Educology

1

“We have fallen into an abyss of stupidity and cannot recognize that it follows some eclipse of values and

the obliteration of their hierarchy”. (S. Lem, Glos z otchlani [Voice from the abyss]. "Tygodnik

Powszechny”, 6.5.2001)

Professor of Philosophy

University of Silesia

Katowice, Poland

Introduction by Co-Editors

This paper was written by Dr. Wieslaw Sztumski, Professor of Philosophy in the Social Science

Faculty in the University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland for publication in the International

Journal of Educology. It represents Professor Wieslaw’s philosophical position about the

problems involved in the reality of the new situation of life in which human beings exist in the

world today.

It is Professor Suztuski’s description of the new situation of life in the world in the beginning of

It is not, directly, a paper in philosophy of educology. It is a paper in philosophy for educology

that accounts for the reality of the new situation of life in the world in which the need for a

philosophy of knowledge about education, i.e. a philosophy of educology, is clearly signified

when Sztumski says:

“Old categories of ethics should be constantly evaluated according to the changes in our

environment of life. Above all, it is necessary to recognize as proportional, not as perfect,

what is variable and accidental, and it is necessary that we seek for some “quick-time

axioms” of ethics in the situations full of uncertainty, risk, and instability. This seems to

be the most urgent task for contemporary pedagogues and ethicists, persons in

professions that should be responsible for the upbringing and survival of the future

generations.”

Introduction by Author

Nowadays, we live in an extraordinary epoch in a strange life space-time. This is over all the

consequences of the unusual increase of our life tempo. This tempo accelerates in accord with the

measure of technological and scientific progress. We all have more to do in a quicker time than

previously, by analogy, in the click-time of the computer mouse. In this situation, constancy and

certainty does not exist for a long time, specifically the existence of the ethical norms, value

systems, and behavior principles. For this reason an important tasks stand before us, i.e. the task

of creating a new ethics (“a click-time ethics”) and to bring up a new generation for life in a

complicated future world according to this new ethics.

Part 1

2

Nowadays, we observe, in all spheres of life, symptoms that announce the arrival of essentially a

new epoch. People’s behaviors, opinions, attitudes, and value systems changed radically in the

last century. In addition, the ways of thinking, conceptualization, and making sense of the world,

as well as our scientific and philosophical world pictures, were transformed quickly and really.

This was caused by the radical transformation of the natural, social, and cultural environments.

These changes consist in the rejection of all that was fixed in our consciousness and culture for

many centuries, in what we acknowledged as unquestionable, in what grew into tradition thanks

to propaganda and enculturation, and in what was inherited from one generation to the next as

certainties, truths, and ethical canons. Our faith in constancy, certainty, reliability, and safety

weakened, thanks to this secular experience.

The formation of constant stereotypes in the period from the 17th to the 20th century was caused

by the development of science, leaning on classical physics, by technology, using unfailing

mechanisms, and by philosophy, presenting the mechanistic and classical deterministic world

picture. However, in the beginning of the last century, quantum mechanics and the theory of

relativity have destroyed the foundations of classical physics and awaked the mistrust in

stereotypes functioning in classical science and in philosophy. The development of quantum

mechanics and relativistic physics caused the critique of contemporary convictions. In addition,

technical progress (inventions of ever more complicated technologies and technical mechanisms)

showed the nonsense of the belief in the infallibility of technology. On the one hand, risk of

damages increased with the complication of technical mechanisms and with the use of new

sources of energy (above all nuclear energy). On the other hand, the threat to life and the growing

risk of ecological disasters increased with the satiation of the world with modern technologies.

Therefore, the development of knowledge and technology led to the rise of the consciousness of

uncertainty. Philosophy did not exist indifferent in the face of these occurrences. Therefore, the

rules of criticism, relativism, and dialectics began to prevail in philosophical thinking in the

second half of the twentieth century.

Nevertheless, circa seventy years was necessary to make finally sure that ruling stereotypes of

thinking and paradigms in science and culture have irrevocably lost their power and are no longer

adequate for the new social reality and modern conditions of life. Such a conclusion appeared

because of the stormy development of the natural sciences, technology, and negative historic

experiences. By negative historical experiences, I mean the two world wars, social revolutions,

dictatorships (fascist and bolshevist), the holocaust, exterminations of ethnic groups, the period of

the so-called cold war (or 'frozen peace'), and now, after September eleventh last year, global

terrorism. By the stormy development of technology, I mean the development of the production

of mass-extermination weapons, the development of nuclear energy and the enormous progress in

the spheres of transport, telecommunication, exploration of the cosmos, and the processes of

automation, computerization, and robotization. At present, we see that the ethical canons in life's

situations have lost their power. They surrendered the lack of belief, criticism, relativism, and

dialectical thinking. Some traditional ethics, leaning on the religious beliefs of different religious

groups defended against the destruction of their foundations by the overthrow of myth about the

inviolability of norms and of rules consisting allegedly in so-called natural laws. However, under

the pressure of modernity and postmodernism they have lost their position.

