The case for if-clauses If only he knew... If only he would feel the sparkling flames of my Volcano.

If only he would be enthralled by the complexity of my eruptive qualities. If only... This faint desire, expressed through my cheap poetry, represents what I believe to be the basic human anxiety if only circumstances could be changed, life would be much better. The logical question thus follows inevitably: is there a case for the realization of all ifs? Is mankind able to deliberately construct its own reality? Let us start with the case for the achievement of mens physical desires, as is the event of alchemy: is it possible to turn stones into gold and paper into silk? History has proven that technology overcomes all difficulties, and hence there should be no reason not to believe it will, at some point in future, enable men to reach the entirety of their goals. This bears no romantic or futuristic fantasy as Leonard B. Meyer has put it, the fact that Marx predicted the fall of the bourgeoisie did play a somewhat important role in the subsequent events. The formalization of ones desire becomes thus not only the first step to its actual fulfillment, but may even serve to catalyze it. In this sense, two empirically-driven assumptions must be made: first, the existence of a desire is a sine qua non condition to enable its physical achievement; second, because of the enormous force of the first assumption, technology will always be developed to accomplish human will. In this framework, stones will in fact be turned into gold and paper will in fact be turned into silk. Therefrom must then follow a less physical endeavor, although based on the same technological principle: A platonic love might finally give way to the shrill joy of realization if technology proves to be sufficient to change circumstances. Love potions and the like have been constant in popular culture, and I see no reason why, with the huge advance of our age, they should not come into being. Nonetheless, while technology is not available, the power of human will is able not only to adjust the supply curve, but also to shift it entirely. This or that characteristic, be it mental or physical, can in fact be molded in order to meet the envisaged demand schedule. Lies and illusions need not even be a part of this, for the human mind adjusts, and thinks highly of this adjustment, to the most basic moral values of our society, in order to survive inside it. Hence, this event gives way to the possibility of further expanding on the array of those moral values by

considering supposedly more futile wishes as vital needs. The answer to the initial question seems then easy and quite optimistic: yes, it is possible to achieve all our goals, either by maximizing our personal efficiency or by a change in the technological circumstances. We are now thrilled, for life will, sooner or later, be so susceptible to manipulation that our aimed reality will be able to settle. But the devils advocate must now speak and raise two questions: 1) Are all fields changeable? In other words, is there something in life that is immutable? 2) Even if we can deliberately change everything, is this manipulation desirable? Although essential to my analysis, the first question is of an almost insurmountable difficulty. For, if we consider mankind will always be able to shape reality in order to serve its needs, it is obvious that ultimately everything is susceptible to change. However, a more careful analysis of the if-clause case might enlighten some otherwise obscure facts. Let us consider the case of technology. In the broad context, we observe two different means of applying it: either the individual, as a microcosm, has the possibility to use technology for his own personal purposes, or the individual, striving for his collective vision, uses it in order to change the whole society, a central direction as it were. The first instance then represents the above depicted case of the platonic love realization: someone loves another without being loved back, and either changes himself or the other in order to meet his expectations. But just as the deliberate modification of some circumstances is a reality, so can the non-deliberate change of the rest of the circumstances be one. Illusion would be exogenously modified, and only further technology would solve the problem. But more external circumstances could further expand it. In this case, much has been made to shape a reality that, everything else remaining untouched, seems to run out of control. Social context is inevitable and has many ways of interfering in a particular greenhouse. Therefore, our efforts to deliberately change our reality might be undermined by the other individuals' will to change theirs. This first means of application must then be at once deemed fruitless and fallacious, as it stems from the premise that all men are equal (i.e. have the same table of values and cognition) and that a utopic island can be created inside a society. The second case, albeit more sophisticated, has its origin in the same error. It is the case where a brilliant mind conceives a perfect human model and applies it to all men, changing reality in its entirety. Such model would have to have very specific and machine-like values, so that the system would not collapse from inside.

Uncontrolled will would have no place in such a society, as therefrom is born all destabilizing stimuli. Even if it is achieved, the possible disruptions could be twofold: on a micro level, we would not have the knowledge to sustain, with full certainty, that the reaction to the model would be equal in everyone; on a macro level, a bigger fish might appear, and supra-external influences such as environmental changes and alien life-forms could interfere in an until then stable system. The impossibility of control seems then not to lie in the fact that there is something in human life that is immutable, but in the very fact that there isnt unpredictability is inevitable, and because we do not know what might happen, we are ultimately unable to possess complete and utter control over reality. As brilliantly explored by Friedrich Hayek, something we must always keep in mind is that knowledge is widely dispersed: it should at once seem impossible for a central direction to convey all of it. We are now ready to answer our second question: if an entirely deliberate change is in the longrun impossible, what are the consequences of such an imperfect manipulation? The first consequence lies within the question if manipulation is unattainable, then the constructed reality is bound to collapse. When it does, it will injure all participants: on one hand, the constructer will feel limitless loss, for all his effort, wit and intelligence will have become inglorious and ruinous. His expectation will have to be followed by a severe and painful period of coming to terms with reality it is the fundamental law of compensation: when the exposition of a classical sonata wonders off through distant and almost extreme tonalities, the path followed in the resolution will have to be much more elaborate than it would otherwise had been, had the work stayed within a close tonality. On the other hand, the constructed will feel as awaken from a long, tiring sleep, realizing all he had been living was not his own doing. The outcome will be that he will experience either a rush for living life as quickly as possible, a childish carpe diem as it were, or that he will become depressed, for he has been given less life to live and less time to employ his skills in the world. The result need obviously not be as devastating as depicted, but these extreme examples serve to demonstrate what will ultimately happen: even on a smallscale, an artificial change has been brought about, and something that could naturally have arisen in fact didnt. The second consequence, although related to the first, refers to the indirect actors in the illusion. If one reality had not been deliberately devised, an external force could have had as well a place to allocate its power, making both this unknown subject and the direct participants in the pseudo-reality happier and

