Ergebnis für URL: http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading7 This is chapter 14 of the [1]"The Phenomenon of Science" by [2]Valentin F.
Turchin
____________________________________________________________________________
Contents:
* [3]THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE HIERARCHY
* [4]SCIENCE AND PRODUCTION
* [5]THE GROWTH OF SCIENCE
* [6]THE FORMALIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
* [7]THE HUMAN BEING AND THE MACHINE
* [8]SCIENTIFIC CONTROL OF SOCIETY
* [9]SCIENCE AND MORALITY
* [10]THE PROBLEM OF THE SUPREME GOOD
* [11]SPIRITUAL VALUES
* [12]THE HUMAN BEING IN THE UNIVERSE
* [13]THE DIVERGENCE OF TRAJECTORIES
* [14]ETHICS AND EVOLUTION
* [15]THE WILL TO IMMORTALITY
* [16]INTEGRATION AND FREEDOM
* [17]QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS . . .
____________________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FOURTEEN.
The Phenomenon of Science
THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF THE HIERARCHY
THE UNIVERSE IS EVOLVING. The organization of matter is constantly growing more
complex. This growing complexity occurs through metasystem transitions from which
new levels of organization emerge which are levels of the control hierarchy. The
inorganic world, plants, animals, the human being--such has been the course of
evolution on our planet, and as far as we know this is the greatest advance which
has been made in the part of space that surrounds us. It also seems highly
probable that the human being is the crown of evolution of the entire cosmos. In
any case, we do not have any direct indications or even the slightest hints of
the existence of a higher level of organization. Therefore all we can do is
consider ourselves the highest.
The appearance of the human being marks the beginning of the Age of Intellect,
when the leading force of development becomes conscious human creativity and the
highest level of organization is the culture of human society. In its development
culture generates the next level of the hierarchy within itself. This is critical
thinking which, in its turn, gives rise to modern science, constructing models of
reality using sign systems. These are new models; they did not and could not
exist in the minds of individual human beings outside of civilization and
culture, and they enlarge human power over nature colossally. They make up the
continuously improving and developing super-brain of the super-being which is
humanity as a whole. Thus, science is the highest level of the hierarchy in the
organization of cosmic matter. It is the highest growth point of a growing tree,
the leading shoot in the evolution of the universe. This is the significance of
the cosmic phenomenon of science as a part of the phenomenon of man.
SCIENCE AND PRODUCTION
JUST AS IN THE EVOLUTION of animals there was a stage when the central nervous
system formed and as a result profound changes occurred in the structure,
behavior, and external appearance of the organism, an age of swift and profound
changes under the direct influence of science has now arrived in the development
of society. At the beginning of the first industrial revolution science played a
relatively small part, but then came discoveries in physics and chemistry which
led to revolutionary changes in technology and the conditions of societal life.
In the 1950s the second industrial revolution began, indebted entirely to
scientific advances. It is still picking up speed today and even its very
immediate repercussions are difficult to anticipate.
It is now widely recognized that science has become a direct productive force. On
the other hand, it cannot develop without the development of industrial
production, and that is becoming increasingly expensive. Modern production
requires not only that ready formulas from science be used but also that
scientific research and the scientific approach be introduced in all elements of
production. More and more it comes to resemble science. On the other hand,
science, attracting a significant part of the human and physical resources of
society and becoming a regulated, mass occupation, is acquiring the
characteristics of production. Science and production are growing together into a
single hierarchical system. The uppermost growth point sends out leaves which
grow rapidly at first but then stop and become standard, stable forms of
interaction with physical reality: electrical motors, airplanes, machines to
produce synthetic fabrics, and genetic methods of selection. But the growth point
rises higher and higher and generates more and more new leaves.
THE GROWTH OF SCIENCE
SCIENCE IS GROWING. It grows exponentially, which is to say that its quantitative
characteristics increase so many times each so many years. The total number of
articles in scientific journals throughout the world doubles every 12 to 15
years.[18][1]
The number of workers in science doubles every 15 years in Western Europe, every
10 years in the United States. and every 7 years in the USSR. With such a furious
growth rate the contemporary generation of scientists constitutes 90 percent of
all the scientists who have ever lived on Earth.
Along with science other quantitative characteristics of the human race are
growing exponentially: the total number of people and the total volume of
production of material goods. But science significantly surpasses them in growth
rate. The growth rates of population, production, and science are roughly in the
ratio 1:2:4. This is a healthy ratio which reflects that evolution of an organism
where the mass of muscles is growing more rapidly than the total mass of the body
but the mass of the brain is growing more rapidly than the mass of the muscles.
Unfortunately, the territorial distribution of growth is poor. High population
growth falls primarily in countries with low production growth and virtually no
contribution to world science. We hope, however, that humanity will be able to
handle these growing pains. There can hardly be any doubt that growing pains is
all they are. After all, the rapid population growth in the underdeveloped
countries is due to the high level of world science (medical service. social
changes). Already today the human race represents a highly integrated system and
its overall takeoff, which is conveyed by the ratio 1:2:4, is the result of the
development of science, a very recent phenomenon. If we extrapolate the present
rate of population growth (on the order of two percent a year) into the past, it
appears that there would have been just two people living on Earth a mere
thousand years ago!
The proportion of people employed directly in the sphere of science is still
small, even in the highly developed countries. It ranges from 0.5 to one percent.
The figure is now growing rapidly, but it is obvious that sooner or later its
growth will slow down; it will reach a constant level which is difficult to
predict today. As far as can be judged by the literature, it is considered
improbable that this level will exceed 25 percent. After all, by weight the human
brain is also a small part of the entire body.
The absolute number of people engaged in scientific work will nonetheless grow
steadily, and together with it the quantity of information produced by them will
also grow steadily. This quantity is already enormous today. The first scientific
periodicals began to come out in the second half of the seventeenth century. By
the start of the 1960s the total number of periodicals was about 50,000. 30,000
of these were still being published in 1966.
[IMG.FIG14.1.GIF]
Figure 14.1. Growth in the total number of scientific journals
A total of 6 million articles had been published in them, and this figure was
increasing by 500,000 a year.[19][2] The total number of patents and author's
certificates recorded was more than 13 million. This stream of information, which
must be used, gives rise to serious difficulties. For a long time scientific work
has demanded an extreme degree of specialization, but recently it has become
increasingly common for scientists to be unable to follow all the new work even
in their own narrow areas. They face a dilemma: either read articles or work.