These ethics can still be preserved in the social consciousness as a relict of the past. The faith in

the infallible authorities fell, lack of confidence in ideology and political leaders is growing, and a

critical view of the ideal political system and object of religious or laic cults are preserved. Now,

we behave with reserve, with distrust, and we have a critical attitude towards what in the past was

acknowledged as good. Old norms, patterns, paradigms, prohibitions, and command systems are

simply rejected as unnecessary ballast not needed by anybody. These not only do not help us to

3

live in the contemporary world, but prevent us, also, from adapting to the essential requirements

of the present environment of life, i.e. they are the elements that threaten even the possibility of

our survival.

Therefore, we find in this situation that some rules and norms of coexistence cease to function,

and that others surrender to progressive erosion and lose their importance. However, nothing has

yet been introduced in the place of what has been rejected and what has been broken. Even today,

we do not know what to introduce. We do not know what “new” should replace the “old” in the

sphere of ethics. We do not know, after all, what waits us neither in the foreseeable future nor for

what purpose, what to bring up, and on what to lean. Therefore, we are neither able to foresee,

nor to define our expectations. Then, we can state that we have to deal with an unusual crisis in

ethics. We have begun to live in an inter-epochal empty ethical space. In other words, our topical

life space-time has become to some extent devoid of its ethical dimension or this dimension is

significantly reduced.

It would appear as though this is a normal course of life. Maybe, we live during a period of

ethical crisis in one of the successive periods of turn of epochs in the history of human kind.

Since ancient times, people have known that the world changes, but they knew too that there are

also some elements of constancy. This was reflected in some philosophical views. Here, rivaled

opinions that acknowledged certainty and despair, constancy and variability, unity and plurality,

and harmony and contradiction. Besides, in ancient times, people thought that such attributes as

constancy, certainty, unity, invariability, and harmony constituted the perfection of being and also

the good, whereas their antinomies were acknowledged as the degeneration of and the deviation

from perfection, and the bad. We have to deal with the clear asymmetry of the evaluations of

constancy and variability and of certainty and uncertainty, etc. These ancient opinions survived

throughout the epochs, and were even strengthened by the foundations of Christian philosophy

and modern science. Always, in philosophy and science, one looked for some absolutely certain

fulcrum, i.e. some foundation or axiom. And, one tried to find it in the self-consciousness of man,

in God, in the Mind, etc.

The development of science in modern times delivered the arguments for and against these

opinions. On the one hand, we discovered phenomena, which prove changes in the nature,

society, and culture. On the other hand, we discovered different invariants in the form of

objective, eternal, and obligatory regularities in science and scientific laws; permanent and

invariable structures in thinking, language, psyche etc, and; physical invariants and cosmological

constants. But the ancient way of thinking has prevailed continually till present times, i.e. the

thinking that what is invariable and necessary is good and what is variable and accidental is bad.

In this connection, the picture of our changing world demands a foundation of something

invariable. Therefore, change and uncertainty can only take place in what is invariable and

certain.

If certainty and invariability exist not in the real world (because maybe this does not exist), it

postulates their existence in a conceived (ideal) world. Hence also in modern science, we have to

deal with the unchanging conditions of border values (attained allegedly in infinity), with some

absolutes and fictions (as e.g. perfect solid body, frictionless movement, balanced market etc). It

appears that European culture, founded on ancient philosophy and on classical science, yearned

for what should be constant, certain, and absolute. Therefore, the search for constancy, certainty,

and various absolutes became an important aim of the cognitive activity, as well as the belief in

the constancy and certainty of the knowledge of the stability of our conditions of existence,

profession, good, norms, rules of human coexistence, beauty, etc., and the basis of our upbringing

and education.

4

Until now, the turns of epochs consist in this, that instead of old elements (or moments) of the

constancy and certainty, new ones were introduced, and the old ways of interpreting absolutes

were replaced by new ways, which are more adequate to new social situations and more

consistent with modern knowledge. However, these new substitutes of the moments of the

certainty and invariability had an absolute character, i.e. they were irrefutable. Nobody could risk

doubting them for fear of exposing themselves to infamy. Thinking of the world as structured on

some invariable, solid, and certain basis was still obligatory. Consequently, the theories

describing the world had to refer to moments of the persistence, invariable, and absolute

certainty.

The turn of the epoch, in which we live now, is quite different from preceding ones and therefore

seem to be strange. It generates justified anxiety for the future of humankind, especially in

connection with the foreseen scenarios of disasters and with the feeling of the loss of certainty

and safety. This is a typical fear of the unknown. The present epoch and the crisis of ethics differ

essentially from preceding critical states because it has been proved that we ought not only reject

the acknowledged moments of constancy (values constants, certainties, invariants etc), but that

we have to reject even the thought of them. It has been proved that something like this does not

have and cannot be the constant, invariable, certain, and absolute and are simply fictions in which

we can believe and have no reference to the real world. Such an assertion can wake the anxiety of

the extreme view that we acknowledge only variability and uncertainty, that the world does not

have any permanent foundations, that it is like 'plasma', and that the theories describing the world

will not demand any axioms.

