Stating the obvious / Para este viaje no hacen falta alforjas

Sometimes the long way ends where it started. (Popular wisdom)

Don't explain the how, just use it in benefit of Gaia. (Thoughts of new humanism, I.S. Lerak)

The universe, then, is God, of whom the popular gods are manifestations; while legends and myths are allegorical. The soul of man is thus an emanation from the godhead, into whom it will eventually be re-absorbed. The divine ruling principle makes all things work together for good, but for the good of the whole. The highest good of man is consciously to work with God for the common good, and this is the sense in which the Stoic tried to live in accord with nature. In the individual it is virtue alone which enables him to do this; as Providence rules the universe, so virtue in the soul must rule man. (Marco Aurelio, Meditations)

Conference taken from the Symposium "New Humanism and Society" held in the City of Ideas, Puebla, 2016, presented by Nonamemind

Sometimes science seems to tease us willingly: recent research shows that the popular wisdom is right! Scientists discover annoyed that what humans have collected as ancestral truth has a biologic or scientific reason. Makes it sense? Shall we be happy for it or on the contrary cut the funding that allows them to continue? 

Let me just centre the issue and see the implications. Man as human being has been in the beginning the centre of the universe. Humans had to learn to survive, first alone later grouped as family, tribe or society. All this time they considered themselves as the clear centre of the universe. Elected by the Gods to rule and use nature to our convenience we didn’t care not even consider that our actions may have consequences in Earth. “All what is there is for our use and benefit.” This was the starting point; created religion and law (at the end the same), survived as a group and discovered the world. Man explored and conquered nourishment and richer territories. Later came art, all possible type, from music to painting or architecture ... all the seven classical arts end even a new one. Stability and the need to calm all natural questions about the reason of life and the value of mankind created philosophy. Caught between the two unknown points limiting life, the origin and death, a reason was needed to explain and give sense to our presence in the world. All was accepted as there was no way to determine which, if any, is the true one. For some groups Man is the elected instrument to fulfil God’s willingness, to other groups Man is on earth to suffer. All is equally possible and what we believe determines what we are and what we do.

Curiosity created knowledge and structured knowledge became science. A science that explains the how and the first level of the why, but that can’t give with a single answer to solve problematic questions. But this science that has been growing and widening knowledge had a strange effect: Science dethroned Man’s idea of being the centre of all. We started to understand that we are not here to take advantage of the environment, that we are part of it. Moreover, we have discovered that we are not only part of the environment but that we influence it strongly to the point of being one of the problems affecting it. To arrive to this point science made big steps, analyzed and explained all around us. This done, the only missing point was Man himself and now, once we dominate technology, biotechnology and start to dominate biology the only what rests is the mind.

And this is the point. We return to the ancient disjunctive: shall we use the knowledge to describe how our brain works (excuse for it: If we know it, we can cure many diseases) or shall we use the power of our brain to work all together now that we dominate our surroundings? (excuse for it: we would have a better living world population) And here appears the amygdale yelling to our brain that survival is the most important we have to look for. While we study how to cure mental and physical problems we are enlarging our survival possibilities. This means that we can go on. Nobody will say anything against it and only a few will see or predict problems. In fact if we know which part of the brain creates emotions or affects memory we can use it to go against other people. No more guns needed, just dominating chemically or electronically the brain we can oblige people do what we want.

And this is the point of science now. We discover that emotions are more important than reason. That we all are subject to the same biological laws but that we can modify many more things than imagined. We can develop part of the brain or fool him, and we can even transmit to other generations what we modify. At the end what we are discovering is what we already knew since long time, that heart is more powerful than reason and many other similar items. But ...do we need to have a scientific validation for it? Really? Now? If Man could live thousands of years without proving it, is it so important to invest in benefit of a very small part of the population? With all the risk of manipulation shall we invest in proving what we know?