Moreover, as a result of technical difficulties in disseminating and processing
enormous amounts of information (we might also mention the imperfections in the
information system in science and technology) substantial effort must often be
expended to find the necessary information, and this effort is not always
successful. As a result a great deal of work is duplicated or not properly done.
According to estimates by American scientists, between 10 and 20 percent of
scientific research and experimental design work could be dispensed with if
information on similar work already done were available. The resulting losses in
the United States have been $1.25 billion. According to G. N. Dobrov, in 1946 40
percent of applications for invention certification in the area of coal-combine
construction were rejected as repetitious. In 1961 this figure had risen to 85
percent.
THE FORMALIZATION OF SCIENTIFIC LANGUAGE
CAN WE CONCLUDE from this that there is an information crisis in science? It is
perhaps too early to speak of a crisis, but we can already see that as a result
of the continuous growth in the stream of information there will be a crisis in
the near future if qualitative changes do not take place in the organization of
scientific research. Until now scientific research has been organized in forms
which developed traditionally, by themselves. Not only are they not the result of
scientific investigation, but until recently they have not even been a subject of
investigation. So there must be a scientific approach to the problem of
organizing scientific activity--that is, a new metasystem transition: scientific
control of the system of science. This metasystem transition has two aspects. The
first, which does not go beyond the framework of science as a subsystem in the
system of culture, creates a new level of the hierarchy within the framework of
science as a primarily linguistic activity. This is what we called metascience in
the preceding chapter. The second aspect concerns science as a social phenomenon.
This aspect has come to be called the science of science [in Russian,
naukovedenie].
We introduced the concept of the metascience without having connected it to the
information problem. When speaking of mathematics, however, we remarked that the
metascientific, conceptual approach is the organizing principle for the limitless
number of theories and problems axiomatic symbolic mathematics can generate. The
connection with the information problem in the natural and technical sciences is
obvious here. There is a great deal that can be investigated, and many research
plans can be boldly outlined. But one must have first clear planning principles,
plans for plans. Otherwise there will be anarchy among plans, and when anarchy
occurs the decisive factors are frequently those remote from the interests of
science: considerations of prestige, personal contacts, and the like.
Furthermore, it is essential for the language of the natural sciences and
engineering to be completely formalized; then the aggregate of human knowledge
will appear in the form of a harmonious system; only then will it become possible
to work out the scientific principles of planning science. One should not think
that the process of formalization is something "formal,'' that is to say
syntactical and amounting to nothing but new notations. The problem of
formalization of the scientific language is a conceptual, semantic problem. It is
the problem of working out new concepts, a problem which resembles the
formalization and axiomatization which occurred in mathematics.
A completely formalized language is a language accessible to the machine. When
the edifice of science has a formalized frame we can separate the work that can
be done by machines and automata from the jobs that require creative human
participation. After the separation the machine work can be assigned to machines.
Today, of course, the very simplest tasks of this sort are already being done by
machines (automation and the use of computers), but formalization will make it
possible to raise considerably the level of problems solved by machines. This
refers above all to the processing of information flows. Systematization and
storage of information, selection of needed information, and very simple
information conversions-- these and other tasks which make up the information
problem today cannot be satisfactorily resolved by machines without complete
formalization of language. It is difficulties in formalizing language which at
the present time limit the application of computers in information science. The
advances that are being made in this area are primarily related to more or less
successful formalization of more or less extensive parts of the
scientific-technical language.
THE HUMAN BEING AND THE MACHINE
HOWEVER, turning over the lower levels of science to machines should involve, and
already is involving, not only linguistic activity but also direct manipulation
of the natural objects under study. Properly speaking, each time modern
automation is used in scientific experiments it is indeed an "entry of the
machine into research". Raising the level of automation in this or that
particular sphere of research implies complete formalization of a corresponding
part of the scientific language. Automatic scanning of photographs with traces
(tracks) of elementary particles and sorting out given configurations of tracks
is a prototype of future achievements in this area. The universal arrival of
machines in direct contact with nature will require universal formalization of
the language of science. The next stage which can be anticipated is independent
machine formulation of experiments in accordance with metascientific
recommendations.
As machines are increasingly used in science and production, the human being will
become increasingly free from noncreative activity--which, no matter how
paradoxical it may seem, becomes needed precisely because of the successes of
creative activity! For what is creativity? Above all creativity is constructive
action, action that leads to an increase in the level of organization in the
world. But an action is not characterized as creative only on the basis of its
results. These results must be considered within the relationship to the
mechanism of the action or the relations between this action and the system that
gave rise to it. The same action may be a creative act when it is done for the
first time and mechanical repetition of the past when it is done according to
established, known rules, by applying standard procedures. Nothing that is
produced within the framework of an already existing system of control, whether
it is work by a computer or the composition of stereotyped articles, is
creativity. Creativity always goes beyond the framework of the system; it is free
action. Creativity is a metasystem transition. The evolution of the universe is
continuous creativity. One of the manifestations of this process is creative acts
in culture which establish new levels of control and in this way deprive
lower-level actions of their creative character. Thousands of slaves had to be
driven to build a pyramid; thousands of arithmetic operations had to be performed
to calculate the exact positions of the planets on paper. Machines will rid the
human being of that sort of work and transfer human activity to that level of the
hierarchy which is still creative at the given moment. With time, this level will
also cease to be creative; the boundary between creative and uncreative work is
steadily crawling upward.
Ideally, immediately after the discovery of the presence of a system in some
activity, this activity (or the part subordinate to the system discovered) could
be turned over to a machine. Unfortunately, there is at present a considerable
gap between the time an uncreative component appears and the time when there is a
practical possibility that it can be turned over to a machine. The development of
automation in the realm of nonlinguistic activity, accompanied by formalization
of language in the realm of linguistic activity, is lessening the gap, but it
remains large. The information problem in science, the necessity of routine,
stereotyped research, and the need to overcome organizational difficulties to
conduct experiments are all evidence this gap exists in scientific activity. In
production, we are still a long way from automatic plants capable of producing
motor vehicles and television sets according to plans fed to them. We are even
farther from the time when there will be nothing but automatic plants. But sooner
or later this will occur. The gap will be eliminated or reduced to a minimum. The
formalization of language and automation will rid human beings of uncreative work
just as the use of mechanical energy has for the most part rid us of heavy
physical labor.