Perhaps it would be more reasonable to formulate some compromising position, in this context,

that the facts of the real world do not have, in principle, anything permanent, certain, and

invariable, and that people have to appeal to these fictions in order to hold any social law and

order so as to give them a sense of their own life and history. Order, harmony, and the sense of

life are basic elements of organization of individuals and society, without which they cannot

function. The organization is a necessary condition for the survival of humankind. In spite of the

realization of the lack of certainty and invariability, it would appeal to them, but not as to

something eternal and certain in an absolute sense, but as something temporary, passing, and

risky. The speed of their lapse depends on the tempo of the changes in our environment of life

and of the changes of civilization in the concrete society. In topical conditions of life, the stability

and certainty of ethical norms, values, opinions, feeling of safety, and world pictures, etc. are

limited to the lifetime of one generation, and all indications are that it will be even shorter.

Part 2

The progress in the development of science and technical demonstrates the uselessness and the

nonsense of yearning for constancy and certainty. The endeavor towards perfection understood as

faithfulness of definite values, norms, standards, and other "absolute truths" has been proved so

unrealizable as to be useless. Modern science rejects the classical worldview leaning on the idea

of exact causal determinism and on dynamic laws, in accordance with which next states result

univocally and necessarily from the preceding states. Nowadays, relativism is dominant in our

science and culture, therefore, creating demands for the qualifications and choice of a suitable

reference system. The choice is, in principle, optional because nothing is eternal or certain in the

world. Besides, we increasingly attribute the greater part of the world to be accidental events, to

fluctuations, to indeterminate states, to probability, to statistical distributions, and to chaos. It has

been even proved that so-called universal physical constants and their values change with the

aging of the universe. A short time ago, at the conference in Baltimore "The Dark Universe,"

5

Prof. M. Livio from the Hubble Space Telescope Science Institute asked: "Of what are we really

certain?" and he answered: "Certain are only death and taxes." And, the astrophysicist M. Turner,

summing up the discussion about cosmological models of the Universe said: "We live in a

grotesque Universe." He had in mind that no models leaning on physical and cosmological

constants are adequate to reality and that many years of effort by scientists to construct some

adequate cosmological model miscarried, because "about the greatest part of the Universe we

know today so much, as nothing.” Nota bene, we know also little more about the fundamental

components of the world, which are elementary particles or quarks. I generalize M. Turner’s

statement by saying that: “We live now in a grotesque world of nature, in a grotesque culture and

in a grotesque social situation.”

The grotesqueness of our topical environment of life consists neither of the fact that we know

nothing (in fact, we know much more than at any other time), nor that what we know is uncertain,

but that nothing is so stable and certain that it could fulfill the role of a sign-post showing the aim

of our development and the direction of our activities. There is nothing able to be the basis for the

normalization of our attitudes, behaviors, and actions. Up until now, knowledge (especially

scientific) was a guarantor of certainty. Now, this knowledge has become increasingly relative, it

has lost its own value of reliability and cannot warrant anything in an absolute manner.

Above all, the orientations resulting from knowledge about the world do not warrant the

possibility of survival. On the contrary, the greater the progress of science and technology the

more risky becomes our survival. Paraphrasing Sartre’s statement we can say, that we stand at a

crossing of infinitely many ways before a signpost that rotates chaotically and unpredictably.

Therefore, we know neither where to aim, nor how to move in order to survive. Of course, we do

not and cannot stay in one place if we are to survive. We try to go the way, towards which the

signpost prompts us. Before we pass part of the way, the signpost turns around and shows us

some other direction. We change the direction of our march and go in a new direction. We cannot

turn back because reversible processes do not exist in the real world. Then the situation happens

again. Besides, we live in an increasingly changing environment of life. In such quickly changing

life space-time, the "signpost of life" turns more and more quickly. Consequently, our directions

of movement change in accelerated tempo and we are not able to foresee these changes. It is

impossible to infer about possible future states, with the method of "lengthening of trajectory."

Therefore, we are not able to foresee the next direction of our march. If so, then no matter which

direction we choose, we always risk failure and encounter the growth of threat. Moreover, the risk

of failure increases proportionally to the speed of the changes in our environment. The world, in

which we live and in which the next generation will come to live, is full of changes, threats,

uncertainties, and risks.