much more fulfilled. In short, the both aspects of my analysis merge in what is called the fallacy of the broken window, first shown by Frderic Bastiat and later developed by Henry Hazlitt: a window has been broken, and it has given employment to the glazier. But despite this fact, the resources of the owner of the window could have been employed in a different way, generating wealth in a possibly wider array of sectors, had the window not been broken. I do not intend here to make an economical analysis of life (even though I more and more believe that all human action is indeed about economics), but I find this allegory extremely insightful in what concerns the artificial construction of a reality. The fact is that manipulation is bound to bring frustration, hysteria and devastation. Because it was deliberately created, it only makes it morally the worse. Readers may now be saying: but doesnt real life, without any illusions, cause suffering anyhow? Even if we realize that artificial construction is devastating and that it should not be pursued, wont life events lead to disillusionment and frustration as well? Ultimately, the constructer has been happy while his product lasted without it, there are no warranties that unregulated life will eventually turn out to be worth living. Disenchantment, epicureanism and death seem to be the only options left. Albeit pertinent and even necessary at this point of the analysis, the comment contains only a half-truth. The misleading part lies in the fact that, as has been shown above by the classical sonata and the law of compensation, constructivism brings about much more suffering than a natural disruption would: for in the latter, while we may experience a sense of disenchantment, we will never feel the bitter taste of bathing in the oasis and then realizing we have indeed been eating sand all the way. In the latter, there is only frustration, in the former; there is frustration and loss. Nevertheless, the method of falsification and of showing that one action is less worse than the other, does not prove the essential rationale behind the spontaneous order. Hence, a last pair of fundamental questions remain: 1) why is the spontaneity-caused suffering morally right and the deliberately conceived morally wrong? 2) What is the meaning of life if there is nothing we can hold on to? The answers have already been implicitly given, but to set them in relief is fundamental. The first question does not pose a real challenge, and amounts to Kantian morals: if one is deliberately manipulating a situation, then he is deliberately causing suffering. If a naturally born situation is unknowingly causing someone to be worse off, then it cannot be blamed of inflicting pain in anyone else - it is not a crime, and it does not

purposefully act upon the other individuals' liberty. Desire is not a property right per se, and its ruin, sad as it may be, has not destroyed on one hand, any physical happening, and on the other, any situation that could potentially come into being. In fact, it is sending an abstract signal to the one who desires by showing him that he should find a better way to employ his resources, ultimately paying him a good service. Sadness has nevertheless occurred, and the tragedy exists. How can he then be happy and find a meaning to life, if there is at least one instance where the truth table of his entire life in terms of happiness might be false? Well, the fact is that the possibility that it might not be is just as high as the possibility that it might. For why is indeed knowledge limitlessly dispersed? Because our Grand Society has come to encompass a virtually unlimited supply of demands, there is thus a very big possibility that our wishes, or at least our fatum might be accomplished. As Francis Bacon has put it, A little philosophy inclineth mans mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth mens minds about to religion. Therefore, the usual commonplace "if it didn't happen, it is because it wasn't supposed to" contains much more information than one might expect. The importance of hope can hardly be overestimated, in the sense that it is our only and most effective way of realizing one's self. If we are drowned in a sea of depression, we will become static and the world will not only become a set of tonics, but of minor (and possibly diminished) tonics. You cannot construct a sonata without dissonance, and you cannot develop the needed kinetic energy without teleology. It may be very difficult, but to quote Leonard B. Meyer once more, "In instances where the individual is able to master it through understanding, however, as Job did, suffering may ultimately be good. For though, like medical treatment, it is painful, suffering may lead to a higher level of consciousness and a more sensitive, realistic awareness of the nature and meaning of existence. Indeed all maturation, all self-discovery, is in the last analysis more or less painful The meaning of life is then to find where we are the happiest and where our resources are best employed. Is there a possibility that it may never happen? Yes, but there is an even higher possibility that it might. On the course of the previous analysis, I have tried both to denounce the vicissitudes of constructivism and to provide an optimistic framework for human action. I hope I have not given the impression that life is either pure joy or pure sadness: both and neither of them are susceptible of happening. What I come to argue is that illusions can never be positive, not even for a short period of time. Even if it

takes place in one second only, it will take one more second away from life's enterprise of efficiently discovering its place. Therefore, If only he knew... If only he would feel the sparkling flames of my Volcano. If only he would be enthralled by the complexity of my eruptive qualities. If only... he would probably (emphasis noted) not correspond anyhow. Meritocracy, albeit a seductive approach, cannot take place in a real world. Value is subjective, and what one may find exhilarating, the other might find repulsive - therein lies the core reason of the existence of an unlimited supply of demands. "Hope is the last one to day", and it moves forward more quickly without artificially created obstacles. Let life be what it is.