SCIENTIFIC CONTROL OF SOCIETY
THE SOCIAL ASPECT of the problem of controlling science is inseparable from the
problem of controlling society as a whole. Science and production are growing
into a single system, and politics and ideology are also inseparably linked to
it. Furthermore, both aspects of the metasystem transition necessary for the
development of science (the metascientific and social aspects) are also
inseparably linked, and there is no hope of fully carrying out the former without
carrying out the latter. Thus we have here essentially a single problem--the
problem of scientific control of society. And even from the point of view of
''pure'' science this problem is the principal one; progress is impossible unless
it is solved.
In the initial stages of the development of science, scientists had a
comparatively proper justification for nonintervention in the practical affairs
of society. It was possible to say that science itself was one of the highest
values of existence and would demonstrate its amazing capabilities in the future;
in its embryonic state, it would have to be given the peace and warmth needed for
development, no matter what. The scientist could say, like a hen sitting on her
eggs "Do what you want, but just leave me in peace! I am hatching a remarkable
chick. That is the main thing".
In our day this sort of reasoning is pure hypocrisy. The remarkable chick has
come out of its shell and requires food. To isolate it from the environment now
would mean to starve it to death.
SCIENCE AND MORALITY
THUS SCIENCE CLAIMS the role of supreme judge and master of the entire society.
But will it be able to handle this role'? After all, people need not only
knowledge of the laws of nature and the ability to use them. They also need
certain moral principles, answers to such questions as what is good and what is
bad? What should a person strive toward and what should a person oppose? What is
the meaning and goal of the existence of each person and of all humanity?
Strictly speaking, science cannot answer these questions. The ideas of the good,
the goal, and the duty which are part of moral principles are beyond the bounds
of science. Science engages in the construction of models of that reality which
actually exists, not that which should be. It answers the questions: What really
is? What will be if such-and-such is done? What must be done so that
such-and-such will be? But science cannot in principle answer the question "What
must be done?'' without any "if'' or "in order that.'' As a certain American
philosopher remarked, no matter how much you study the train schedules you will
not be able to choose a train if you do not know where you are going. All
attempts to construct moral principles on a scientific basis inevitably lead in
the end to the question ''What is the Supreme Good?" or ''What is the Supreme
Goal?'' which are essentially the same thing. Scientific knowledge and logical
deductions are relevant to moral problems only to the extent that they help
deduce answers to particular questions from the answer to this general, final
question. The problem of the Supreme Goal remains outside science and its
solution necessarily requires an act of will; it is in the last analysis a result
of free choice.
This in no sense means that science has no influence at all on the solution to
this problem. True to its principle of investigating everything in the world,
science can look from outside at the human being and at entire societies which
are deciding the problem of the Suprem Goal for themselves. Science can analyze
various aspects of this situation and predict the results to which adoption of a
particular decision will lead. And this analysis can significantly influence the
process of solving the problem, although it does not change the nature of the
solution as a freely made choice.
THE PROBLEM OF THE SUPREME GOOD
WHEN AND HOW does the problem of the Supreme Good and the Supreme Goal emerge? It
is obvious that the animals did not have it, nor was it found in the early stages
of the development of human society. Until a certain time, good for both hun-an
beings and animals was that which brought .satisfaction, and there was a
hierarchy of goals--crowned by the instincts for preservation of life and
continuation of the species--that corresponded to the hierarchy of
.satisfactions. The concept of the goal and the concept of the good are, in
general, inseparable; they are two aspects of a single concept. The human being
strives toward good, by definition, and calls that toward which he strives good.
In the stage when good is equated with satisfaction the human being does not
differ in any way from the animal in a moral sense; for the human being, moral
problems do not exist. The point here is not the nature of the satisfaction, but
the fact that it is given, that the criterion of satisfaction is the highest
controlling system--one that changes goals but that does not undergo changes
itself. Even from a purely biological point of view human satisfactions differ
from animal satisfactions. As an example we may recall the sense of the
beautiful. And as the social structure becomes more complex the human being
acquires new satisfactions which are unknown to animals. Nonetheless, this does
not create the problem of the Supreme Good. That arises when culture begins to
have a decisive effect on the system of satisfactions, when it turns out that
what people think, say, and do is capable of changing their attitude toward the
world to such an extent that events which formerly caused satisfaction now cause
dissatisfaction, and vice versa. True, satisfactions at the lowest level (those
deriving from direct satisfaction of physical needs) hardly change at all as
culture develops, but satisfactions of the highest level (elation at one's skill
in hunting, physical endurance, and the like) are sometimes capable of
outweighing low-level dissatisfaction. In this way the criterion of satisfaction
itself proves subject to control. A metasystem transition occurs; the social
scale of values and system of norms of behavior emerge.
But this is only the prologue to the problem of the Supreme Good. In primitive
society the norms of behavior can be compared to animal instincts; in the social
super-brain they are in fact a precise analogue of the instincts embedded in the
brain of the individual animal. Control of association (thinking) destroys
instincts or, to put it better, it demotes them and puts social norms of behavior
in the topmost place. In primitive society these norms are just as absolute as
instincts are for the animal. And although they do change in the process of
society's development, just as instincts change in the process of evolution of
the species, this is unconscious change. They are perceived by each individual as
something given and beyond doubt. But then one more metasystem transition occurs,
the transition to critical thinking, and then the problem of the Supreme Good
emerges in full.
Now people not only influence their own criteria of satisfaction through their
linguistic activity, but they are conscious of this influence. The simple ''I
want it that way!" loses its primary, given quality. When a person becomes aware
that what he wants is not only a result of his upbringing but also depends on
himself and may be changed by reflection and self-education, he cannot help
asking himself what he should want. In his consciousness he finds an empty place
that must be filled with something. ''Is there an absolute Supreme Good toward
which one should strive?'' he asks himself. ''How should one live? What is the
meaning of life?"
But he cannot get unequivocal answers to these questions. A goal can only be
deduced from a goal, and if a person is free in his desires, then he is also free
in his desires for desires. The circle of doubts and questions closes and there
is nothing more to rely upon. The system of behavior is suspended in the air.
Naive primitive beliefs and traditional norms of behavior collapse. The age of
religious and ethical teachings arrives.
There are many of these teachings and they differ in many ways, but at the same
time it appears that they also have a great deal in common, at least if we speak
of the teachings which have become widespread. Our job now is to determine
whether the scientific worldview leads us to some type of ethical teaching, and
if it does, which one. At the same time we shall discuss the question of the
nature of the common denominator of the different ethical teachings.