Hitherto, existing ideas of ethics required unfailing fulcrums and orientations referring to the

world that people treated as stable, because the world was really such. To be sure, the world

changed then, but the changes were more slowly than nowadays. They took place during long

intervals of time, usually in the course of a dozen or so generations. Therefore, the belief in

constancy and certainty of the processes in the world, in the stability of life conditions, and in the

educational ideals were not questioned. Now, such fulcrums and orientation do not exist. We live

in the world that changes ever more thanks to our technological and cultural activities. The social

life space-time does not remind us of a slow flowing stream but rather of a rapid river. Therefore,

that are constant and certain in long term intervals, in contrast to the radically new ethics, where

values and norms will oblige us in progressively reduced term intervals to a “quick-time-ethics.”

6

Ethical norms, obliging us now, will surely not be able to be in force in the near future because of

the quickly changing life situations in the world.

The myths about stability, reliability and certainty have been overthrown, therefore, old ethics,

good for life in former conditions and in a very slowly changing world, lose their applicative

power in our time. They have become simply useless in our times and cannot function as theories

and ideal conceptions. Therefore, we ought to build an entirely new ethics founded on the

uncertainty of norms and of ideals, involving the risk of behaviors, involving the falling of

expectations, involving the attainment of aims, and involving the impossibility to foresee the

absolute results of our activities. We need a click- time ethics. Old categories of ethics should be

constantly evaluated according to the changes in our environment of life. Above all, it is

necessary to recognize as proportional, not as perfect, what is variable and accidental, and it is

necessary that we seek for some “quick-time axioms” of ethics in the situations full of

uncertainty, risk, and instability. This seems to be the most urgent task for contemporary

pedagogues and ethicists, persons in professions that should be responsible for the upbringing and

survival of the future generations.

Professor of Philosophy

University of Silesia

Katowice, Poland

Introduction by Co-Editors

This paper was written by Dr. Wieslaw Sztumski, Professor of Philosophy in the Social Science

Faculty in the University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland, presented at the UNESCO Conference at

the Law University of Lithuania, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2002 and accepted for publication in the

International Journal of Educology. It represents Professor Wieslaw’s philosophical position

about the problems involved in the integration of European countries into the European Union.

Dr. Sztumski and the Co-Editors of IJE have had many long talks, while participating in

UNESCO Conference’s at the Law University of Lithuania, Vilnius, Lithuania, headed by Dr.

Jurate Morkuniene, during the years of 2002, 2003, and 2004. In those talks it became clear that

Dr. Sztumski’s philosophically oriented reflective thinking experiences were very compatible

with the philosophically oriented reflective thinking experiences, as conducted from the

philosophy of educology perspective, as this perspective is being developed in the Institute of

History and Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World (the Institute),

an initiative of Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA).

The paper is in a philosophy for educology perspective, implying the philosophy of educology

perspective being developed in the Institute as an experiential philosophical oriented one, with the

orientation being effected by the sciences of ecology and semiotics.

Dr. Sztumski’s philosophy for educology perspective, as interpreted from the perspective of

philosophy of educology, in general, is guided: (1) by a growing ecological crisis in the world in

which there is a threat to the most important goal of life, i.e. the goal of securing living conditions

for the present and future generations of humans, wherein, then, life itself becomes the highest

good, as determined by the significance of the synergy of action; (2) by the meaning of the words

‘synergy of action’ to refer to the human internal will to integrate with others in action, in contrast

to referring to the human internal will to coerce others in action, as the principle of unification to

encounter the growing ecological crisis in the world, and; (2) by the meaning of the word

‘metanoia’ to refer to a radical change in human awareness and mentality on a massive human

scale in the world in consideration of the significance of the synergy of action to encounter the

growing ecological crisis in the world.

Introduction by Author

The attempts by European countries to join together, made during the period from the Middle

Ages to the twentieth century, failed. This was so because such efforts were undertaken by

political and economic means, i.e. by the means of force, conquest, and coercion, and on the basis

of nationalistic, religious, racist, and class ideologies. Measures of unification were undertaken

in order to create or strengthen religious, colonial, and imperial superpowers. All previous

integration attempts failed because cultural and subjective factors played almost no role. Now we

Therefore, our awareness and mentality should radically change on a massive scale. Such change

meet this need. Unfortunately, it is the economists and not philosophers or ethicians, which

determine the social consciousness of humans in the world. And, these economists have forced

humans to “hunt for profit” with all its negative consequences, especially the consequences of

egoistic and imperialistic thinking.

Part 1

Cultural Premises of Integration

As stated above, attempts by European countries to join together, made during the period from

the Middle Ages to the twentieth century, failed, and they failed because the unification attempts

of European countries resulted mostly from a necessity to concentrate forces and means in order,

either, to carry out invasion plans or to secure an effective defense against an invader. The very

idea of unification was connected with a desire to dominate, in the case of merging into

aggressive alliances, and, a fear of losing one’s domination, in the case of merging into defensive

alliances. In the twentieth century, especially in its second half, it appeared that in the face of the

threat of nuclear destruction, any attempt to conquer Europe, if made by a superpower, would be

completely senseless in that it would, in fact, amount to a suicidal act.