We can do many things in name of science and discover many useful things that can later also be applied negatively. True. But the question is not about stopping something only because it can be used against us. The topic is priority. Are these type of researches needed urgently? Shall we use our capacity to follow with them? Possibly having in hand and dominating technology we should apply our knowledge in making all efforts that Man, all the members of the group in Earth live better; WE have other higher priorities that just to see that what we learned in years of history is right. Is our time to change priorities and stop useless or less important investigations: is time to see that Man expands not only geographically but mentally and that the group is not a tribal one –no matter how big it is-- but a global that cover the entire population of the world. We have the technical media, we know how to control resources, we can send whatever is needed in terms of hours or a few days at most; we can reach any corner in the planet. Is time we investigate but not the brain, we need to investigate the mind to make Man more supportive and solidary. Not only to help but to evolve together. This is our challenge, not to explain what we already know.

Gracias / Thank you

De bien nacido es ser agradecido.
(proverbio español)

Este blog nació hace 15 meses como un experimento con fecha de caducidad. Tiene un hermano que debía haber crecido más y más rápido. Vitaminas tiene, ... pero están en el bote y no es cómodo abrirlo. La realidad es que el hermano pequeño crece más y tiene más mimos que el mayor, algo que suele pasar en muchas familias. Por la razón que sea siempre hay un preferido. En este caso es evidente, aunque los padres son conscientes y procurarán enmendarse y ser más ecuánimes.

Cuando se creó el blog no tenía ni idea de la difusión que podría alcanzar. Tampoco esperaba que fueran más de unas decenas de lectores los que de alguna manera lo siguieran o toparan con él. A tenor de los comentarios dejados uno pensaría que incluso éso era una previsión optimista. No obstante la realidad (medida por las estadísticas de Google) indica un resultado diferente y ciertamente asombroso para mi. Hay más de 5 mil visitas y algunas sorprendentes, como 50 visitas desde Indonesia en un solo día y todas al mismo post. También parece que hay asiduos visitantes  de los USA -más bien robots espía- y algunos seguidores regulares de Ucrania, Rusia, Alemania, México y Argentina. El mayor número es, por supuesto, de España: no deja de ser un blog fundamentalmente en castellano, aunque algunas páginas sean bilingües.

A todos ellos, visitantes ocasionales, seguidores y motores de búsqueda... GRACIAS, sinceramente muchas gracias por el apoyo a este experimento que a pesar de tener la fecha de caducidad ya pasada seguirá adelante, al menos durante un tiempo. Poco a poco habrá cambios en la temática, aunque el eje fundamental seguirán siendo las reuniones del círculo y la del club de los narizones; en ambas reuniones hay una mayor variedad de opiniones y el secretario amanuense puede optar por una u otra.

De nuevo, GRACIAS a quienes siguen de modo anónimo el blog y por supuesto a los no anónimos cuyo calor contribuye más a la labor de creación de estas hojas de papel de electrón.

Vacaciones: La cojera vital / Holidays: The vital lameness

La felicidad cuesta de encontrar dentro de nosotros, pero sin ella es imposible encontrarla en los demás.  (Atribuido a Sakiamuni). 

Sawubona! Sikkhona! 
(Saludo zulú).        

¡Cómo no!, en Agosto no hay reuniones del círculo. Todos estamos, o al menos queremos estar de vacaciones. Unos más, otros menos y por ello la reunión del círculo tuvo lugar casi a finales de Julio. En esta ocasión el tema obligado eran las vacaciones. Era lo más cercano, lo más deseado y lo que más prometía. Viajes, descubrimientos, pesca, relax, aventura o simplemente descanso. Ocio programado para un tiempo de felicidad propia y con los propios. Así que nuestro filósofo preferido cambió su tema y nos hizo reflexionar sobre nosotros mismos. Filosofía para mocosos nos anunció cuando aceptó preparar la charla-excusa, esa excusa para una reunión de amistad, de reflexión y muy gastronómica.

Cuando se levantó, nos miró a todos detenidamente; nos preguntó por las vacaciones: Siempre van bien las vacaciones y os gusta programarlas con detalle ¿verdad? Parece que programarlas aumenta el gusto de poder escapar de la rutina. En la breve pausa que hizo sonreímos y asentimos, ¡claro que se disfruta con ello! Pero no esperábamos la continuación: ¿Y si en lugar de programar las vacaciones para huir de la vida, programáramos la vida para no tener que escapar de ella y no andar cojos todo el tiempo?

