On the link between sciences and humanities

Mario RechyCancún 18th of August 2003

When I was invited to present my vision on the relations between Science and Humanities, there was implicit to accept a distinction, as if Social science would not have the same status, or could not fulfill the requirements to have the same recognition. The single suggested title enclosed that idea or position. Notwithstanding this, I felt I could not reject what I precisely had to write to be debated, discussed.

The main question was not to discuss the character of social science, but to accept the necessary relations between them and the sciences applied to technology or to the improvement of physical research. It seamed a good point of departure to speak about what contemporary problems we face give signals of the necessity of a linkage between the development of knowledge and the daily problems of man.

1

To be fair, and to start right at the point of interest, we should mention that there are two main conceptions or positions on the character of that link. For some specialists the social science has not the capability to forfeit experiments, and is also quite limited in the formulation of laws that could be demonstrated in the social reality. On the counterpart, some social scientists defend the logic of sociology, economics, social psychology and anthropology, as if they where able to foresee and predict the evolution of human society, and if precisely based on that capability they where able to formulize stochastic laws that not only explain the facts,

The common goals of sciences and humanities

Humanities

Sciences

Both solve problems inproduction and social life

2

but also permit us to decide on the options the human groups can take. This position perhaps gives to much significance to the formal question, when the important should be to clear the interrelations between fields of knowledge. When we put to much attention to the character of science we fall in the field of what has been known as scientificism for its pretension. For the purpose of this Seminar, let us just say, that the so called humanities have the capability to give rational explanations on social reality and its evolution.

Sciences

Forfeits experiments

Establishes regularities in phenomena and procesess

Formulates laws to permit prediction and human practice

3

Goals of humanities

Give rational explanations of social phenomena and of its evolution

Humanities

Then

Humanities have the same object than sciences

This view has been one side of the philosophical coin, which has not necessarily any teleological implication, since at the other side we have seen Marxism and Neopositivism, as examples of an ideological nucleus of knowledge that foredooms the applications or utility of science. Perhaps it is unavoidable to say in what sense this two ideological currents have overlapped or mastered the objectivity of research and even conditioned their predictions.

In the first case --that of Marxism-- this ideology sustains that all truth has a class character, and that has necessarily to serve a class dictatorship. Both things that have been clearly dissembled and disproved by the world experience along all XX Century. The second of these ideologies has produced neoliberalism, that has tried, has attempted to explain, all behavior of economic reality as the result of supply and demand, where people take rational preferences among outcomes, individuals maximize

Research Systematic knowledge

Laws Predictions Intervention or transformation

Verification and validation Models on reality as heuristicinstruments

4

Science

utilities, firms maximize profits, and everybody acts independently, solely, on the basis of full and relevant information. Resting on such premises, for this position the task is to let the market be, since all is rational and will somehow reach the better equilibrium.

None of the two have explained why of the failures or not fulfilments of their theoretical proposal. In all the so called socialist world poverty remains, the state was not run by workers and the science has not helped a doctrinal or catechismal proof. In the globalized world, on the other side, all the premises and policies derived from neoclassical economy have

MarxismClass character of truthDictatorship as a social

goalFreedom and welfare

Ideological thought

NeoliberalismEconomy as supply and

demandMarket as spontaneus

exercise of preferences

Free market as basis for general equilibrium

Welfare

5

increased poverty, polarized society, multiplied unemployment and increased debts.

It should be time to review the commitments of these disciplines to the requirements of scientific knowledge, as well as the degree in which they have been able to satisfy human values and expectancies.

Ideologized knowledgeOutlook or vision on reality and manPostulatesLogical explanation on realityHypostasis of values and principlesFalse solutions on problems

Results of ideological thoughtNeoclasical economyMore povertyPolarized societyUnemploymentDebtScience oriented to produce

profitsUnhapiness

Socialism in XX Century

ScarcityPoovertyAuthoritarian stateScience stagnation on

some fieldsUnhapiness

6

Scientific research starts when man faces a concrete problem. Discoveries and development of knowledge do not end inside laboratories but facing daily life. The moment of abstraction has at least two phases, the first in which the problem is assimilated and correlated to previous knowledge, and the second in which the outcomings and the solutions are tested before coming back to field. But this phases can not substitute social practice validation. And when a theory or doctrinarian knowledge insists on a single explanation and outlook, notwithstanding the different outcomings in social reality, this theory becomes ideology. Simple bad ideology. And this is also valid for physical or applied sciences.