The concept of the European Union also developed on the basis of imperial ideologies and

aggression and was an attempt to counteract a possible invader, i.e. the bloc of countries grouped

around the superpowers of the Soviet empire and COMECON. These two superpowers competed

with each other for world domination, especially in the economic sphere, and forced European

states, by means of political or economic and financial dependence, to merge into two

confrontational alliances: the Warsaw Pact and NATO. Western Europe countries, in fear of a

socialist revolution taking place on their territory and yielding to the pressure of propaganda,

underwent a merging process. As a result they achieved certain benefits and guarantees.

Wealthier countries benefited from the unification because they gained access to a cheaper labor

force and had an opportunity to enter new markets. Poorer countries found an opportunity for

capital inflow and the execution of business orders, which contributed to the fall in

unemployment and a rise in exports, and gave them access to modern technologies. However, the

basic objectives of the unification of these countries within the European Union, i.e: the

equalization of economic potentials and living standards and the elimination of xenophobia

connected with nationalism, was not reached. It seems that attempts to attach new countries to the

European Union, on the basis of the same principles and with the same arguments as in the past,

are not optimistically promising. This is especially true in a situation where there is no threat of

another world war breaking out. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the bogeyman which

was quite convenient for propaganda purposes, ceased to exist, hence new illusions are being

created as to the benefits that could be derived from unification.

Speaking about integration, I have in mind something more than the mere joining together,

unification, or association. Integration means merging in many respects, and in an ideal case, in

all respects. As a result of such merging comes the full effect of the synergy of action. On the

contrary, a unification process can take place in only one respect and does not have to lead to a

synergy of action but only to cooperation. Countries may unite under the influence of

emergencies and external factors but integration takes place especially under the influence of

internal factors having an effect over a long period of time. Integration is possible on the basis of

primary interests, i.e. those interests that determine the will to join together, rather than secondary

interests, i.e. those interests that determine the will to dominate. A growing number of politicians,

including representatives of European Parliament and EU bodies, refer to the anachronism of the

European Union in its present shape. They point to the collapse of the original concept of the

Union and the lack of an appropriate motivation to maintain the structure as well as the reluctance

of post communist countries to join and the unwillingness on the part of the EU founders to

broaden the Union in fear of the lowering of living standards, of the possibility of recession, and,

even of an economic crisis. These fears are justified to a substantial extent in view of the fact that

the pace-to-date of the arms race has been slowed down and the military lobby has collapsed.

This lobby was the engine of the economy contributing to the economic growth of highly

developed countries. Of course, in an enforced situation, under political and economic pressure

exerted by the decision centers of the wealthy EU states, which expect to gain even greater

benefits from EU broadening, the remaining countries will find themselves in a dead-end and

may be forced to join the European Union. But is this a real goal of European integration?

The unwillingness on the part of many post communist countries to join the European Union is

also justified if one takes into account the fact that these countries did not have enough time to

enjoy, to the full, their gained or regained freedom and independence. Whereas, following

admission to the European Union, their freedom and sovereignty will prove to be only partial, if

not illusory.

As a result of the breakthrough in historical developments of the last ten years, unification against

something on the European continent within the framework of the continent became actually

senseless. There would have been some point of senselessness in such a kind of European

unification, if it had been undertaken in order to counteract other continents. Possible threats from

other continents cannot, of course, be ruled out. Such threats seem quite probable in the future as

a result of a developing polarization between the countries of the East and the West and the North

and the South. Currently, however, there are no such threats. This means that in Europe there is

no point in the unification of countries AGAINST something. There is only use in unification

FOR something, i.e. FOR the implementation of some common fundamental interest, the highest

good in the name of which everyone has to make sacrifices in order to reach a compromise which

would be the basis of and a necessary condition for the coming into being and proper functioning

of an integrated community of states. Such a fundamental interest could be related to

counteracting a real, not imagined, threat to the existence and development of European

countries, a threat that concerns all residents of Europe irrespective of the differences resulting

from their state, ethnic, denominational, and linguistic membership. A growing ecological crisis

is undoubtedly such a threat. In this connection the most important goal is to secure living

conditions for us and for future generations. Life itself becomes the highest good.

These are not issues concerning solely Europeans. Ecological problems should constitute the first

and the most important means of cooperation, i.e. of the joining together of all in thoughts and

actions. The second means of cooperation should be connected with measures preventing a war

on a broader scale. And, the third means of cooperation should be realizing the model of

balanced (sustainable) development.

Europe’s integration around these three means, areas, or objectives of cooperation become an

historical necessity resulting from the human instinct for self-preservation, rather than arbitrary

aspirations of various leaders, adherents of secular or clerical ideologies, pressure groups, or

short-term objectives. These are concrete living conditions and it is the people’s will to survive

that force integration processes in a natural way, in line with a social evolutionary tendency to

reach high productivity as a result of people’s improved cooperation and integration into more

compact and more efficiently functioning social organisms.