Sí, muchos vamos cojos por la vida. No nos orientamos ni sabemos adónde vamos; a duras penas sabemos quienes somos y lo que queremos. Antes la orientación vital la marcaba la religión, ahora lo hace la política que es algo más cercana en el tiempo y, como la religión no da resultados visibles y solo consuelo ante una vida infeliz, parece que la política puede combatir mejor la desigualdad. Claro que la política combate la desigualdad por medio de la guerra sea de ideas, sea de armas. Y si combatimos la desigualdad resulta que estamos ante una uniformidad o al menos ante una mayoría con un pensamiento uniforme y entramos de lleno en la dictadura de la opinión general. Sutil, sin tortura pero igualmente eficiente. Sin embargo aunque todos opinen igual no por eso poseen la verdad. La filosofía está para eso, para buscar la verdad; al menos en teoría; es una religión racional que va con la ciencia.

Lo malo es que no hay en realidad filósofos y si los hay.... no se nota. Las ideas nacen sin saber donde, simplemente se propagan y en un determinado momento alguien con inquietudes afines las plasma y les da la forma. Lo que se ve luego es una teoría, una explicación de los efectos observados bajo una nueva luz que ha de estar acorde con el conocimiento de la ciencia en ese momento. Los filósofos profesionales (más de 12000 actualmente) aportan bien poco a la solución de la gran crisis cultural que vivimos; apenas proporcionan orientación vital ni proyectos novedosos ni contribuyen a la construcción de una cosmovisión actual. No nos orientan sobre como vivir o morir, no nos definen la buena vida. La destreza en el vivir es de interés común y el tema de la filosofía y ... no hay respuestas. 200 revistas de filosofía, 130 mil páginas al año ... todo son análisis del pasado. Nada nuevo y si lo hay, sin influencia en la sociedad. La filosofía contemporánea parece irrelevante para los problemas de nuestro tiempo.

Claro que antes de decidir adónde y por dónde queremos ir, necesitamos saber de alguna manera donde nos encontramos. Conocernos, dentro y fuera de nosotros mismos. Antes de elegir como vivir precisamos tener una cierta idea acerca de como es el mundo en el que estamos. La cosmovisión es el marco de referencia teórico para nuestras consideraciones prácticas. Si queremos vivir bien necesitamos un mapa correcto de la realidad. La sabiduría filosófica se basa en la lucidez y pasa por la búsqueda de la verdad y la construcción de una cosmovisión acorde con el conocimiento científico del momento. Por ello un filósofo ha de ser un devorador de conocimiento científico. No se pueden establecer teorías que contradigan lo probado.

Explicar el mundo es un modo simple para poderlo entender y para ello somos nosotros quienes hemos de dar el primer paso: pensar y responder al famoso Temet nosce o Gnothi Seauton, como lo queráis llamar; lo que está claro es que sin ello iremos siempre cojos por la vida. Más vale programar la vida que las vacaciones, creedme.

Nos dejó pensativos pero no sin ganas de probar el delicioso postre que nos habían preparado para esta ocasión festiva y de verano. Quizá el chef ya sabía de que iba la charla porque nos contó con pelos y señales los componentes de la delicia y la forma de su correcta preparación.  El postre no quedó cojo pero tuvo una corta vida. Otra cosa somos nosotros que nos quejamos por cosas cuyo origen está en que no pensamos lo suficiente. No deja de ser cierto que vale más preparar bien la vida que las vacaciones, pero eso requiere un esfuerzo continuado y no todos están dispuestos a realizarlo.

Night thoughts of life

Night thoughts of life, falsely attributed to Geras
Me espanta ese sentimiento de que se aprende de la vida a medida de que te alejas de ella.
Charo López, actriz española

After a certain life time, experience reveals the difference between holding one hand and enchain a soul, and one learns that love is not go to bed with someone and that company doesn't mean security; also that kisses are not contracts and that gifts are not promises. You start to accept own defeats holding up the face with open eyes because you have gained the serenity to understand it. 

You learn to prepare all the ways today and fulfill all the work; because tomorrow is too far to make plans and unsure if it will arrive. And after a certain time we even learn that too much is excessive; even the heat of the sun burns. This is why we have to grow our own garden in our spirit without waiting that someone brings us flowers and we learn that yes, we certainly can, we can resist, we can overcome, we are strong and we learn to believe in ourselves. This is the key to continue and BE, whatever the purpose of life is.