Some scientific fellows feel today once one enters the magnum gate of abstract thought the “reality” is regarded as reference, and the main rests only in models and mind. This represents a risk for the truth and a moral bias for the method; since no discovery should be validated but in the good it brings to kindness humans. The truth has not, in this scope or

Problem Analysis

Relation to previous knowledge

solution

Realworld

Phases of scientific exercise

7

perspective, a coherent validation in itself, since it has less to do with correct inferences than with inductions and deductions.And for those readers and listeners that do not remember the difference inbetween inferences on the one side, and inductions and deductions on the other side, we must underline that the first deal on how some concepts are obtained from other concepts, meanwhile inductions and deductions only validate themselves in the process that goes from reality to ideas, but do not remain as abstractions and instead return to objective reality.

When we talk of ideologized science, where the humanities are enclosed in an outlook, man is taken as something partial. That is, man is taken as a member of a social class or as a consumer. And according to that mental representation is explained as having a definite performance, which “can only act

Two criteria of truth

LogicBelievsModelWillOrthodoxy

Induction and deductionResearchModelPractical verification

8

as it corresponds to that self”. His conduct or his decisions are obtained not from him, but from this ideal self the model gives; that representation even decide his will and his future. In this case man is only able to be a bourgeois or a proletarian, a fighter or a repressor, a rational subject that decides his preferences inside a curve of indifferences, as a subject that distributes hours of work according to combinations of productivity, as a consumer or as an offerer of goods and services.At the bottom or at the end of the goals of science it rests always an attitude and an outlook. Some of us serve the need or the requirements of the Faculty or of the firm. This appears as the handicap to accomplish. But this short term of our effort should never make us loss the love for wisdom1 nor the commitment for good. Not the good of those who chose themselves to impose others their will, but just the good of unselfish service and satisfaction for giving our best. I would like now to say something more on the scientificist vision that believes on the possibility of a rationalistic exercise where the general laws discovered in the physical world could be extended to find the same logic in human behavior, notwithstanding if this behavior is psychological, social or economical. The problem is not solved or overcomed by a technical procedure. In the last, social science reaches its condition with equivalent rigor to exact sciences, but with different instruments.

1 To remember the distinction between knowledge and wisdom, let us take the later as ordered information, and the first as the criteria to make good use of information. The much knowledge does not assure understanding said Heraclitus.

9

And what should be problematized is what do both kind of sciences need to fulfill human requirements. In this sense, let us only say that any discipline or human action who has social implications should define the limits of its truth, the facts that validate or refute their proposals. At the same time, the great question is but including or putting forward the moral values, the ethics and its outlook.This does not mean that we can solve problems with morals, or ethics, as some believe when they deny the neoliberal character of our economic policies by saying that we have a human economy. What it means is that any social responsibility has the obligation to recognize the proofs or the refutations of their procedure. It is impossible to obtain science from ideology, or proofs of correctness from good intentions.

Objectives of scienceServe manSolve problemsHave instrumental capabilityRecognizes limits of its truthValidates its postulates and laws in experience

and practiceIs excercised accordingly to moral and ethicsethical principles

10

It is probably worst to defend the same neoliberal formulae with moral arguments and ethical warnings.

False scienticity

Moral and Ethics

values postulates

No instrumental for change

No solution for problems

False solutions

Moral principles

Economicreality

Ideology

No change

11

This modern society has searched that the society gets accustomed to accept or to be lenient about many superficial ideas that are really important for everybody’s life. These ideas are originated not only in the soil of pseudoscience or ideology, but as well in the fertile soil of humanism. Always when humanism proceeds on the pure bases of values produces ideology, and always when the technical or disciplinary knowledge looses its link with social reality it produces useless knowledge or misunderstanding for society. One of these ideas, which is very generalized or dominant, is that whenever those who are in power defend something that should be right or have the reason. They do not say it always just that clear or direct, but they do.

False consciousness

Official truth Public acceptance Isolation of scientists

No solutionsCrisisRecessionBackwardness

12

If the government is the one that holds a position, then it is correct. This is unfortunately also one of the causes that are behind the backwardness of some countries, or of the recessions or crisis some other countries face, or of the situation of many citizens that give their support to the government decisions, for the simple reason that they are governmental. The result is, evidently, that the state might lead the whole of society into wrong roads, or also impede the initiatives which could sometimes overcome the problems. From economic power and from public administration there come voices who talk about science, about techniques and about how should we understand progress, history and change. Often are not the few scientific specialists that work at the administration those who speak or write the discourse, those who dictate over the research policy, or on the sternness or rules that should attain public policies.