This natural integration tendency is manifested always at a proper time and is implemented in a

continual way. History, just like nature, does not tolerate leaps, i.e. the speeding up of the social

pace of evolution or slowing it down, the premature realization of certain models of social life, or

the social and economic systems that do not offer chances of success. This has been proved many

times. In this connection Europe’s integration can only take place at an appropriate historical

moment, at an appropriate stage of cultural evolution when people generally realize the need and

the necessity for integration, when the state of social awareness enables starting such a process,

i.e. the process in which cultural factors and the level of collective awareness of development

playing such an essential, if not decisive, role in the implementation of the integration processes.

An objectively existing threat and the subjective awareness of this threat are a sufficient condition

for the integration processes to take place. However, the necessary condition is internal

conviction as to the need and possibility to integrate and the will to integrate. These are subjective

factors.

A question arises: "Are such conditions present at our time?" It seems that they are not, except

for the sufficient condition, in which we face a real and objective ecological threat and the threat

of mass destructive weapons being used in case of war. But, considering our social awareness and

cultural paradigms functioning as principle of choice in the social evolution, which lie at the

foundations of interpersonal attitudes and relations and govern our behavior, "Does this sufficient

condition allow for an immediate start to the integration processes?” “Does this sufficient

condition imply internal agreement on European integration?" It seems that it does not.

Xenophobia, present in many European countries, derived from the paradigm of rationalism and

developed and became binding under free market conditions and the pursuit of profit, still

dominates in our culture and in our awareness alongside the attitudes of hostility and aggression.

And, the attitudes of xenophobia, hostility, aggression, and domination over others are the basic

subjective obstacles on the road to integration. So long as these attitudes and paradigms are

binding in the European culture the integration idea will remain another Utopia, created by

politicians and adherents of various ideologies. The integration process requires shaping an

appropriate cultural basis and an appropriate state of social awareness. This means that an

appropriate philosophy is needed in order to realize the integration process. What is needed is a

philosophy that would replace old cultural paradigms with the new ones, on the basis of which a

new style of thinking would become widespread, implying new attitudes, positions, and ways of

action. The paradigm of rationalism, a paradigm that brought about a crisis situation in the

contemporary world, emerged from modern European philosophy and penetrated European

culture and, as a result of colonialism, world culture as a whole. Europe can thus be regarded as

responsible for what happened, hence, Europe should create a new cultural paradigm on the basis

of a new philosophical concept.

Part 2

Metanoia as a Replacement Cultural Paradigm

Metanoia means a radical change in human mentality on a massive scale. It is a form of the

reorientation of collective social awareness. It is preceded by a replacement system of values

binding at a given level of social evolution. Its essential moment is the establishment of a new

hierarchy of values as a result of which a new cultural paradigm starts the binding effect.

Metanoia is preceded by transformations taking place in the sphere of ethics, within the

framework of a practical philosophy which has a decisive impact on the shaping of philosophical

outlooks and related views, convictions, attitudes, and ways of behaving and thinking. The

reshaping of systems of values, consisting in the introduction of a new fundamental value to

replace an old one, is a leap in nature.

In this meaning metanoia is “an awareness revolution” which marks points of discontinuity

separating individual periods in the history of culture. Such revolutions usually take place in

situations termed as peculiar or critical. They appear from time to time as a result of technological

and economic development. Metanoia is a recurrent phenomenon in human history resulting from

people realizing that their certain expectations or aspirations cannot be met. It takes place when

behavior, consistent with a recognized hierarchy of values, fails and gives no chance for the

realization of a given universal ideal. There is no doubt that universal ideals were connected up,

until now, with the human will, to rule over the world and over nature and society, originating in

anthropocentric attitudes as well as individual and species egoism.

The first metanoia, i.e. a basic mentality reorientation process, took place when the concept of

domination based on conquests, the development of empires, and the subordination to earthly

values and worldly objectives collapsed. The emergence of Christianity and its quick

development was connected with such a transformation to a new system of values that seemed

more promising. People started to perceive a possibility of domination over the world in their

unification with God, the Supreme Being recognized as the only and almighty ruler of the world.

Man on his own proved to be unable to subordinate the world to himself. So man had to be united

with God and only together with Him he could strive to secure for himself rule over the world and

a privileged position in it. God becomes a tool in the human fight to reign over the world. That is

why God is subject to hominization (God’s Son is to be a man) and man is subject to deification

(man as a reflection or image of God). People, in the fight to reign over the world, have excluded

other living creatures. People disputed these creatures’ right to having a soul that is a link

between living, or generally earthly, creatures and God. In this way people easily got rid of rivals.

