more answers than questions, don’t we? Is anything wrong with our ways of perception? What does it mean if answers are given before the question is put?
In regard to our question on the reliability of mutual exchanges of observations, experiences, findings and opinions by our ancestors in the pre-writing period, we have to depend on our common sense and imagination alone. We assume that the initial communication of our ancestors must have been based on face-to-face exchange of sounds and gesticulations. Everywhere. All over the world. Whether sense organs other than eyes and ears were also used, we would not like to talk about because it lies beyond our imagination.
There cannot be any doubt that sound, gesture and gesticulation of human beings have always possessed only a limited possibility of variation. Different species have different means of communication and different possibilities of variation. If cats all over the world can communicate with each other without being supported by “meticulous modern scientific studies”, human beings should also be able to do so. The fact is that they always did, and they still do it today. Without being supported by “Linguistics” and/or some allied “sciences”. When did these sciences actually emerge?
We further imagine that our ancestors observed their environment in an increasingly differentiated manner, that they did use sounds, expressions, gesture and gesticulation for mutual exchanges and in the process gradually reached the level of written “Literature and Art”. We can also imagine that this was a long and toilsome journey, which would not have been possible without the mode of face-to-face exchange. Different observations, perceptions, interpretations and opinions were continuously exchanged, reviewed, adjusted and mutually agreed upon. Continuously. Everything was saved in the brain and stored in our memory. External-memory-devices were not needed in this phase. Also in our time the face-to-face mode of exchange is mainly being practised in everyday life. Without major and long lasting misunderstandings. So people have always been able to communicate their urges, feelings, needs and thoughts without the support of “modern sciences”. The quality of this mode of exchange has obviously been convincing and efficient. It has led to a vast accumulation of comprehensive knowledge. At some stage in this development a need for an external memory must have been felt. A need for an external “back up” for the memory. However, it was to be saved as copies only, and not as substitutes for the audio visually supported memory.
All mutual exchanges—whether experiences, observations, opinions, fantasies, reports on events, or lies, false stories and so on—do influence us, change us. We grow through them, in whichever direction. In the face-to-face-mode we listen to each other, look at each other without any intervening technical device. We register the accentuation of the language and modulation of the voice, and we observe the emotions on our partners’ faces and their gesticulations. We are accessible to immediate questions and can demand clarification. Thus, no other mode of exchange can provide a higher degree of accuracy, and it is guaranteed that the exchanged contents are not distorted and remain authentic.
When did we start to tell lies deliberately? When did we start forging? We do not know. And we won’t get distracted by fruitless questions like: since when have we been lying, since when have we been forging, since when have we been taking someone for a ride to meet our selfish ends, when and where was forgery detected and made public for the first time. We focus our attention on the fact that often distortions are caused by the ”malice of the object”, which can be detected only under scrutiny. Knowing this one may also be tempted to smuggle in similar ”mistakes” without getting noticed and take advantage of it. Why not? This conclusion leads us to a simple question. How big is the risk of forging? Is it calculable? Can it be estimated? Is there a probability that it will not be detected at all; or that forgery is detected but not the forger; or that forgery is detected too late and neither can the damage be repaired, nor the forger be accounted for? Unless the forger is caught on the spot, how can we find out whether something has been forged or has just become distorted by the ”malice of the object”, so to speak? Even if the ”malice of the object” can be ruled out, how do we decide whether it has been caused by a mistake or intention? Assuming that a forgery is detected early enough and there is a suspect: Aren’t there too many chances of escape without being harmed? As a last resort, loss of memory, ”black-outs”, can be claimed as it has been by so many local and international politicians as well as celebrities representing ”western democracies”. Who does not remember such recent ”blackouts”? Suspicion may sustain for a while. But does it really matter? New events will distract our attention. Where is the risk?
We all know one of the ”fundamental laws” of our times: whenever someone gains something, someone else suffers a loss. Whenever social goods are ”distributed”, the probability of unjust distribution is extremely high. This we know too well. We are not eager to examine for how long this has been going on. Why should we? We would be barking up the wrong tree. Therefore, we stick to ”distribution” itself. Whatever is sought after is soon going to run short. Often there are unintentional distributional mistakes. Are we not tempted to take a distributional advantage by manipulation, which might have occurred through the ”malice of the object” as well? Where is the risk? No one will deny that lies and forgeries have been practised widely for centuries with an increasing tendency, supported by an unbelievably rapid growth of marketable technologies.
The technology of digitalisation, for example, makes it possible to manipulate without being detected and enables to make any number of copies of an original and copies of copies without a loss in quality and without any difference from the original. Is this a tremendous cultural achievement? Are we not made believe that it is? Doesn’t this technology open up the floodgates to forgery? This technology dissolves any object in digits, a document, a picture, and a sound, which can be written again and again and converted into the document, the picture, and the sound. Of course some digits may disappear along the way, or some new digits may also appear. In the end there is a final product which is unique and ultimate. It has only to be beautiful and sellable. Is this progress?
Let us come back to the script. With its introduction as a means (Medium) of exchange (communication), we have lost most of our “visuals” and with it also the modulation of voice which carry special colour and emotions and thus the chance to clarify issues at hand and to reach common assessment. Is it important to know where script was used initially? Or to know how it developed? “Modern scientists” are fascinated by questions like these. But isn’t it a cul-de-sac, a blind alley, or just therapies to keep one busy, a typical trait of the “Guinness- Book-culture”? Or even worse? Is it an effective technique to distract our minds from essential issues? Assuming that it could be established beyond any doubt, where, when and by whom writing was first introduced: would this be a benefit to mankind or just a waste of energy and time that could perhaps better be applied later to gain a real growth of knowledge? We take an example.
We all know that the earth existed for some billions of years and mankind for some hundred thousand of years before Moses made us believe in “his God”. The Christian chronology depends on his story only. We all know as well that man as a “social being” has gone much beyond simple reactions to the impulses of nature: making experiences, remembering experiences, reflecting on them, anticipating and predicting social and natural events, storing environmental features in memory, exchanging this knowledge with contemporaries to check and refine their knowledge. These mutual exchanges mark the beginning of science. And this science has a long history of growth. Therefore we utterly fail to comprehend why “modern scientists” are so obsessed with making us believe that real science is “modern science” only. It is based on “experiments”, characterised by their repetition in the laboratories. This “science” has been in practice for about 300 years. It began in Europe and now covers the world. This lab-based science culture did not creep up on its own. Not only is it wrong. It is also a deliberate, man-made turning point.
We just cannot imagine that the protagonists of “modern science” have not always been aware of the fact that their activities were based on the meticulously accumulated activities of our ancestors. And that every experiment pre-supposes the availability of reliable knowledge. Logically there cannot be any hypothesis without a thesis, just as there is no thesis without a fundament of reliable knowledge. How is it that, despite this, “modern scientists” regard only their own activities