Public policies

Administrators

Official truth

Programs and budget

Reality

No solutions

13

On the contrary, these rules are decided by the administrators who, without a diagnosis of social reality, trace the objectives of their programs, and measure the accomplishments of those programs by the size of the available resources to spend, or the number of persons there assigned.

The same way as it is usual to make very good intentioned announcements on the goals in the economic field that lack completely of technical and scientific basis, the same some policies are decided and presented as very toughly designed, but have no relation with experience --or have been refuted by that experience--, never conducting these burocrats to take reality in account.

Behind or at the back of all these announcements and policies is a set of values, and each one of those values speaks or picks a very determinate interest. Neither the governments nor the economic power promote models of technological development or economic development in a neutral exercise, that is just in the measure or only in the measure that they get development. Understanding development as better conditions of life and living together. In fact, there are the springs of power, the interests, those who dictate the discourse.

14

He who says that the commitment of science is to attain progress, repeats an unnecessary or obvious formula; but if it happens that he is the Director of technological development of a great firm or corporation, then he is speaking of the applied science that permits his firm to increase production and productivity, which are the requisite to be more profitable. He refers not to scientific progress that could doubt on or question at the water pollution that his company might intensify with the increasing or expansion of activities. He neither refers to science that is applying to oil industry to supply the same

Two criteria of validation of public policiesCompromise with

affected people by the problem

Practical design of solutions

Correction of planning and cryteria

Budgeting according to problem

Ideological neutralityFigures on expenses and

actionsComparison between the

goals decided over budgets and dogmas, on the one side, and degree of completions, according to that budget

15

company and that might have a high plastic content --quite difficult to recycle--, and that burl the manufacture of traditional producers, leaving them in unemployment and lack of alternatives. There, in his speech, progress of the firm has a clear significance that faces the interest and life condition of a bigger social sector than that enclosed inside the firm. And the speech over progress, which is pronounced as if it would be of universal value, is in reality the ideological smoke to cover the good profits.

How right where the Romans when they said that when two people say the same they don’t mean the same. That is, that the same concept might have different significations, or even opposed meanings. That which could be progressive applied science, may

Two visions of ProgressAs ideological justificationAs applied scienceAs more productivity and

more productionAs unwilled but unavoidable

polutionWith less employmentWith more income for the

firms

As welfare and better living together

As applied scienceWith more employment and

sustainable productionWith empowerment of the

peopleWith more goods and

services

16

become loose of jobs for others, pollution for many more, and the

abandonment of productive activities that worth to preserve.

The set of elements that constitute scientific and technological progress can not be seen as a neutral matter, where nobody has responsibilities, or as if would always fulfill the interest of an abstract subject which we could call human beings, civic society or majority. Scientific progress, as much as the application of science, have to be located in the social sceneries, evaluating their advantages and disadvantages. As Stiglitz –the former neoliberal economist—says, every policy is good for some and bad for others and, in the terrain of public policy, it is necessary to make an exercise of analysis and evaluation of impacts, only after which would be valid to chose the option that represents the good for the majority.

It is very common that inside a think tank it is discussed a matter or resistance or the model to follow in an experiment, or the way to get a better and faster assimilation of nutrients by a modified vegetable. But this discussion usually is isolated in a laboratory context, where there are no social considerations on real human beings that live outside the laboratory.

In some schools of thought the discussion has been presented as the responsibility of the man of science in front of his own activity, and some moral bias have been raised as questions to answer along the development of work.

17

The researchers of atom have made the question if the benefits supported to humanity with the atom disintegration have been greater than the harm. Some thinkers have preferred not to give their discoveries, obeying a prudent precaution. Leonardo, as you know, hide his designs of the submarine, under the conviction that it would bring more evil than good. It is not out of the point to remake the question on what could have been the outcomings of last century, if the men who discovered the atom disintegration would have decided not to let everybody to manipulate it, notwithstanding principles or moral values. Of course we could be disqualified for nor recognizing how many nuclear plants are now producing energy, or for not considering the production of so many benefits that come from radiation. But without entering quite in a discussion of the topic, the question is that the management or exercise of knowledge, of all knowledge that is applied in production and material transforming of the world is not only a responsibility of the chiefs, the directors or the governments. It is mainly or in the first place a personal responsibility of each one of the science men.

All policy of scientific research, as well as the great lines that define the way to take advantage of discoveries inside the plant, the firm, the faculty, the academy, have implicit a way of understanding society, and also a moral, and a perspective on how we figure the future for all human beings, as well as a proud over its gains or a shame for its guilty objectives.