SPIRITUAL VALUES
BEFORE DISCUSSING the problems of the Supreme Good and the meaning of life we
must gain assurance that the problem is worth discussing. There are many people
whose point of view may be called the theory of natural values. According to this
theory the creation of ethical teachings is an idle occupation if not a harmful
one. This theory asserts that human nature contains, along with needs and
instincts of animal origin, a yearning for specifically human spiritual values
such as knowledge, beauty, justice, and love of one's neighbor. Achieving these
values brings the highest satisfaction. The task of a human being is to develop
these yearnings in himself and in others and thus obtain the highest satisfaction
from life. This is the one natural goal of the human being, the one natural
purpose. Philosophical religious and ethical teachings which begin from a priori
principles or principles taken from who knows where can only muffle and distort
these natural, truly human yearnings and force people to act basely in the name
of a Supreme Good which they have invented.
What can we say about this theory? It is convenient as a pretext for avoiding the
solution of a difficult question. It also has the merit of shunning extreme
positions. But, unfortunately, it is untrue. It is contrived to a much higher
degree than the other teachings which openly admit their dogmatic nature. The
assertion that striving toward the highest spiritual values is part of human
nature in its literal, exact sense contradicts the facts. Children carried off by
animals who grow up away from human society do not show an understanding of the
highest values of modern civilized people; they generally do not become
full-fledged people. Therefore, there is nothing in the actual structure of the
developing brain that would unequivocally generate those specific higher
aspirations of which the theory of natural values speaks.
"Oh no!'' a supporter of this theory will say, becoming terribly indignant at
such a vulgarization of his views. ''We are certainly not speaking of the
concrete ways these yearnings are manifested; what we refer to is their general
foundation, which requires the conditions created by society if it is to manifest
itself.''
But then the theory of natural values commits the sin of switching concepts. To
say ''general foundation'' is to say nothing if we do not give the concrete
substance of this foundation and its connection with observed manifestations.
From the point of view being developed in this book, the general foundation of
the highest values recognized at the present time by a majority of the human race
really does exist; it is inborn, encoded in the structure of the genes of each
human being. This foundation is the ability to control the process of
associating. It may be tentatively called the ''knowledge instinct'' (see chapter
4), but this is just a figurative expression. The profound difference between
this ability and instinct is that instinct dictates forms of behavior while
control of associating mainly permits them and removes old prohibitions. Control
of associating is an extremely undifferentiated, multivalued capability which
admits diverse applications. Even what we call thinking is not an inevitable
result. And what can we say about the more concrete forms of mental activity?
Control of associating is more a destructive than a constructive principle; it
needs constructive supplementation. This supplementation is the social
integration of individuals, the formation of human society. It is in the process
of development of society that spiritual values originate. Of course, they are
far from accidental, but it is a long way from their general foundation implanted
by nature in all human beings to spiritual values, and on this road it is the
logic of society, not the logic of the individual, that governs. This road is not
unambiguous and it is not complete.
The theory of natural values, in speaking dimly of the "general foundation" of
spiritual values, thus actually equates certain particular ideals recognized at
the present time by some (possibly many) people with this ''general foundation''
which is absolute, invariable, and implanted in human nature. Two consequences
follow from this error. For one, the theory of natural values does a disservice
to the spiritual values it promotes when it promotes them on a false basis. It is
like the well-wisher who started defending the right of a peasant lad to human
dignity not on the basis of the general principles of humanism but rather by
attempting to prove his noble origin; the deception can easily be revealed and
the unfortunate young man will be flogged. In the second place, this theory does
not contain any stimuli to the development of spiritual values; it is
antievolutionary, conservative to an extreme.
What do we have in mind when we say that some particular values are natural for
the human being? Obviously we mean that they are dictated, established for human
beings by nature itself. For the animal, instincts are the goals which nature
gives him, and what fits the instincts is natural for him. But nature does not
give the human being goals: the human being is the highest level of the
hierarchy. This is a medical fact, as Ostap Bender[20][3] would say, a fact of
the organization of the human brain. The human being has nowhere from which to
receive goals; he creates them for himself and for the rest of nature. For the
human being there is nothing absolute except the absence of absolutes and there
is nothing natural except endless development. Everything that seems natural to
us at a given moment is relative and temporary. And our current spiritual values
are only mileposts on the road of human history.
It is worth thinking about the meaning of life. To think about the meaning of
life means to create higher goals and this is the highest form of creativity
accessible to the human being. This type of creativity is always needed because
the highest goals must change in the process of development and will always
change. And each person must somehow decide this question for himself since
nature has given him such an opportunity. Assurances that this problem has been
solved or assurances that it is insoluble are lies which some use deliberately:
others fall back on them from mental laziness and lack of fortitude. The question
is, of course, insoluble at the level of pure knowledge; it must include an
element of free choice. But conscious choice accompanied by study of the object
and reflection is one thing and blind imitation of an example imposed upon us is
something else. In one way or another someone creates the highest goals, because
outside of society, "in nature,'' there are none. Every person is given this
capability to some extent; to voluntarily reject the use of it is the same thing
as for a healthy animal to voluntarily reject physical movement and use of the
muscles.
THE HUMAN BEING IN THE UNIVERSE
THE CRITICISM of the theory of natural values shows clearly that element of the
scientific picture of the world we can use as a startingpoint to arrive at
definite moral principles, or at least definite criteria for evaluating them.
This element is the doctrine of the evolution of the universe and the human role
in it. And so, let us set off.
The assertion of the continuous development and evolution of the universe is the
most important general truth established by science. Everywhere we turn we
observe irreversible changes subordinate to a majestic general plan or to the
basic law of evolution, which manifests itself in the growing complexity of the
organization of matter. Reason emerges on Earth as a part of this plan. And
although we know that the sphere of human influence is a tiny speck in the cosmos
still we consider the human being the crown of nature's creation. Experience in
investigating the most diverse developing systems shows that a new characteristic
appears first in a small space but, thanks to the potential enclosed in it,
engulfs a maximum of living, space over time and creates the springboard for a
new, higher level of organization. Therefore we believe that a great future
awaits the human race, surpassing everything that the boldest imagination can
conceive.
But no one person is the human race. What can a person say about himself, about
the place of his own mortal self in the universe? What can the human being
attain? How do one's will and consciousness enter the scientific picture of the
world?
