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 as “truly scientific”, and consequently denigrate all former scientific achievements? And this is being done in spite of the tremendous accumulation of knowledge through the ages, based on observation, perception, interpretation, evaluation, replacement and continuous critical inspection of prior assumptions in the light of real life. Not in labs!
How has it been possible for this false premise, this forgery, to be successfully marketed all over the world? An interesting question and an important one as well. Yet, we must leave this question unanswered. But we ascertain here that this caesura introduced by protagonists of “modern science” is false and problematic as well. It excludes one major field of human experience, the metaphysics. The established culture of “modern science” is even worse. Whatever goes beyond the horizon of “modern scientists”, just cannot exist and therefore does not exist. On the other hand, we know that the capacity of comprehension of the “modern scientists” depends much on prevailing market conditions.
*****
Let us go back in time to when our ancestors begin accumulating knowledge and “storing” it in their brains. As alert observers (empiricists) of their environment, they soon notice that there are occasional mistakes while activating their “brain-memory”. So, what to do? They must have tried many ways to make sure that once the knowledge is gained, it is also saved effectively for future. We can comprehend, appreciate the fact that they must have tried out various techniques of memory storage within their scope, starting with collectively practicing to improve their memory to a point of nearly flawless recall. They must have constructed mental crutches, composing realistic stories based on various areas of knowledge and referring to many events metrically versifying strings of facts for easier storage and recall, creating recognisable sound-signs and finally developed external memory storage on long-lasting materials. And, ultimately, signs become symbols, graphical representations, drawings, the alphabet, words and writings.
The variety of „media“ having different ranges and qualities handed down by our ancestors tells us about their apprehensions regarding a possible loss of acquired knowledge, accumulated by face-to-face communication, and, therefore, saved it in as many exterior-memory-storage as possible to support brain memory. They also send us the distinct message that no “exterior memory” is a substitute for “mind memory”. The concept of “signs” in writing to indicate different sounds (phonetics) is a further message for us never to forget the danger of the sound getting lost whilst using “external memories”.
There is no doubt that the invention and development of writing facilities as a medium of language are important cultural achievements. Writing has made possible the storage of accumulated knowledge outside the human brain—though never as accurately as in mind. Thus the limitations of space and time are overcome for intellectual communication. The quantity of experience and their appraisal is thus enlarged. The range of human perception and experience has been enriched. But only as an intermediate complementary to face-to-face communication.
Where there is light, there is shade. As we communicate more and more by writing, it seems, the extent of face-to-face communication is gradually on decrease. Thus the opportunities of immediate verification and correction of erroneous communication are also getting systematically reduced. We know from our daily experiences that it is often difficult to put ideas into words, though they are clear in our minds. Even more so, when they have to be written down as a communication for others. In face-to-face communication we can mutually observe the reactions and make sure that intended messages are received without distortions. In cases of doubt we choose different words, change the sentences, resort to gesticulation and repeat at times the whole process. We provide additional explanations. We end the process of exchange in mutual understanding. Face-to-face communications are far less prone to misunderstandings.
The probability of circulating a false story convincingly in a face-to-face communication is extremely low. We remember “Pinocchio” whose nose enlarged whenever he lied. While reading we have to depend upon our ability to decipher and comprehend that the meaning is clear and therefore should be easily understandable. But what happens if some false messages are relayed deliberately? Long or short, we see no noses when reading. And our impression is that we get accustomed to “long noses”. We prefer mediated (passive) communications to direct encounters. We begin to willingly accept whatever is being communicated. Soon the fictitious, the virtual world might become our home rather than the real world.
It is not our purpose to reconstruct the process how the dominance of the external memory has grown and the importance of the “mind–memory” has been diminished. We recall only the “quantum leaps” of this evolution, as already mentioned, the invention of script, printing, film, telegraphy, radio, phone, television, Internet, digitalisation. And we also think of the negative aspects of these “quantum leaps” also. They teach us that the external memory is never a copy, but only a translation of the original. And the profiles of a translation are always more blurred than copies and the profiles of copies are more indistinct than the original (except for digital copies). There is no need to emphasise that the translations from copies and the translations of translations become more and more faulty, even without conscious forgery. Just due to the nature of the matter or caused by the “malice of the object”.
We have repeatedly used the expression “quantum leap”. We withdraw this term, which has been taken from the nuclear physics, with an excuse. We had intended to indicate an “unexpectedly giant leap” in the course of a development, and not the behaviour of quanta during nuclear fission. We don’t know anything about it. But using such “terms” leaves marks; it is pretty and
