flow from (and
are an integral part of) that wholeness. The genius of our
founding fathers showed itself in their design of a political
structure based upon separation of powers designed "to shield the
political process from the frailties of any one man's ambition".

The commonweal is much more easily defined for an homogeneous
society than for a heterogeneous society. In a pluralistic
society all segments of that society ought to have a voice in
issues affecting their common good. Ultimately, it is the
bureaucracy which defines the commonweal and responds to that
definition with action, or lack thereof. The power of an
entrenched bureaucracy is a late development in the U. S.
Because of the openness of the new, developing continent, and the
abundant opportuniity offered by that circumstance, government
interference became undesirable even to those who were reared in
a bureaucratic environment. This frontier of opportunity
prevented the coalescing of the familiar European folkways and
social structure. At that time no one wanted a "~New Deal" -
virtually everyone's hand was filled with Aces.

If "a glacial pace of change" can be defined as the wearing away
of Gibraltar by dusting it with a feather duster, it can also be
defined as the rate of change in a bureaucracy. Bureaucracy
endures. The French Revolution destroyed nearly everything in
France except one thing - the bureaucracy. It survived monarchy,
revolution, terror, restoration, and a hundred governments since,
while continuing constant and unchanged. Since bureaucracy is
the only semi-rational, quasi-pragmatic influence in affective,
catholic societies, it becomes absolutely necessary to the
survival of the society. It may be ALMOST immoveable, but it
does respond, albeit slowly, to overwhelming power - and therein
lies our present and future danger. Our founding fathers had
been so frightened and impressed by the omnipotence of
traditional, monarchical power that they failed to forsee the
probable abuses growing out of untrammelled legitimate,
bureaucratic power. They would have felt that whatever was
rational was good, forgetting that even rationality carried to
extremes is destructive - it smothers judgement, which leads to

Our founding fathers, and Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations,
envisioned commerce and industry as being conducted and carried
out by small units having a principal owner who bore
responsibility under the common law. With the carcinomous growth
of corporations following upon the refinements in stock-holding
and leveraging, the corporation outgrew the purview of a single
owner, and at the same time accumulated such massive amounts of
resources and capital that they have begun to overwhelm the
entire political process. It is easier, admittedly, to deal with
a person under the law than with an amorphous diffuse entity, but
the end DOES NOT justify the means. The misbegotten according of
a personality to corporations has enabled the corporation to
bring into focus all its diffuse power in such a way as to
motivate the bureaucracy, at the same time the corporation was
being accorded privileges without concomitant responsibilities.
An abstraction has no soul, nor compassion, nor consideration for
the commonweal, until its survival is threatened, When the
bureaucracy accepts the corporation's definition of the
commonweal, and the expressed needs attendant thereupon, then
everyone suffers.

Complicating and aggrevating the problem is the population bomb.
Since the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt the population of
the U. S. has doubled. That means everyone has only one half as
much space; the population is twice as dense and the attendant
problems have multiplied a hundred fold. When problems multiply
the need for problem solving mechanisms multiplies, and the door
is opened for bureaucracy. The situation is tolerable if the
bureaucracy is responsive to ALL THE PEOPLE, but the mass of
people have no mechanism, such as the corporate personality,
through which to bring their power into focus - so we all lose
out. The corporations, who can focus their power through the
mechanism of the "Corporate Personality", are able to bring
tremendous influence on the bureaucracy to meet the immediate
needs of the corporation as viewed through tunnel vision without
regard to the systematic impact those actions cause in the total

The reification of the "Corporate Personality" has been, and has
created, a disaster. It is part and parcel of Anglo-Saxon common
law that some one person must bear responsibility for actions and
damages. If a person, even a Robber Baron, is responsible for
the death of another, that person is subject to capital
punishment (i.e., death or transportation) under the common law.
When the corporation is culpable for death to one or more, on
whom falls the responsibility? Is the Chairman of the Board
hung?; the President of the corporation electrocuted?; the holder
of the largest block of stock gassed? Is one of the stock
holders elected to be the scape-goat, or mayhap the Janitor? It
is a grave error to try to treat some corporate entity, where all
responsibility is diluted, as an individual person under Anglo-
Saxon common law. The individual has the right to the
disposition of his own personal property because he, as an
individual, bears the responsibility for the social consequences
flowing from that disposition, and must do this without harm to
others. The same cannot be said of a corporation, and the
whole argument for the laissez faire right of the corporation has
no standing, whatsoever, in the Anglo-Saxon foundations of our
It would seem that until we develop a doctrine of "The Designated
Hangee" that corporations should be deprived of any right to
function as a person, and a tremendous educational effort be
mounted to the end that the governmental bureaucracy become aware
to whom their allegiance and loyalty is owed. The consumers
should be protected, not the corporation. The citizen should not
have vital oxygen,water, and earth destroyed by corporate
ignorance or cupidity. Even a dedicated and devoted protestant,
who is a committed capitalist, cannot breathe without oxygen, or
live on poisoned water or air. Even James J. Kilpatrick would be
forced to aver: It pains to admit this, but corporations must be
forced to accept their responsibilities to maintain in purity
those vital resources necessary to our population's survival.