One hundred years ago the portrait of the world that science depicted was
completely deterministic. If one took it seriously, one could become an absolute
fatalist. But we know now that this picture was wrong. According to contemporary
notions the laws of nature are exclusively probabilistic. Events may be more or
less probable (or completely impossible), but there is no law that can force
events to flow in a strictly determined manner. The laws of nature more often
demonstrate the impossibility of something, than the reverse; it is not
accidental that the most general laws are prohibitive (the law of conservation of
energy, the law of increasing entropy, and the uncertainty relation). Cases where
the course of events can be predicted quite accurately far into the future are
more the exception than the rule--an example here is astronomical predictions.
But they are possible only because we encounter here an enormous difference in
time scales between astronomical and human time. If we were to approach the
motions of the celestial bodies with the time scales inherent in them it would
turn out that the only predictions we could make would be as limited as our
predictions regarding the molecules of air we breathe. So the successes of
celestial mechanics which inspired Laplace in his formulation of determinism are
a very special case.
Indeterminacy is deeply implanted in the nature of things. The evolution of the
universe is a continuous and universal elimination of this indeterminacy, a
continuous and universal choice of one possibility from a certain set of
possibilities. We can compare two situations involving choice--extreme cases that
have been well-studied.
The first situation is the collision of two elementary particles. Knowing the
initial conditions of the collision, we can give the probability of particular
results, but nothing more. For example, if the probabilities that a colliding
particle will be deflected upward and downward are identical, we cannot now--and
never shall be able to--predict in which direction the particle will go.
Nonetheless, nature makes its choice. This act of choice, which is among the most
elementary, is according to modern notions a blind one. Changes in the evolution
of the universe occur only because of the interweaving and play of an infinite
number of such acts.
The second situation is the act of will of the human personality. We can study
this act from outside, just as we study the collision of particles. This is the
basis of behavioral psychology. If we know the conditions in which a person is
placed and some of his psychological characteristics, we can make some
predictions, also purely probabilistic. But when we view this situation from
within--as our own free choice (as an act of manifesting our personality)--what
had appeared unpredictable in principle when considered from outside is now seen
as free will.
The nature of the unpredictability in these acts is the same, as is the
impossibility of watching the system without affecting it; but how greatly they
differ in their significance! The act of will encompasses an enormous space-time
area as compared to the act of the scattering of particles. In addition, the act
of will may be a creative act, not the blind, inert material of cosmic evolution
but its direct expression, its moving force.
THE DIVERGENCE OF TRAJECTORIES
ALL THE SAME, the human being is extraordinarily small in comparison not only
with the universe, but with the human race as a whole, and this again inclines us
to think of the insignificance of the act of individual will and the law of large
numbers would seem to reinforce us in this thought. We must note that
superficially understood and incorrectly applied scientific truths very often
promote the acceptance of false conceptions. That is how things are at present.
Relying on the law of large numbers people reason as follows. There are 3 billion
people on Earth. The destiny of the human race is the result of their combined
actions. Because the contribution of each person to this sum is equal to one
three-billionth no one person can hope to significantly affect the course of
history, not even accidentally. Only general factors which influence the behavior
of many people simultaneously count.
In reality this reasoning contains a flagrant error, because the law of large
numbers is only applicable to an aggregate of independent subsystems. It could be
applied to the human race if all 3 billion people acted with absolute
independence and knew absolutely nothing about one another. However, as the human
race is a large and strongly interconnected system, the acts of some people have
very great effects on the acts of others. In general such systems possess the
characteristic of divergence of trajectories, which is to say that small
variations in the initial state of the system become increasingly larger over
time. We call the situations in which the law of divergence of trajectories
manifests itself in an unquestionable, obvious way crises. In a crisis situation
enormous chances in the state of the system depend on minute (on a system scale)
factors. In such a situation the actions of one person, possibly even a single
word spoken by the person, may be decisive. We are inclined to consider crisis
situations rare, but we know many constantly operating factors that multiply the
influence of a single person many times over. These are the so-called trigger
mechanisms. Only a very slight effort is required to press the trigger or control
button, but the consequences resulting from this action may be enormous. It is
hardly necessary to say how many such mechanisms there are in human society.
Nonetheless, the idea of the little person, this fig leaf with which we conceal
in front of others the shame of our cowardice, does not give up without a
struggle. Most people, the ''little person'' says, do not participate in crisis
situations and do not have access to triggers.
Many people will perhaps recall the rhyme which ends with the words:
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost--
And all for want of a horseshoe nail.
The rhyme describes a trigger mechanism which goes from a slipshod blacksmith who
did not have a nail to the defeat of an army. We take this story as humorous, not
wishing to see it as completely serious. However, our entire lives consist of
such multi-stepped dependencies. Mathematical investigation of large
interconnected systems shows the same thing: trajectories diverge. An initially
insignificant deviation (the lack of a nail in the blacksmith shop) enlarges step
by step (the shoe falls off, the horse goes lame, the commander is killed, the
cavalry are crushed, and the army flees). But we take a skeptical attitude toward
such long chains because in our everyday life we are almost never able to trace
them reliably from start to finish. In the first place, each connection between
links of the chain is probabilistic: a lame horse certainly does not necessarily
doom the commander. In the second place, following the relationship of events
constantly raises questions of the type ''What would have happened if . . .?'' It
is hard to find two people who give the same answers to a series of such
questions, but it is impossible to turn the clock back and look. Finally, we
practically never have the necessary information.
But that we cannot trace these chains in the opposite direction should not
eclipse our awareness of their existence when we think about the consequences of
our actions. Crisis situations are rare not because small factors rarely have
major consequences (they do), but rather because we are seldom fully aware of the
chain of events. We can never foresee the results of our actions exactly. The
only thing available to us is to establish general principles through whose
guidance we increase the probability of Good, that is, the probability of those
consequences which we consider desirable. We should act in accordance with these
principles, viewing each situation as a crisis situation because the importance
of each act of our will may be enormous. By always acting in such a way we
unquestionably make a positive contribution to the cause of Good. Here the law of
large numbers operates at full strength.
ETHICS AND EVOLUTION
BUT WHAT IS GOOD? What are the Supreme Good and the Supreme Goal? As we have
already said, the answer to these questions goes beyond the framework of pure
knowledge and requires an act of will. But perhaps knowledge will lead us to some
certain act of will, make it practically inevitable?
