3.1. A LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CLUB OF ROME

Dear Sirs,

We cannot answer correctly the cardinal for us questions where we are coming from, where we are going to, and what our relation is to the cosmic tendencies, if from a contemporary point of view we are not understanding the human essence. We cannot regulate effectively the whirling up conflicts in society, if we have not an idea about its fair constitution. We cannot solve reliably the pressing problem about humanity surviving in the increasingly narrow for it frames of the Earth, if we do not hold together, and on the base of that if we do not organize our civilization in such a manner that by reasonable, fair and wise self-restraints we do not create a model of its evolution permanently making itself perspective.

Man is a triple knot of the material, of the living and of the consciousizing nature in our three-way determined world.

Because of that human essence finds its actual dimension not so much in the objective manifestations and not completely in the subjective expressions but only in the bosom of spirit, where a measure of the greatness is the degree of own overcoming. These dimensions represent human freedom in general.

Because of that the freedom of every man is realized in three qualitative different spheres:

a) factual freedom, which is determined by the benefits

at his disposal

b) formal freedom, which is measured by his rights in

society

c) full freedom, which is valued by riseness of his

spirit.

In its turn his factual freedom has three mutually complementing sides:

a) his personal qualities - bodily, soully and mental,

of which he disposes by using himself

b) his recognized property - material, living and ideal

things, of which he legally disposes

d) his hierarchical situation - of which he as a

material object, as a living being and as a person

disposes.

Compare for example the possibilities of an idiot harmed by fate with the possibilities of a talented man gifted by God, the possibilities of a poor man with those of a rich man or else the possibilities of a man, who stands on the top of some social pyramid, for instance some state, with what of an ordinary taxpayer being on the base of the pyramid can do. From its origin to the surveying future human society, like the material and the living nature, was, is and will be arranged hierarchically. Under these circumstances the status of every man in the social hierarchy may be determined in the fairest way only when all men are equal before the laws of the society uniting them. Only then the natural social inequality among them also may be based of real criteria, as are the dignities of man, which are manifested in the dramatic struggle for a place in life.

Contemporary society may be fair to all of us and be perspective in its development only when it combines in optimum our freedom for self-expression with our activity for the common benefit. Related to the community of citizens in a given state this formula supposes both their equality before its laws and the natural right of every one of them to be different from all of the rest, which enables to determine in optimum the inevitable social inequality in it as well. However, then we must acknowledge as wrong and confusing even the beginning of Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights". Because it is just by birth that we are not and cannot be equally free both for our personal qualities and on account of the property recognized to us and in consequence of the social status of our parents. Because of that we are not equal by our factual dignities as human beings as early as birth. It is true that as citizens of a modern state we have equal human dignity and equal human rights recognized by law, which undoubtedly is an important condition for its fair arrangement. But by no means one must mix up the factual dignities of a given man with his formal human dignity as a citizen, which mixing up makes the assertion confusing. Still more confusing and demagogic is the mixing up of necessity in equality of the citizens before the law with the enticing for them idea to want to become socially equal as well. Because, after the first communes in Early Christianity and after the grandiose Communist Utopia in the 20-th century, already we must not run away from the fact that the natural struggle for a place in life is easily degenerated in a vicious struggle for equality of men in society, with which, voluntarily or involuntarily, the latter is mixed up with the proper struggle for equality of the citizens before the laws of society.

Related to the community of nations in our civilization the considered formula supposes both their equality before its laws and respecting their originality, that enables to determine in optimum their role in this community as well. In other words, the problem is not in what is usually said that there is social inequality among the citizens in every state and many-sided inequality among the nations in our civilization. Because these inequalities are an important stimulus for the development of consciousizing nature, presented by man as a consciously acting subject, called also person, and by human society as a union of persons, called also socium. The great problem is in optimizing inequality at every moment of development for every particular person and for every concrete formation of the socium with a view to the perspectives of the corresponding development. But the development of consciousizing nature always reveals before its subjects more possibilities than they are in condition to master. By reason of that the natural passing of this development is elemental and leads to bright manifestations both of the angel and of the devil in man and both of the light and of the dark forces in society. Because of that the natural way of human civilization is toward a self-whirling up self-opposing and toward a self-going deeper dramatism. Only the real risks of self-destruction because of the limited sizes on the Earth can coerce us to hold together ourselves in order to restrict ourselves in this respect at least until the existence of our civilization becomes independent of the frames of our planet.

Dear Sirs,

Along with the brief exposition of my seeing about fundamental solving of the global problems, with which you also are dealing, I send you my deeper treatment System of Human Cognition as well, where to our basic notions is given an appropriate new meaning. I hope that you better will see in it the reasons for my rather non-standard positions and also the unbounded open spaces, which the fundamental thinking reveals before humanity. In case these treatments are of interest to you, I shall be very glad if you spread them at least among the members of the Club of Rome for immediate using.

Sofia, 10 May 1996 Sincerely Yours: Hristo Manev

2000-07-14, 1.

DISCUSSION OF 3.1.