Vive l'commonweal!!! No corporate personality without a


The Dream is dead. The Dream was that each individual would
enjoy maximal liberty under just law protected from interference
by every level of government. The first Warwick came to North
America c. 1730 to escape the sterility of homogeneous English
society. He came here to seek opportunity in the fecund
pluralism of this heterogeneous society. Opportunity is a
function of the frontier - and North America was all frontier.
That Warwick was the father of my paternal great-grandfather
Dempsey Warwick (b. 1775 in Virginia) and grandfather to my
grandfather James Madison Warrick (b. 1803 in Sampson County,
North Carolina) who fought with Andrew Jackson in Georgia and
Florida, mustering out at Irwinton (Eufala) Alabama in 1823.

This is also the history of a very few families whose progenitors
came earlier and a great many families whose progenitors came
later, all for the same reason - to seek liberty and opportunity
on the frontier. All brought their God-given freedom - their
freedom of will - with them when they came. Our Constitution was
to ensure the Blessings of Liberty; our Declaration of
Independence declared "Liberty" an inalienable right; nowhere was
"Freedom" mentioned because "Freedom" is internal and expresses
the availability of alternatives through which one adapts to
conditions one IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO EVADE. Liberty comes from
outside, it is external, and Liberty can be granted; Freedom is
internal, God-given, and cannot in any way be diminished by any
external force. Sartre says: "Man is condemned to freedom."; not
to decide is to decide, and the choice (or use of freedom) cannot
be evaded. This is the prime and greatest responsibility of the
human; Alfred North Whitehead says: "Religion is what a man does
with his own solitariness."

Just as your esteemed Mr. Krauthammer, in his essay of 9 July
1984, missed the whole distinction between ethics and morality
because of his ethnocentricity, so has the Hon. Lance Morrow
failed to analyze the distinction between "Liberty" and "Freedom"
in his essay of 16 June 1986. One can have morality only in an
homogeneous society with a unitary value system; morality has to
do with actions that "feel right" or "feel wrong". Morality is
based upon right-brain affect and is subjective. A pluralistic
heterogeneous society with multiple value systems calls for
objectivity if justice is to prevail; a left-brain based
cognitive analytic ethics is necessary for just intergroup
relations. In such a pluralistic heterogeneous society morality
represents unchristian tyranny. As Dr. Ruben Lamar Norman, Jr.,
is wont to say: "There ain't no morality between groups."

The word "Liberty" derives from the latin "libertas" and harks
back to rationality, organization, and political structure. The
word "Freedom" derives from the Old English "fre" and the Gothic
"frei" and evolved in meaning in a milieu where there was no
organization nor government nor controls beyond the family or
clan. "Liberty" was imported with the Normans and became part of
the parallel vocabularies in English (i.e., Anglo-Saxon blue,
green, body, wood, fee, and vulgar "four-letter words"; Norman
azure, verdant, corpse, copse, rent, and "polite terms").
"Liberty" meant something quite different to the Normans than did
"Freedom" to the Anglo-Saxons. "Liberty" did not mean the same
thing to the Normans as did "Freedom" to the Anglo-Saxons; the
Normans allowed the Anglo-Saxons no "Liberty" whatsoever and all
the Anglo-Saxons had left was their internal "Freedom". Freedom
can be viewed as as a function of morality while Liberty can be
viewed as a function of ethics.

The concepts of paved roads and mileposts derive from practices
of the Roman Empire. To move troops overland the four thousand
miles from Jerusalem to Hadrian's Wall required a high degree of
ingenuity during the centuries prior to the birth of Christ.
This was effected through use of a law requiring any person
within the Roman Empire, on pain of death, on demand to carry the
pack of a Roman soldier one mile from milepost to milepost.
Where a soldier might move ten or twelve miles in one day while
carrying his own one hundred pound pack, the same soldier might
travel seventy to one hundred miles in a day liberated from that
encumbrance. Jesus said that if you carried the pack one mile
you were a slave; if you carried the pack two miles you were
free. One was not at liberty to evade carrying the pack; one WAS
free to carry the pack TWO miles - this is what Immanuel Kant
meant by "Autonomy".