Let us think about the results of following different ethical teachings in the
evolving universe. It is evident that these results depend mainly on how the
goals advanced by the teaching correlate with the basic law of evolution. The
basic law or plan of evolution, like all laws of nature, is probabilistic. It
does not prescribe anything unequivocally, but it does prohibit some things. No
one can act against the laws of nature. Thus, ethical teachings which contradict
the plan of evolution, that is to say which pose goals that are incompatible or
even simply alien to it, cannot lead their followers to a positive contribution
to evolution, which means that they obstruct it and will be erased from the
memory of the world. Such is the immanent characteristic of development: what
corresponds to its plan is eternalized in the structures which follow in time
while what contradicts the plan is overcome and perishes.
Thus, only those teachings which promote realization of the plan of evolution
have a chance of success. If we consider the cultural values and principles of
social life which are generally recognized at the present time from this point of
view, we shall see that they are all very closely connected with our
understanding of the plan of evolution and in fact can be deduced from it. This
is the common denominator of the ethical teachings which have made a constructive
contribution to human history.
But there is still a great distance between this objective and unbiased view of
ethical principles and the decision to follow them. Really, why should I care
about the plan of evolution? What does it have to do with me?
THE WILL TO IMMORTALITY
A VERY IMPORTANT FACT--that human beings are mortal--now must be considered.
Awareness of it is the starting point in becoming human. The thought of the
inevitability of death creates a torturous situation for a rational being and he
seeks a way out. The protest against death, against the disintegration of one's
own personality, is common to all people. In the last analysis, this is the
source from which all ethical teachings draw the volitional component essential
to them.
Traditional religious teachings begin from an unconditional belief in the
immortality of the soul. In this case the protest against death is used as a
force which causes a person to accept this teaching; after all, from the very
beginning it promises immortality. If immortality of the soul is accepted then
the stimulus to carry out the moral norms imposes itself: eternal bliss for good
and eternal torment for bad. Under the powerful influence of science the notions
of immortality of the soul and life beyond the grave, which were once very
concrete and clear, are becoming increasingly abstract and pale, and old
religious systems are slowly but surely losing their influence. A person raised
on the ideas of modern science cannot believe in the immortality of the soul in
the traditional religious formulation no matter how much he may want to; a very
simple linguistic analysis shows the complete meaninglessness of this concept.
The will to immortality combined with the picture of the world drawn above can
lead him to just one goal: to make his own personal contribution to cosmic
evolution, to eternalize his personality in all subsequent acts of the world
drama. In order to be eternal this contribution must be constructive. Thus we
come to the principle that the Highest Good is a constructive contribution to the
evolution of the universe. The traditional cultural and social values may be
largely deduced from this principle. To the extent that they conflict with it
they should be cast aside as ruthlessly as we suppress animal instincts in the
name of higher values.
The human being continues somehow to live in his creations:
No! All of me will not die! In the cherished lyre my soul
Will survive my ashes, it will not decay.
(PUSHKIN, "I Have Raised a Monument to Myself," 1836)
What is the soul? In the scientific aspect of this concept it is a form or the
organization of movement of matter. Is it so important whether this organization
is embodied in the nerves and muscles, in rock, in letters, or in the way of life
of one's descendants? When we try to dig down to the very core of our
personality, don't we come to the conviction that its essence is not a repeating
stream of sensations or the regular digestion of food, but certain unrepeatable,
deeply individual creative acts? However, the physical result of these acts may
go far beyond the space-time boundaries of our biological body. Thus we begin to
feel a profound unity with the Cosmos and responsibility for its destiny. This
feeling is probably the same in all people, but it is expressed differently in
various religious and philosophical systems. It is this feeling that art teaches
which elevates the human being to the level of a cosmic phenomenon.
Thus, the scientific worldview brings us to ethics, which points out the Supreme
Values and demands that we be responsible for and actively pursue them. Like any
ethics it includes the act of will, which we have called the will to immortality.
If a person cannot or does not want to perform this act, then no knowledge, no
logic will force him to accept the Supreme Values, to become responsible and
active. And God save him! The Philistine who has firmly resolved to be content
with his wretched ideal, who has resolved to live as a humble slave of
circumstances, will not be elevated by anything and will pass from the stage
without a trace. The person who does not want immortality will not get it. Just
as the animal deprived of its instinct for reproduction will not perform its
animal function, so the human being deprived of the will to immortality will not
fulfill his or her human function. Fortunately, this case is the exception, not
the rule. The will to immortality is not the privilege of certain "great''
people, it is a mass characteristic of the human being, a norm of the human
personality which serves as the source of moral strength and courage.
How convincing and acceptable will the ethical ideals we have deduced from the
scientific worldview be for a broad range of people, our contemporaries and
descendants? Doesn't all this reasoning sound a little too abstract and
unfeeling? Is it capable of involving, of affecting the emotions'? It is, and
this is shown by many examples. The ideas of evolution and personal participation
in the cosmic process conquer the imagination; they give life depth and meaning.
But in return they demand bold conclusions and a readiness to sacrifice the
conventional and adopt the unexpected and uncanny if that is where logic
inexorably leads.
It is natural to expect that those who are engaged in science will have a
positive attitude toward construction of an ethical system on the basis of the
scientific worldview. This expectation is for the most part borne out. The
scientists have many ''fellow travellers'' too. But there are also many enemies
or, at least, persons who do not wish us well. In some circles (especially among
the intelligentsia in the humanities) it is fashionable to curse scientists for
their ''scientism,'' their endeavors to construct all life on a scientific basis,
surreptitiously substituting science for all other forms of spiritual life. These
attitudes (which can hardly be called justified) are engendered primarily by fear
in the face of that unknown future toward which the development of science is
inexorably (and rapidly!) drawing us. The fear is intensified by
misunderstanding, for neither the broad public nor the representatives of the
intelligentsia in the humanities and arts ordinarily understand the essence of
modern scientific thinking and the role of science in spiritual culture. This
problem was set forth brilliantly by C. P. Snow in his 1956 lecture entitled "The
Two Cultures".[21][4] Science to the modern person is what fire was to the
primitive. And just as fire aroused a whole range of feelings in our ancestors
(terror, amazement, and gratitude), so science today arouses a similar range of
feelings. Fire has an attractive and enchanting force. The primitive looked at
fire and delights and dim premonitions earlier unknown rose in his soul. It is
the same with science. Science fiction, for example, is just like the visions of
primitives sitting around a fire. And constructing supreme goals and principles
on the basis of the scientific picture of the world can be called fire worship.