We learn that being with someone because we are offered a bright future or comfort implies that sooner or later we may return to the past and to unhappiness. We learn that love means to accept with all defects without wanting to change them, love with open eyes and perfect knowledge of the being. You see that by being together to avoid loneliness you will end up not wanting to be with the partner, but that it is worth to give a chance if there is something more and not give up just because difficulties are in the way or because our friends tell us to do so. 

One understands that what is said without thinking may offend forever and create an abyss between people and that forgiveness is only possible for great spirits. Hence that we have to be able not only to say sorry, but also force the way to let the other act like a great spirit as if would be the normal habit. And one learns to keep silence before being taken by the words as they are weapons without return that may severely hurt the person and kill the relation.

You see that the experience with one person is not comparable to any other, all of them important, unique, and that this is the reason why the center can not be the other; that one is oneself in all, for all, with the support of the others and of some special ones; but in the same line, as we are the others at our turn. That our acts, even the smallest have consequences in the people we interact and we can not expect them to behave as we believe they should, as we do the same in our turn. We learn that that what we like is not the only possibility, not even the "normal" one as there many ways to understand reality.

There are many things we learn with time and especially that serenity is a state of mind and not period between two dates. We  understand the benefit of giving and sharing is the best we can do to arrive smiling to the house without doors nor windows.

And the most important, that life is worth to be lived with open eyes and open mind.

Puppets / Marionetas

Not all we do we do it freely, even if we believe to act so.
(Anonymous, heard in the underground)

The Big Nose club has, as you know, the tradition that new members make a short speech somehow related to the nose of course. The Spanish expression “de narices”  meaning that something goes very well to the occasion has been used several times to introduce some topics. César, the new member knows that we don’t usually accept political related speeches but before he started to talk about puppets and noses (what he had prepared) some of the members of the club insisted in having his opinion on the actual facts happening in Ukraine as they know he is an international journalist that  has visited the country a few times. Other members insisted on hearing what he prepared on puppets. We let him go and talk about what he wanted but didn't expect such clear political opinion. His opinion of course, but I must agree, interesting to hear and not bad to have broken the rule of no political speeches in the meetings.

He started: -I was supposed to talk about puppets… and Ukraine is a good example. You ask me my opinion and it is a complex situation to comment, especially from such a large distance and lack of knowledge on the real situation. Let me first start saying that everybody in Ukraine now believe that they act freely. And this is not true. There are many reasons and interests that just play with the people and their feelings. All is done artificially. But to explain why and how I see it is a long story that starts when I was young and doing science research in oceanography. Anyhow let me center the points:

.- Should be Ukraine be within the EU?

.- Who is interested in avoiding it and why?

.- What are the movements behind?

.- How does politics move governments and let people believe they have free will.

… and let me start with the last one that brings me to my time as science researcher.

On that time I was young, smoked already pipe (and I must admit quite a lot), spoke 5 languages and was performing research on oceanography with very new ways to do it, mixing satellites, planes, ships, math and physics together. Nice cocktail that gave as result that we could predict and tell fishermen when and where to find some types of fishes.

One day I got a call in the Research Institute where I worked and I learned that I had been nominated Spanish representative at the Ocean Committee in NATO. Nice, yes, but VERY strange as Spain was on that time not member of NATO, so I asked why. Answer was “come… and you will learn it”. I went, of course! Nice, absolutely interesting the meeting with all the important people in oceanography in Europe + US. There I learned that even if Spain was not YET member of NATO, it was already agreed that the Spanish government would do it. “We just want to gain some time” was the answer. Important for me was that on that time we had big discussions in Spain to be or not members of NATO…. And here I learned that it was not something we would discuss, it was already agreed politically and a closed matter. “We just want to gain some time” and we stupidly thinking in we were deciding by ourselves.