At the center of our Constitution is the guarantee of the
liberties of the individual against intrusion by the State -
whether city, county, state, or national. The thrust of the
Constitution is to protect the INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN against the
GOVERNMENT - the person occupying the White House and his
appointed henchmen. Most particularly, in the very First
Amendment, is it guaranteed that the STATE will establish NO
RELIGION. It is perfectly obvious that for the State to use law
enforcement power to effect compliance with one sect's moral
values (and for the Supreme Court to approve such abuse) is
blatantly unconstitutional for it then "establishes a religion".
It is most desirable that the Fundamentalists use their powers of
"Inerrant Understanding" on the concrete prose of the
Constitution instead of the isomorphic poetic language of the
BIBLE seeking insight into the Infinite. Unlike the Biblical
translations from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to Elizabethan
English the Constitution was written in English; it says
explicitly what it means - the individual citizen is not to be
interfered with by the State.

Our eminent Chief Justice Burger wrote: "Condemnation of these
practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical
standards". That statement is manifestly factual, but it is
totally Constitutionally irrelevant as to "consenting adults" who
are not physically injuring some third person. Mr. Chief Justice
Burger here implies Supreme Court approval of the establishment
of a religion by a State. Also "firmly rooted in the Judeo-
Christian tradition" are the murders and torture concomitant to
Torquemada's Inquisition (c.1450 ff.) and the reign of Mary I of
England with her husband Philip II of Spain (1453-57) when the
streets of Oxford were lit with burning Anglican Bishops, and the
Salem witch trials (c.1692) under the tender ministrations of
Increase and Cotton Mather. The fascination for, and
condemnation of, sexual relationships by the church, and the
demand by the church that sex be used solely for procreation, is
based upon two political imperatives; (1) the need to populate
empires, and (2) the need to fight wars. In The Red Lamp of
Incest Robin Fox tells us that the very first action of any state
emerging from clan or tribe is to co-opt and control
intergenderal interaction.

Given that the most effective form of birth control is male
frequency (i.e., three or four times a day) then the church
evolved an adversary marriage relationship to keep spouses apart
until they are fertile and can produce soldiers. Given that sex
is God's tranquilizer to be used for recreation by humans,
whereas animals can use it only for procreation, then sex must be
denied to the young or they won't feel like "killing their commie
for Christ today". Warlike societies are always puritanical;
prostitution, pornography, and all forms of sexual outlets must
be restricted so as to prepare a society for fighting a war.
History demonstrates conclusively that "sexually permissive"
societies are always pacifist. Homosexuality has always been
considered "sinful" in warlike societies because such unions do
not produce the soldiers necessary to fight wars, or the
population necessary to colonize the conquered lands. Cognitive
analysis indicates, however, that there are no social costs
arising purely from homosexuality; there has never, in the
history of mankind, been any murderer, robber, thief, sex
offender, psychotic, criminal, or other social offender born as a
result of a homosexual union.

It was Elohim who spoke to Abraham and spared Issac on Mount
Ararat; it was el Shaddai who spoke to Moses at the burning bush
on Mount Horeb; it was Ikhnaton (Amenhotep IV) who forswore the
Theban God Amon for Aton (the Sun God) and conceived of One God -
monotheism. Whichever descendents of Abraham originated the oral
tradition of the Pentateuch assimilated all this to the warlike
imperialism of the angry, vengeful, cruel, capricious Pharaonic
tradition into the destructive warlike God-concept of the JHWH of
the Old Covenant. The proudest epithet of Jesus of Nazareth was
"Prince of Peace"; His loving, kind, gentle, forgiving,
comforting God-concept "Abba" (i.e., "daddy" or "poppa" in the
Aramaic) would have undercut the warlike imperialism of the
Priests, Pharisees, and the Sanhedrin, and so they crucified Him.
The "Inerrant" Fundamentalists and those who make the most noise
about being "Christian" would not even let Him into their
churches, let alone let Him preach there. They would stone Him
after His first sermon. It is ironic that most of these
"Christians" are overweight as a result of a lack of self-
discipline, terrible self-concept, and compensatory eating to
ameliorate frustration - overeating is a far more destructive and
serious "sin" than fornication, adultery, or alcohol abuse.