Of course that some could exercise with cynical conscience. Some prefer to do so, since cynical

18

conscience in the exercise of research, practiced in a pragmatic way, alouds to enjoy good payments without remorse.

But I do not want to give the impression that mi scope focuses this panorama in the scientific research. What I try to underline is that we live under a dominant clime, and that we are object of a daily bombing of values and ideas, that force the use of the paradigms that distinguish the dominant groups, and that in this way they exercise a pressure on the field of knowledge.

As far as my personal experience shows --and I must mention it because the difference between the exercise of exact science and social science is the distance between their impacts on social life--, and considering that I deal mainly with economics, what a researcher or a scientific man says, writes or applies, has an impact that could be followed nearly or distantly. In the case of social science any model or proposal has an immediate consequence; as well as any repetition of an accepted truth.

If along the lasts 23 years we have listened that the intervention of the state in the economy --and particularly regulating distortions of the market--, has provoked crisis, debt and lack of productivity, and if there have been advanced some lines relating causes and effects to make the picture, it is comprehensible that the climate of economic review of statistics and the social picking up of hart facts starts with the disqualification of any state intervention in the economy. Should I perhaps remember that there,

19

where this ideology is originated, is the country where the state has the strongest intervention.

It is a say that the economies reach progress in the measure they are liberalized, that is, as much facilities are given for the circulation of capital and merchandises, to make investments or to retire them, and to promote exports. This premise is paralleled with a damnation over all investment which is not private or foreign, because the state investment supposes public deficit and generates or increases debt. Consequently, the planers propose only and strictly to prosecute with liberalization, with no limit, specially giving more and more rights to foreign capital. Over that assumption, they conclude, we should reach economic growth and improve the living standards.

Useless has been to mention how much savings society has gotten. They do not recognize any existence of funds, but they are making sales of the foreign dollars the National State bank receives. They decide it is better to sell at auction than to invest. They have transferred the pension funds to the banks that give no credit. They have given priority to the payments for a few broken dealers of highways than to thousands of business that lack capital to produce. And they expect, probably very sincerely, that the market gives jobs and solves misery.

The social scientists have been very busy summing up the evidence, the figures, and the examples on how the new foreign investments buy old firms producing none new jobs, and not increasing the volume of

20

services and goods. They, or us should I say, have summed up figures on how those investments specialize in technologies that use less and less working force, and focus their production inside very limited markets, where the same population buys cars, houses, durable goods and vocational services, leaving the rest of the population out of “the growth of the economy”, since that growth is only the growth of welfare of a small part of the population. This of course does not bring a greater market nor a better country.

The social scientists have been demonstrating that a question is to invest with profitability, and a very different question is development, not attainable by the road of the profits of a few corporations. The scientific social research has proposed, concluding on the analysis of experience, that development asks for changes on the economic model, not insisting on neoliberal dogmas, but investing in production of first necessity goods, with the generation of new jobs, and with the rebuilding of the local and regional markets, specially now when the world shows no opportunities for more exports.

The social scientist have also demonstrated that the mobility of capitals does not bring wellbeing, and that the banks are not able to offer the money for producing anything –at least here in Mexico--, the same as the big corporations are not investing their utilities. Although all this evidence and demonstrations, the economic policy insists: the state should not invest the national savings and should not interfere in the free market.

21

Many of us have been fighting inside and outside the public administration, against some models and economic dogmas. We have said, for example, that we agree with Mr. Wolfowitz, the head of the World Bank when he says that the free market should not be defended as the only possibility, and that we should study the combination of other agents and alternatives, including of course the state intervention. We have questioned that the main and highest budget goes, every year, to pay the banks, and that they still depend on the public subsidy and not on their function as financial intermediaries. We have explained that it is impossible to walk into real development without including and starting with the rural production. We are now importing more than half of our bread, our tortillas and our rice, leaving the local producers in complete defenseless against imports, and provoking the export of more than 300 thousand workers to the states and Canada every year. The only answer has been that we have signed an agreement to let our partners sell here all their surplus crops.

We have defended the need not to invest on small scale sellers that multiply or extend the chain of trade, but in the producers that can offer more goods and services. We have illustrated how the small enterprises and the cooperatives have shown the best results. And when I say we have done, illustrated and defended, I mean we have evidence, models, research that has been useless to convince, or to get any rational answer.