Second point of the meeting. Imagine me with a lot of ideas in my mind in the center of the real power of science….. I talked, a lot…. On my side a young nice man was asking what I would do and how I would do it if I would have the media and what I needed to do it. I told him.  One or two months later I received a call from the US XXXX and they asked me if it was true that I said …… in a meeting at NATO. They reproduced all my conversation. I was asked if I maintained it and if I agreed to share with them the results of my findings if they would give me the instruments I needed. Of course I agreed! Like in the movie: Next day X at the place Y at hour Z a man, tall will ask you… you take the instruments and sign the agreement. I went, I got all I needed and asked…. The young nice man sitting on my left in the NATO meeting was from CIA, science branch…. So they know what is going on. Politics are in the places we do not expect and agreements are taken without the people knowing it.

Spain into NATO agreed by other countries & governments; Crimea taken by Russia without too much noise from the rest of the world. Do you think is causality or was it already agreed? We can discuss whom it serves and why, but…. We are moved as puppets and believe we act freely. What better to move people that to tell them they will earn more? Is easy to convince people that are poorer:

Crimean’s will receive wages, pensions and social benefits in accordance with Russian legislation. Today, the average salary in Russia is 25,000 rubles, Ukraine - 11 thousand rubles, Russian pensioners receive 9917 rubles, Ukrainian - about 5674 translated into rubles. Thus, the inhabitants of the peninsula will increase revenues nearly doubled. Who will resist if on top since 1992 life went worse?

Now let’s see what part of reality is behind it. US and Russia have competed since years to be THE big player in the world. We all know how poor is now the situation of the US that the CCCP was not a good idea as it was done and that it was evident in 1989 when the Wall was destroyed in Berlin. 1992 Ukraine becomes independent after the referendum of December 91 if I remember well. Everybody is happy till reality comes and shows the truth. No money, no European standard of life.  “Oh! Before 92 we were better, being part of Russia we will again be better…” So people were mislead. Now, why?

All superpowers in the world know they need an army. If you want to defend or to attack you need people and not only this, you need to be able to move people fast, by air, earth and sea. We may destroy a country but we can’t be sure till we send our troops there.  To have influence we need an army that moves. Russia depends from Europe and fears Europe. Europe imports 34% of Gas from Russia and the Mediterranean Sea is vital for all ship movements in the area. Russia does not have a natural coast that goes to the Mediterranean, hence the importance of Odessa were the agreement existed that it was the Soviet Army who would benefit of a special status in Odessa till 2016 (I believe). Odessa is the easy way to go to the Mediterranean and this makes from Odessa a strategic place not to be lost. If on top there is more …. better.

What means Crimea to Russia or to Ukraine? Let’s see:

GDP of Crimea is approximately 10% of the Ukrainian GDP and 1 % of Russia. If you look at the benefits that the Russian economy will get from the annexation of the Crimea, you find first need the tourism business and the expansion of health resort infrastructure. Russian investors have already announced their intention to invest in the development of tourist resorts of the peninsula. For example, now, a businessman plans to invest 12 billion rubles in the project to build a resort.

Don’t forget also the energy resources of the peninsula (in particular gas of the Black and Azov Sea), industrial enterprises of Crimea (heavy, light, food, chemical industry), as well as agricultural lands of the republic (including wine farms). And of course is important to remember that the transfer of Crimea to Russia would help the country to save about $100 million a year they pay as lease for the military base of the Black Sea Fleet.

In summary, what are the pros and cons?

Well the pros are clear, Russia gets the strategically important naval base at Sevastopol for its fleet , remember 100 million $/year, which is not bad; but there are more things as the large recreational area with the possibility of international travel, Russia gets 3000 hectares of vineyards and the largest wineries (Inkerman Winery , Koktebel, Massandra , the New World) and very important Russia receives also the large chemical plants in the northern Crimea, having the biggest market share in the world in the production of components for fertilizers and chemicals for the oil industry.

And the cons exist but are they really that important? It is true that Crimea needs serious irrecoverable financial injections into the economy, which is two-thirds subsidized region but there is future behind it; is only a problem of liquidity not of viability. One practical problem is transport as it is necessary to go to Crimea through two Russian- Ukrainian borders, or across the Kerch Strait , where there is no bridge (and it will take 4 years to have it built); the ferry to the Crimea is also a possibility but there is always a huge queue with  people waiting 18 hours or more. An other big problem is water as they will need to urgently address the issue of fresh water (now it is taken from the Dnieper) and finally the electricity to Crimea which produces only 30 % of its total electricity consumption.