It is impossible to have a christian nation. In a christian
nation there would be no one but christian people; since a prime
characteristic of Jesus of Nazareth was tolerance He would never
have permitted non-christian people to be driven out or
persecuted. The "Dream" of this nation was for it to become a
nation based upon christian principles of compassion, tolerance,
forgiveness, understanding, and love of neighbors. Moral
imperialism - the forcing of one's values and behavioral
expectations upon everyone else - is unchristian and would never
have been tolerated by The Christ. It is just this moral
imperialism that is being practiced by the "New Right", the
Reagan Administration, and the Supreme Court as the gullible
nation follows the long-range Reagan plan (derived from exposure
to Dr. Loyal Davis - who considered the John Birch Society to be
a pinko-liberal-commie group) to strip all non-"Rightest-WASPS"
of their basic Civil Liberties. Prayer in the schools, to be
even minimally acceptable, would have to be promulgated by myself
or the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church - and entail NONE
of the (to me) repugnant values of the "Inerrant Baptists" or the
Fundamentalists/Television Evangelists (and how do you like the
taste of THEM apples?).

There is no more damaging or disasterous force in this world than
someone doing something to someone else "for their own good"
(e.g., seat belt laws, helmet laws, DUI laws, drug laws,
prohibition, religion in the schools, sexual interaction laws,
and other garbage arising from political egos and lust for
power). The outcomes of such coercion have always been
disasterous. Kanawha County (Charleston) WVA has the kind of
Fundamentalist schools and censored textbooks sought by the
Reagan Administration and its cohorts; those schools produced
Charles Manson and Sarah Jane Moore (who tried to assassinate
Gerald Ford). The real tragedy is that neither the "Inerrant
Baptists" nor the Fundamentalists and Television Evangelists nor
Reagan or anyone in his administration are truly christian people
nor truly real Americans. One either believes in (and trusts)
the system or one does not; secrecy has absolutely no place in an
open system. We can have a TOTALLY open society and still be
secure and more advanced than anyone else.

When another society is incapable of more than imitation the
freedom of thought ideally allowed by liberty of information
exchange in our system will result in information overload for
the other system. When our system WAS more open the result was
our brightest minds creating the leading edge of technology anbd
science. Under the Reagan efforts to coerce "Lenin-Marxist"
secrecy, "Socialist homogeneity", and "Iranian Theocracy" upon
our nation we have lost our edge and lost out in the world. The
only reason for governmental secrecy is to hide Administration
lies and blunders from US, this nations population. The Reagan
Administration has created out of our military a nest of whining,
mewling tattletales who expect cradle to grave security and are
the least self-reliant people in the world - it took seven
thousand (7,000) active military (receiving 8,200 medals) to cope
with sixty (60) Cubans on Grenada (at that rate we can whip any
underdeveloped nation in the world having less than 25,000,000
population). Patriotism is alright in Grenada or Nicaragua but
not in Lebanon - one Palestinian murders nearly three hundred
American servicemen and we are paralyzed, and the murderers go

Oliver Cromwell told the "Rump Parliament": Bethink ye, my
brethren, by the Bowels of Christ - ye might be mistaken". This
Administration is just as lacking in humility as was the "Rump
Parliament". The Judeo-Christian doctrine of "Original Sin"
asserts that man is born AS an animal (i.e., self-centered; full
of greed), not LIKE an animal; the doctrine has nothing to do
with sex or procreation or birth, but rather asserts the primacy
of self-centered greed in the new-born. One major reason for the
popularity of Ronald Reagan is that he has raised "Original Sin"
(i.e., human greed) to be the center of his new moral system;
Reagan has made it respectable to practice self-centered greed.
The "Good Samaritan" was a DEMOCRAT; the Priest and the Pharisee
were REPUBLICANS. The Christ asserted univocally: "Go and sell
all that thou hast and give it to the poor."; that ain't
capitalism and laissez faire economics, but it is what christian
people do.

The inherent greed and self-interest in the Reagan system of
values has suppressed patriotism in this country (except
verbally). It is no wonder that we produce spies when our system
fails so miserably. Ronald Reagan came to office with two
promises: (1) Our national budget would be balanced by 1984; and
(2) he would get the government off our backs. The outcome of
the first promise was that Reagan created more debt between 1980
and 1986 than the thirty-three (33) Administrations prior to
Reagans Inauguration had been able to accumulate in the two
hundred (200) years between 1775 and 1980; the debt service on
the more than two TRILLION dollar current national debt is two
hundred BILLION dollars - equal to our current Reagan annual
deficit. The outcome of the second promise is a rapidly
increasingly repressive national society based upon a "New
Rightist/Fundamentalist" theocratic dictatorship denying all
rights to everyone not part of the narrow-minded illiterate
dominant political faction in power. Since the very beginning of
the Judeo-Christian tradition the ENDS have never justified the
MEANS; we have sold our birthright (Liberty) for a "mess of
pottage" (Order).