These metaphors do not degrade; they honor modern fire worshipers. After all, we
are very deeply indebted to the imagination of our ancestors who were enchanted
by the dancing flames of the fire.
INTEGRATION AND FREEDOM
THE PROCESS of social integration has never gone on so furiously and openly as it
does today. Modern science and engineering have put every person in the sphere of
influence of every other. Modem culture is global. Modern nations are enormous
mechanisms which have a tendency to regulate the behavior of each citizen with
increasing rigidity--to define needs, tastes, and opinions and to impose them on
people from without. Modern people are hounded by the feeling that they are being
turned into standardized parts of this mechanism. and are ceasing to exist as
individuals.
The basic contradiction of social integration--that between the necessity of
including the human being in the system, in the continuously consolidating whole,
and the necessity of preserving the individual as a free, creative
personality--can be seen today better than ever before. Can this contradiction be
resolved? Is a society possible which will continue to move along the path of
integration but at the same time ensure complete freedom for development of the
personality? Different conceptions of society give different answers.
The optimistic answer to the question sounds positive. Each successive stage in
the integration of society will probably involve some external limitations not
fundamental from the point of view of creative activity. On the other hand, each
stage will foster a liberation of the nucleus of the personality, which is the
source of creativity. Belief in the possibility of such a society is equivalent
to belief that the impulse implanted by nature in the human being has not been
exhausted, that the human being is capable of continuing the stage of cosmic
evolution he has begun. After all, the personal, creative principle is the
essence of the human being, the fundamental engine of evolution in the age of
intellect. If it is suppressed by social integration, movement will stop. On the
other hand, social integration is also essential. Without it the further
development of culture and increasing human power over nature are impossible; the
essence of the new level of organization of matter lies in social integration.
But why should we suppose that social integration and personal freedom are
incompatible? After all, integration has been successfully carried out at other
levels of organization! When cells join into a multicellular organism they
continue to perform their biological functions-- exchange of matter and
reproduction by division. The new characteristic, the life of the organism, does
not appear despite the biological functions of the individual cells but rather
thanks to them. The creative act of free will is the ''biological'' function of
the human individual. In the integrated society, therefore, it should be
preserved as an inviolable foundation and new characteristics must appear only
through it and thanks to it.
If we refuse to believe in the possibility of an organic combination of social
integration and personal freedom then we must give one of them preference over
the other. The preference for personal freedom leads to the individualistic
conception of society, while preference for social integration leads to
totalitarian regimes.
Individualism views society as nothing more than a method of ''peaceful
coexistence'' of individuals and increasing the personal benefits for each of
them. But by itself this idea is inadequate to build a healthy society. Pure
individualism deprives the life of a person of any higher meaning and leads to
cynicism and spiritual impoverishment. In fact, individualism exists only thanks
to an alliance with traditional religious systems--or, to put it better, by
living as a parasite on them--because they are in principle hostile to
individualism and permit it only as a weakness. With the collapse of the
religious systems this parasite reaches enormous size. Individualism becomes a
fearsome ulcer eating up society and inevitably, as a protest against itself, it
gives rise to its negation, totalitarianism.
For totalitarianism, integration is everything and the individual is nothing.
Totalitarianism constructs a hierarchical state system which is usually headed by
one person or a small group of people. An ideological system is also constructed
which each citizen is obliged to accept as his or her personal worldview. Anyone
refusing to do this is subject to punishment, which may go as far as physical
extermination. The person trapped in between the two systems becomes a
thoughtless, soulless part in the social machine. The person is given only what
freedom is necessary to carry out instructions from above. Every manifestation of
individual activity is viewed as potentially dangerous to the state. Personal
rights are abolished.
Striving to preserve and strengthen itself, the totalitarian state uses all means
of physical and moral influence on people to make them suitable to the
state--"totalitarian'' people. The fundamental characteristic of the totalitarian
person is the presence of certain prohibitions he is unable to violate. He may be
a scientist, an investigator filled with curiosity, but upon approaching certain
aspects of life his curiosity suddenly begins to evaporate. He may be a brave
man, capable of giving his life for his country without a thought, but he
trembles in fear before his leader. He may consider himself an honest man but
speak what he knows to be a lie, and not connect this lie with his supposed
honesty. He may steal, commit treason, and kill in the confidence that ''it is
necessary''; he will never permit himself to ask if it really is necessary. And
he will walk a mile to avoid anything that might force him to think about this.
The totalitarian person is compensated for these tabus, which are imposed on
precisely what constitutes the highest value of human existence, by the feeling
of unity--the feeling that he belongs to an enormous aggregate of people who are
organized into a single whole. The human being has an inherent, internal need for
social integration, and totalitarianism's strength is that it plays on this need
and satisfies it to some extent. The strength and danger of totalitarianism are
that it stands for social integration, and social integration is an objective
necessity.
But the totalitarian state is not the solution to the problem of social
integration. It achieves wholeness by smoothing out differences among its
constituent human units to the point where they lose their human essence. It cuts
off people's heads and forces the stumps to be elated at the unity achieved at
such a price. Totalitarianism is a tragically clumsy and unsuccessful
pseudosolution: it is the abortion of social integration. By destroying the
individual person it deprives itself of the source of creativity. It is doomed to
rot and decay.
While individualism generates totalitarianism, totalitarianism, inversely,
generates individualism. "Down with the collective!" cries the person raised in
totalitarianism who has become aware of his slavery. ''Leave me alone! I don't
want unity! I don't want military might! I don't want a feeling of comradeship! I
want to live the way I like! I! I! I!" Fearing punishment, however, he only
imagines he is shouting this; at most he whispers it. His ego, which has grown up
under totalitarian conditions, is a wretched, half-strangled one. And he becomes
a purposeless Philistine with the perspective of a chicken. He is not interested
in anything except his own self. He does not believe in anything and therefore he
subordinates himself to everything. This is no longer a totalitarian personality,
it is a miserable and cowardly individualist living in a totalitarian state.
Individualism and totalitarianism are two opposites linked in a common chain.
There is only one way to break this circle: to set as our task conscious social
integration with preservation and development of creative personal freedom.
QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS . . .
ATTEMPTS TO LOOK even farther, as far as imagination permits, produce more
questions than answers.
How far will integration of individuals go? There is no doubt that in the future
(and perhaps not too far in the future) direct exchange of information among the
nervous systems of individual people (leading to their physical integration) will
become possible. Obviously the integration of nervous systems must be accompanied
by the creation of some higher system of control over the unified nerve network.
How will it be perceived subjectively? Will the modern individual consciousness,
for which the supreme system of control will be something outside and above the
personal, something alien and not directly accessible, be preserved unchanged? Or
will physical integration give rise to qualitatively new, higher forms of
consciousness that will form a process that can be described as merging the souls
of individual people into a single Supreme Soul? The second prospect is both more
probable and more attractive. It also resolves the problem of the contradiction
between reason and death. It is difficult to tolerate the thought that the human
race will always remain an aggregate of individual, short-lived beings who die
before they are able to see the realization of their plans. The integration of
individuals will make a new synthetic consciousness which is, in principle.
immortal just as the human race is, in principle, immortal.
But will our descendants want physical integration? What will they want in
general? And what will they want to want? Already today the manipulation of human
desires has become a phenomenon that cannot be discounted, and what will come in
the future when the structure and functioning of the brain have been investigated
in detail? Will the human race tall into the trap of the absolutely stable and,
subjectively, absolutely happy society which has been described in the works of
science fiction writers such as Zamyatin and Huxley?
To avoid falling into such a trap there must be guarantees that no control
structure is the highest one finally and irreversibly. In other words, there must
be guarantees that metasystem transitions will always be possible in relation to
any system no matter how large it may be. Are such guarantees possible? Does
consciousness of the necessity of the metasystem transition for development give
people such guarantees? And is the very need for development, the yearning to
continue development, ineradicable? We have reason to hope that it is. Having
conquered the human consciousness, the idea of evolution seemingly does not want
to go away. If we imagine that the human race will exist forever like a gigantic
clock, unchanging and identical, with people (its machinery) being replaced as a
result of the natural processes of birth and death, we become nauseous; this
seems equivalent to the immediate annihilation of the human race. But will it
always seem that way to our descendants? Perhaps now, when we feel that necessity
of development, we should try to perpetuate this feeling? Perhaps this is our
duty to the living matter which gave us birth? Suppose we have made such a
decision. How can it be carried out?
Now let us pose the question of the pitfalls along the path of development in
more general form. Ant society is absolutely stable. But that is not because it
is poorly organized; the individuals which make it up are such that unifying them
does not give rise to a new characteristic--it does not bring brains into contact
(the poor things have virtually nothing with which to make contact). Is it
possible for the remote descendants of the ants or other arthropods to become
rational beings? Most likely it is not. It appears that the arthropods have
entered an evolutionary blind alley, but perhaps we are in one too. Perhaps the
human being, is unsuitable material for integration and no new forms of
organization and consciousness based on it will develop. Perhaps life on Earth
has followed a false course from the very beginning and the animation and
spiritualization of the Cosmos are destined to be realized by some other forms of
life.
Let us assume that this is not true, that nature has not committed a fatal
injustice in relation to the Earth. Now, when conscious beings have appeared,
what should they do to avoid wandering unknowingly into a blind alley? For such a
general question a general answer may be offered: preserve, even in some
miniature, compressed form, the maximum number of variations; do not irreversibly
cut off any possibilities. If evolution is wandering in a labyrinth, then when we
come to a point where the corridors intersect and we choose the path going to the
right we must not forgot that there is also a corridor going to the left and that
it will be possible to return to this place. We must mark our path with
ineradicable, phosphorescent dye. This is precisely the function of the science
of history. But are the linguistic traces which it leaves adequate? Perhaps a
conscious parallelism is essential in solving all social problems.
We shall hope that we have not yet made an uncorrectable mistake and that people
will be able to create new, fantastic (from our present point of view) forms of
organization of matter, and forms of consciousness. And then the last, but also
the most disturbing, question arises: can't there exist a connection between the
present individual consciousness of each human personality and this future
superconsciousness, a bridge built across time? In other words, isn't a
resurrection of the individual personality in some form possible all the same?
Unfortunately, all we know at the present time compels us to answer in the
negative. We do not see any possibility of this. Neither is there a necessity for
it in the process of cosmic evolution. Like the apes from which they originated,
people are not worth resurrection. All that remains after us is what we have
created during the time allotted to us.
But no one can force a person to give up hope. In this case there is some reason
to hope, because our last question concerns things about which we know very
little. We understand some things about the chemical and physical processes
related to life and we also can make our way in questions related to feelings,
representations, and knowledge of reality. But the consciousness and the will are
a riddle to us. We do not know the connection here between two aspects: the
subjective, inner aspect and the objective, external aspect with which science
deals. We do not even know how to ask the questions whose answers must be sought.
Everything here is unclear and mysterious: great surprises are possible.
We have constructed a beautiful and majestic edifice of science. Its fine-laced
linguistic constructions soar high into the sky. But direct your gaze to the
space between the pillars, arches, and floors, beyond them, off into the void.
Look more carefully, and there in the distance, in the black depth, you will see
someone's green eyes staring. It is the Secret, looking at you.
_________________________________________________________________________________
[22][1] The figures are taken from G. N. Dobrov's book Nauka o nauke (The Science
of Science), Kiev, 1966.
[23][2] The figures are taken from D. Price's "Little Science, Big Science,'' in
the collection of artlcles Nauka o nauke (The Science of Science), Moscow.
Progress Publishing House, 1966; original: Columbia University Press, 1963.
[24][3] Hero of the novel Twelve Chairs by Ilf and Petrov -- trans.
[25][4] C.P. Snow, The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution (London:
Macmillan, 1959).
____________________________________________________________________________
References
1. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/default.html
2. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/turchin.html
3. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading3
4. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading4
5. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading5
6. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading6
7. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading7
8. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading8
9. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading9
10. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading10
11. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading11
12. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading12
13. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading13
14. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading14
15. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading15
16. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading16
17. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#Heading17
18. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fn0
19. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fn1
20. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fn2
21. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fn3
22. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fnB0
23. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fnB1
24. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fnB2
25. http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/POS/Turchap14.html#fnB3
Usage: http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/URL
e.g. http://www.kk-software.de/kklynxview/get/http://www.kk-software.de
Errormessages are in German, sorry ;-)