valid only in limited conditions. However, if I have created a spiritual void, I have filled it, but with only conflict and reconciliation.
So the only answer, as always in my opinion, is to choose, and then to act on the assumption that one's choice is correct. It may not be; but everyone makes mistakes. Better to make a mistake, than to refuse either to choose or to act. So what could the goal of evolution be; and what choice should one make? It is highly unlikely that any more intelligent creature than man will appear; and equally unlikely that man's skeleton will change much, or that his brain will develop much, as it is unbelievably complicated already. You are left therefore with the interaction between men. Social organisation has its limits, as the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe in 1991 has shown. That narrows the choice down to relationships between people. My choice was to think that the interpenetration of two minds might so enormously increase the imagination of both, that I was justified in choosing this as the next step forward. Lawyers have a habit of speaking of the meeting of two minds, and they are right to do so. The phrase expresses vividly the genuine momentary agreement between two people when, for instance, they make a contract intended to be legally binding. Lawyers are all too familiar with the person who is unwilling to allow his mind to meet theirs, and who refuses to agree about anything. The best you can hope for with him is that he will agree to do roughly the same as you want to do; but this is not the meeting of two minds. It is just a fortunate coincidence that your interests happen to coincide. Lawyers do not talk about the interpenetration of two minds; yet it is only one small step further than the meeting of two minds. It is a difficult step I concede, because it demands much more trust; but it seems to me a small step.
Nevertheless if I was wrong, I was wrong. However from what I have read, the German General Staff has held the view that it is correct for war for…