It is the thesis of this essay that the Hon. Lance Morrow was
discussing "Liberty", not "Freedom", and that he was expressing
feelings not based upon fact; affect uncolored by cognition.
Liberty in this country has greatly diminished in our society in
this last five years as it has been smothered by repression (as
any thinking person could forsee in 1964 if ever THAT MAN should
be elected President). Since Reagan was in college United States
population has: (1) Tripled; (2) changed from 90% rural to 90%
urban; and (3) increased in educational coefficient from only 3%
finishing third grade to 3% Ph. D. and 16% Bachelor's Degree and
75% High School Diploma - and he doesn't know it has changed.
Only serious study could inform one as to what changes have come
about and how to cope with those changes, and Readers' Digest is
not an adequate source of information. Daniel Manion, the newest
addition to the ADMINISTRATION, is an eminent scholar in
comparison to the rest of the Administration. As complex as this
society has become, as has the international milieu, it is
impossible for a group of functional illiterates trained as
"businessmen" adequately to cope and provide security for this
nation (pick W. R. Grace, removed from the Chairmanship of his
family's corporation when he nearly bankrupted the corporation
through gross incompetance, to tell us how to cope).

In a laissez faire capitalist economy there is constant tension
between supply and demand to overcome the other and some
mechanism is necessary to ventilate and dissipate surplus of
either one or the other so as to maintain balance and prevent
inflation or depression. In our society we have used our defense
(military) establishment to bleed off excess production at a rate
proper to maintain supply-demand balance; in this case it was
alright to make adult toys that didn't work. When, however, a
movie actor, elected to the Presidency, takes seriously "Cowboys
and Indians" (Indians are "Reds", remember) then "Defense"
overexpenditures and overproduction can wreck the nation's
economy. Too many weapons (adult toys that don't work) require a
WAR to justify them, and the government has to crack down (an
atmosphere stimulating the use of "CRACK") and sequester "filthy
sex" to create a war milieu, which means the rights of everyone
to privacy and their other liberties have to be violated - and
there is no one in the Administration with cognitive analytic
capacity adequate to forsee the outcomes of their actions [to
predict to any adequate level of confidence probable changes
consequent to their systemic input]. It is a constitutional
crime to permit any enforcement agency (e.g., IRS, FBI, police at
any political level, etc.) to have access to computers -
constitutional liberties are much more secure in conditions of
gross governmental ineffectiveness and inefficiency. I am dead
set against any form of gun-control; when the neo-Nazi
Fundamentalist New-Right overturns the ballot box my last six
ballots are in my .357 Magnum.

The suppression of pornography is the first step on the path of
the suppression of political dissent. Dictatorship and tyranny
are much too high a price to pay for "Order"; Patrick Henry said:

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased
at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty
God! I know not what course others may take, but as for
me, give me liberty or give me death!"

Mr. Morrow writes charmingly of our contemporary "Nero-an Circus"
which distracts us from the Constitutional rape inflicted upon us
by this Administration. All privileges are counterbalanced by
duties, and all rights counterbalanced by responsibilities - Tom
Hayden and Jane Fonda had insufficient sense of history fully to
comprehend this - but Reagan has no sense of past history or of
future imperatives. Those Marines in Beirut are DEAD and they
won't be in "tomorrow's takes" (i.e., that was blood, not
ketchup); atomic/nuclear war kills people DEAD; this nation is
never going back to Dixon, IL, or Wheaton College - the
alternatives are a glorious, peaceful future or another Stone
Age; DEATH is final in real life as distinct from movie scripts.
It is the obligation of government (Executive, Legislative, or
Judicial) to step in whenever government at any level oppresses
the individual or restricts the rights of any individual or tries
to impose any one group's narrow morality on all a pluralistic
society, or invades the privacy of the lives of "consenting
adults", or tries to suppress the public opining of any
individual or that individual's right to write, print, publish,
buy, read, or possess any literature of any type whatever - the
purpose of the Constitution is to protect the individual from the
State, not vice versa.

Thomas Jefferson says it all:

"I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of
America, a question about the sale of a book can be
carried before the Civil Magistrate. Are we to have a
censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be
sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize
religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to
be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or
stretched? Is a Priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a
layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the
rule of what we are to read, and what we must believe?
It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they
are rational beings or not."

"That the impious presumption of legislature and ruler,
civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves
fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over
the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and
modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and
as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath
established and maintained false religions over the
greatest part of the world and through all time." * * *
* *"Where the Preamble declares, that coercion is a
departure from the plan of the holy author of our
religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the
words "Jesus Christ" so that it should read, "A
departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author
of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great
majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within
the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile,
the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of
every denomination."