You see who is interested and why. Basically is a political-strategic situation to maintain power. Moreover now that Syria is in a bad moment and can’t help Russia if there is a revolution. Russia has also good agreements with Syria to have the fleet of the Army there, and this is what is behind of all the movement. The rest, East Ukraine, is a plus for Russia. With Crimea being 10% of the richness of Ukraine, Russia has a poor country where it is possible to sell and have cheap labor with the similar language more or less and well prepared. Is a large territory to prevent an attack, gives free way to the Mediterranean…. What can Russia want more?

Before we enter in looking who could be interested in avoiding it or not, let me consider if Ukraine should be politically pro-Europe or pro-Russia. What is clear is that Ukraine has no weight as to be able to be alone in the world. They need some friendly countries that may give stability, money, help… Historically, till the 92 they were members of the CCCP and in fact an important player within it. Was growing fast, 7.5% GDP growth yearly but the crisis of the 88 and the one of the 2008 brought the country to a bad economical situation. The country was mostly Slavic even if it is true that part of it was in the “European” part and taken by the Austro-Hungarian Empire in recent historical times. But, has Europe an interest in having Ukraine as a member? Geographically seems not to be any reason. Is far, Romania is already at the limit, and historically there are no real common things, language is different, religion is different, commerce is not an important matter, economy is poor. It is a market of 45 million people. This is the only reason to bring Ukraine to Europe. But the cost is by far too high, specially now with all the economical and political problems Europe is facing. From the point of view of Europe… no need, no interest YET to have Ukraine as a member state.

From the point of view if Ukraine… is a dream. The same dream that East Germans had to become part of Germany. To live better, have more money, with work for all and be “Europeans”. Germany is still paying the union of the former DDR. Ukrainians dream that it would be perfect without knowing that it is not true, that the crisis will be longer and harder; restructure  industries provokes unemployment. So a part of the country which is disappointed by the economical situation looks to Europe and Europe smiles but doesn't do anything really. An other part of the people remember the former CCCP and that unemployment was 0, so better to return, and finally a part believes that the country should try to do something, but really has only one option, decide if the orientation must be pro Russia or pro Europe. Too small to be a bridge between cultures. There is no real reason why Ukraine should be part of the EC. This is the point but politically helps to give hope telling that in the future all will be better. Ukraine belongs to the East of Europe to a group of countries that will find their position together, but it is too early and they are not aware.

The last point is if there is somebody that would be interested in avoiding that Russia takes Crimea and destroys Ukraine with it. The answer is no. Only in theory. Russia made a movement that was to mark positions. If expected or not by the US I don’t know, but Europe is too weak to do something, and at the end doesn't care. It is not yet the time for other countries, we have to solve our internal problems. The US doesn't care, as long as Russia lets them in peace with Israel, which is the entrance door of the US in Middle East and the Mediterranean. China is busy taking positions in Africa and will be glad to help if they can with it against the US. So, nobody cares. I fear that is goes further than this, that the real interest is to weaken the area and have two or three strong economies together in Europe (Germany, France, UK and maybe Italy) together with Benelux and Austria and create a strong Europe. The rest… weak countries, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, …. all with low income, cheap labor and a huge market for them. Ukraine would be just one more and a good door for all Slavic counties. I hope to be wrong, but I fear I’m not.

The meeting continued after the speech, it was one of the longest we ever had. But his position was clear and many agreed to it.

Love, peace, Jah

"What we believe is personal, and all is right as long we do it by heart"
Apocryphal, Nathan (called The Wise), son of Lessing.

As it is normal what happens in the World (the big one, with capital letter) has an influence on the topic we deal with in the meetings of the square circle. Sometimes we comment situations or subjects we touched before, but under a different angle. This has been the case in the last gastro-philosophical meeting we have had. We have often discussed about moral values, what is their object and actual status and also on the fact that life ends really when we loose faith in our own capacity and give up. Now the situation we live, for many, chaos and the loss of the north brings us again to have a look into other ways of thinking or at least in other values. In our western world we tend to look to oriental philosophy impressed by their understanding of nature and calm-happy appearance. We also look for other, different, less known faiths that may illuminate our way in life.