The second metanoia appeared when people realized that limitless subordination to God and trust

in Him in order to gain the possibility to reign over the world also proved fallible. People began

to build their new hopes for the fulfillment of a dream about absolute human domination on

reason and thinking. In such a way the triumphant march of rationalism from modern times

through to the Enlightenment started. In the nineteenth century this led to George Hegel and his

followers giving the quality of an absolute to reason and its role in history. The development of

rational scientific knowledge, theoretical and empirical studies, and accompanying technical

progress favored the spread of the culture of reason and rationality and required reducing the

share of extra-reason factors in cognitive and evaluation activity. A decisive turn in the sphere of

mentality, i.e. the turn from faith to reason, from the cult of God to the apotheosis of knowledge,

took place over a relatively short period of time. In this connection the ideology of atheism

started to spread.

At present we are at the verge of a third metanoia, i.e. a metanoia linked with a departure from the

paradigm of rationalism and scientism. This is so because mankind is again unpleasantly

disappointed, even though it seems that the reign of rational man over the world is certain by

means of a victory in the fight for anthropocentric domination through human hands armed with

technology.

And, in this time of the third metanoia, it seems that we will finally have to say good-bye to the

overwhelming ambition of the human race to conquer the world, in that awareness reorientation

processes always accompany periods of transition from old ways of production and social

systems to new ones. New ways of manufacturing and management, implied as a matter of fact

by technical revolutions, as well as modern technologies, used to give rise to hopes, justified at

the beginning, the idea of fulfilling a dream about absolute human reign in the world.

Unfortunately, as usual, these hopes proved at their end to be another illusion.

It can be concluded, even on the basis of this brief analysis of human history, that mankind

experienced at least three greet turns in the history connected with the will to dominate, based on

an anthropocentric species egoism. The first turn was connected with mankind’s disillusion as to

effectiveness of the system of values based on force; the second turn was connected with the

fallibility of the system of values based on hope, and; the third turn was connected with the

ineffectiveness of the system of values based on reason. The first two turns resulted from human

ambition to reign over the world. The third one results rather from a necessity to depart from the

idea of human domination over the world.

The problem is not an ordinary change in mentality, which would mean another attempt to fulfill

the idea of human domination, equally unsuccessful as shown by previous attempts. What is

needed is such a change in mentality that would finally put an end to the revival of the idea of

domination, replacing it with the idea of coexistence, the idea of domination with the idea of

cooperation, and the will to subordinate the world with the will to survive in the world. This is a

special type of metanoia that is appearing for the first time in history. A necessity to give up the

human will to reign over the world also implies a necessity to give up the will of domination of

some groups of people over others, i.e. to give up dictatorial and totalitarian inclinations. If

humankind wants to survive, and this will is dictated by the instinct for self-preservation, it must

get rid of idea of the fight for hegemony, of hostile attitudes, and of the will to destroy others. The

future of mankind and its possibility for survival depends on spreading a system of values, i.e. a

system of values in which life is the highest value and in which respect for others, dialogue, and

tolerance are the highest principles. Such a system of values is created on the basis of a

universally oriented environmental philosophy and bioethics.

The two previous forms of metanoia, connected with the departure from paradigms of ancient and

modern culture, resulted from the fact that these paradigms did not lead to a victory in the fight

for domination of one group of people over other groups, for achieving imperial goals through

territorial expansion, and for appropriating resources and labor force, markets, etc., i.e. a fight

carried out with the use of military means in the political and economic spheres. Now, at the end

of the second millennium, facing a global threat to natural, social, and personality-related

environments, mankind should finally reject imperialistic ideas. However, adherents to

imperialistic ideologies do not give up. Defending their concepts and their status quo they carry

over the fight for imperial domination through military, political, and economic means to that of

the means of culture.

Such a fight, as they believe, can be waged without resorting to military measures, hence, without

a risk of a world war and mankind’s extermination. I associate the fight for goals involved in an

imperial reign, using military, political, and economic means, to goals involved in an imperial

rein using culture as a means, i.e. I associate extra-military means, with the means of “cultural

imperialism” as means that will probably lead to the “final stage of capitalism.” And, when it

appears that, also, this form of imperialism does not bring about the expected results or even

increases the threat of dehumanization and extermination of the human race as a result of the

degradation of cultural and personality-related environment, humankind will reject the ideology

of imperialism forever and the implementation of the above mentioned third metanoia will begin.

Part 3

Culture as the Area of a Fight for Domination

It seems that objective premises for Europe’s starting its integration process have already

appeared. Subjective premises for this process are also emerging. An appropriate environmental

philosophy and the cultural movement of universalism are already active although still in the

stage of being established. On their basis, one can start overcoming anachronistic paradigms of

culture, ways of thinking and attitudes arising from anthropocentric views, and effect an

awareness reorientation in such a spirit so that it favors integration. A system of values, under

which common and long- term interests would be more important than private and short-term

interests and universal values would be superior cherished by groups of people, can already be

propagated.

It would have seemed that in these circumstances Europe’s integration should be successful.