In all of them what we see is that society creates moral values to maintain the union of tribes and points out the value of good actions. We were discussing if moral values were absolute or not when Alberto started his provocative presentation on the subject:

Yes, you're right, we speak about moral values and we know that good actions wouldn’t exist without them or at least wouldn't be recognized as such. But moral values change and are changing now or, what is worse, they disappear without replacement. We take the value out and create a void that nothing replaces. Mankind, men & women, we humans have changed -are changing- slower than our power. We are able to transform matter and ignore spirit, able to build new molecules, to create subatomic accelerators, describe the multiverse but incapable to build a stable, viable and equally righted society. We can produce strange, rare, very valuable goods and die with our richness without being able or -what is terrible if we think about it- without wanting to effectively distribute it having all the possibilities in hands for it. Nineteenth century positive sociology is far away and anthropology wins; we look backwards and not into the future. Passions (and chaos) reign instead of science or global mind attitude. More we can encompass worldwide, more individual we turn out to be and less we accept "old" values. 

To every big conflict towards society is confronted, a moment of love, peace and universal brotherhood appears. We desperately look for something to balance the instability we face. Hence that we discover that our moral / ethical values are in crisis. And this is in each cycle.

The excuse is that we change and with us also society, thinking that we can manage it. But it is not so. Society is a living creature that tends to adapt herself, to resist and survive. From traditional families with father, mother and children we created the mono-parental family, children with more than one set of parents, families with two mothers or two fathers, and ping pong children as you are well aware of. In a changing ambient, values have to change. Nothing  really new as they have also changed in history. Religion was created to maintain tribes together and with it codes and laws were established.  A basic sense of justice brought them to the Talion's law: hand for hand, eye for eye, life for life.... till it was seen that it was neither practical nor productive. Society discovered that hate is good to grow, but not to create stability. So, laws, religions and traditions changed and with them the values. Here we arrive to the Bible, to the question of how many times we shall forgive: 7? 70? The answer of 70 times 70 meant many, in fact all of them. If we forgive we do a good action... that has a weight against all other evil we do. No matter if we speak about Maat, Osiris, Ib and the punishment of Ammyt we look for justice since the beginning of mankind and as we do some bad things, we need to balance them with good actions. All faiths and religions push for love, for peace and for some clear well established and structured believing.

And now without a clear objective and pointing to not defined values we are good people, we act following some "ethical" norms BUT only for fashion. Because we feel better if we do some things in benefit of the others even if they are not significant actions.  We may suffer the crisis and not have too much to eat, but our mobile phone is last generation; we drink too much, but the bottles go into the glass' container; we go to the mountain or to the beach and leave it dirty, but we are members of a NGO. We quieten so our conscience, we do our own justice by compensating the bad things we know we do with what we believe to be good actions. The question is if we do it for narcissism, selfishness or justice, hence the question on the value of what we do. Without knowing if it is right or how right it is, there is no north as we don't have the new moral values clear.

We all agree to the basic theoretical values, Love, Peace, Good Will, but I repeat again, said Alberto, it’s a fashion. Years ago killing enemies (who ever was considered as an enemy) was the good action celebrated even by the church. “Union makes strength” , hence that groups are far more violent than individuals; it is not anonymity what protects them, it is the force of the mass. “I don’t care if you recognize me, as I’m part of you”…the mass, the group. We tend to believe that only minorities are wrong; we forget that Gauss’ bell has two extremes. The same happens to moral / social values (they are not even moral anymore). Changing every 3 or 5 years, what does it matter? It changes as often as required by the evolving over protecting society. And again we are brought to ask ourselves if all the good actions have the same value or not: One life we save is half value if we save two in case both people are together? And if they are animals instead?

It doesn't matter. The important question is twofold: Are we really following our inner beliefs? Do we question ourselves often enough or are we dying already as we don’t want to participate in life anymore?

Ruben, as theologian had the first intervention after the introductory provocation. The rest of us noted mentally our points while savoring the dessert.  For Rubén it was clear, what counts is the influence we have over the rest of people, how it improves or worsens society.

But not everybody agreed to it. The debate was long.