However, the integration process encounters quite a strong resistance linked with factors that are

cultural and historical in nature. Questions arise: "Is it necessary for Europe’s integration to take

place on the basis of a Western philosophy, which does not favor metanoia, and on the basis of

Western, and especially American, model of culture and system of government?" "Should U.S.

culture, including it’s political culture, become a model for Europe’s culture and should the

culture of Western European countries be worth imitating by the remaining countries?"

It is obvious that the United States is unable to compete with European countries in the area of

culture. Because of historical and ethnic reasons the U.S. does not measure up to European

countries and cannot boast such momentous and positive achievements. Also political culture,

especially American democracy, leaves a lot to be desired. Under high-sounding slogans of

freedom, democracy, and respect to human rights, actions and conditions are implemented and

tolerated which are in fact in absolute contrast to these slogans. If Europe’s integration were to be

effected on the basis of American examples it would bring about its cultural regression, a kind of

return to barbarism. It is clear that Europe has to use its own cultural achievements and develop

culture more intensively in the process of integration.

The rich cultural output of Western countries and positive elements of American culture should

be used in the implementation of integration processes in Europe. However, the respective

achievements of East European countries should not be forgotten. Eastern European countries do

not equal Western countries in the economic respect. This is also the case with respect to

technical development, although, while assessing this sphere, one should differentiate between

the level of technology and the level of technological thought and creative abilities of engineers.

The creativity or technical staff is actually lower in the United States than in Europe. Lower, also,

is the state of development of humanities, philosophy, and art. In spite of this the United States

imposes on European countries, especially post communist states, its mentality, style of thinking,

behavior, patterns, ways of action, and its hierarchy of values binding in the paradigm of

American culture, aspects that are unfamiliar to European traditions.

This takes place on the occasion of the transfer of technologies, computerization, capital, and

economic models (although not accidentally). An important role in this process is played by the

popularization of the language, actually American-English slang. Efforts are being made to make

this slang used worldwide. All of this is a manifestation of the brutal expansion of “culture” of

wealthier and economically more developed countries, which have secured for themselves

political domination thanks to certain historical circumstances that are now usurping the right to

the exclusive assessment of the principles of justice, moral standards, political legitimacy, and the

right to impose their political will on the entire world. This is a manifestation of power

monopolization on a global scale by means of cultural imperialism. In case of Europe, efforts for

cultural domination made by Western countries, especially Germany, to some extent seem to be

another attempt to implement the “Drang nach Osten” slogan known from the time of Bismarck.

This time without a military or nationalistic meaning implied.

European integration processes should not take place without the support of Eastern Europe’s

cultural traditions. These traditions must not be underestimated, omitted, or disregarded.

The output of political and philosophical thought of the Slavic countries, including Poland, is

highly significant. It was in Poland where the tradition and the principles of tolerance were

shaped for a long time, with the unifying slogan “For your freedom and ours too” being

implemented and various concepts of European unification emerging. This also occurred in the

period of People’s Poland. Also in Poland the concept of universalism was born and developed in

an institutionalized form, as well as varieties of ecological philosophies and transregional

anthropologies. The religious concept of universal ecumenism, as the basis for world integration,

was established and has been developing.

If one wants to counteract the cultural imperialism of the West and to avoid its pernicious results,

one should not yield to the pressure of rich and economically developed countries nor to be

ashamed of one’s own past. One’s own traditions and cultural achievements should be given

prominence, propagated, and confronted by means of discussion and polemics. The pseudoculture

of the West should be opposed.

The ruling elites in highly developed countries, united as world financial and various Mafia-style

organizations started a fight in the area of culture for monopolistic rule and for constraining

others. Attempts made so far for control of the world by military means or the use of physical

violence failed and even, as a result of the development of military techniques, led to a critical

state, i.e. led to a real threat of the extermination of mankind. The fight in the sphere of culture

can be waged without the use of armed forces or physical violence. Rule over the world can be

secured by means of a bloodless revolution in outlooks thanks to advertising and the

dissemination of an appropriate ideology as a result of exerting influence on the human

consciousness and subconscious. Thanks to this, the constraint becomes deeper and internal rather

than only external and superficial as can be achieved as a result of physical violence. The control

gained in this way is firmer, lasting, and not threatening.

Reference to tradition, historical memory, and common sense are good forms of defense against

cultural aggression, i.e. against the way the Western liberalism-related hierarchy of values is

being contrasted with traditional Christian values. We also have to do with reference to national

traditions, even nationalistic and Nazi traditions, in order to manifest cultural differences and to

counteract cultural imperialism. Essential objectives of cultural imperialism, hidden behind

allegedly universal, innocent, and often even trivial, slogans of freedom, pluralism, justice, and

democracy are exposed on the basis of common sense. The fight for domination in the sphere of

culture, subordinated to imperial objectives, is a significant factor delaying European integration

and an obstacle on the road to the metanoia consisting in the rejection of the idea of domination,

in any form, in the future.