And so we arrive to the starting point of our interest. What should a scientific community do to be able to undertake the leadership of policies, the lines of research, governing or exercising its authority on the

22

public programs? How should we get organized to be efficient in our social responsibility? What do the scientific community have to cover, to become useful to the goals of knowledge and the values or good and truth?We have many magazines specialized on technical and scientific fields, but the same ideology that domains in the state has lead these periodicals to support the current strategies, and not to exercise the critical thought. Science is there in danger. Not in a mortal danger, but in the risk of sin, in moral delinquency, in the possibility of loosing its ethical mission of lighting in the obscurity of problems and predicaments. It is very well known that piece of theater where the town doctor discovers that the main source of income in the location is at the same time harmful for health, and as a result of that the community expels him as his enemy. To the community it was worthier its income, and not its welfare, and when the doctor decides his priority for public health he becomes the enemy of the people. Today we live a similar dilemma of choosing between putting scientific knowledge in the interest of welfare, or selling the exercise of our disciplines to him who pays better, overcoming all consequences on the future of near and distant human beings.

23

ofcivilization

To restore the meaning

To inform society

To help development

To propose changes in long term strategies

To fortify positive conclusions with values and ethics

To reestablish the critical character of science

To relate the different disciplines diagnosis

To organize the products of research

To acquire authority over public opinion

To reorient the lines of research

To undertake leadership of policies

Empowerment of the scientific community

At the end of the question over the relations or the link amidst humanities and sciences lies just that: to work as cold specialists or to fight as part of a society injured and damaged by ideologies and selfish interests of power.

Stepping where should we then look for the problems of actual society? If the original objective of informed consciousness was to feed our kindly fellow humans, to assure a house and a dress for all of us, and to save peace and lively conditions, and if that used to be achieved with education, training and efficient administration of resources, how then should be restore this sense and meaning of civilization?

This implies a way of understanding man, not as King of creation, and instead as victim of his short understanding and short dimensions in the vastest universe.

The road to fasten these paths of knowledge is the application of discoveries to the interest of the majority, and to get organized to review public programs, to formulate diagnosis and to propose reorientations of the public budgets, accordingly to the profs of scientific method. And all this would be

24

impossible if the instrumental know how would not be assisted by the disciplines that enlightens the human behavior. So, Sociology would be our lantern to focus the social scope and deep or our technical achievements; the Anthropology would guide not to destroy the heritage and the memory of culture, and to explain how that past keeps its continuity in the changes, and how their projects force beyond the present; and Economics would then measure and work as rule and device of how much good our learnedly will can bring.

You will ask then how can each one of us relate its superspetialized perfectionings with the social outlook. I do not have all the particular answers. I must only leave the question to be solved in the daily and professional effort each one has to develop. The only certainty in this search of answer is that the

25

Paths of future knowledge

To strengthen links between all fields of science

To demand the state consideration of scientific community

To make collective proposals to reorient research

Collective discussion over public policies to give diagnosis

Revision of public programs and policies

Application of discoveries only in the interest of mayority

particular discovery or application has to serve the interest of the many, and that it must not be manipulated in the interest of the few.

The answers can be very general, since the scientific professional is not used to pass from the specific utility of its contribution, to the large scope of its social implications. But even so, we can insist on the sense and the principle of what knowledge has meant in the history of man, and in the difference between instrumental knowledge and wisdom.

Neither science nor intelligence are justified or validated in themselves. Intelligence is not a virtue, and the development of scientific knowledge does not give any guaranty of the welfare it will assure to anyone. As the old mom used to say: smart or intelligent for what my son? And as we could ask ourselves after all what we have drafted: science for what?

If the question would be to overcome abstract difficulties in the development of each discipline, we would attain results that depend only on our theoretical construction, and that would leave in others its applicability. But that renounced responsibility, is the great difference between a man (worker or scientist) that holds its compromise with social interest, and a technician with no social commitment.

For this world ruled by big corporations and transnational firms, nothing is better than an aggregate of scientific fellows who do not set themselves the manner their technologies will be employed, or if these may lead to injury other people.

26

Those who design automobiles stopped figuring how could the civilization substitute the intern combustion motor. It does not encourage this problem the fact that the ecologists do alert us in every meeting on the earth heating problem. These designers of automobiles are the ones that support the automobile industry of a few great corporations. They represent the comfort and status for those of us who can pay for a car. They also represent a business for those who build highways. They even represent the profits for those others who rescue unpaid credits for broken road projects. But none of them is contributing to rethink the model of civilization. They are part of the well paid specialists, and permit the owners to get also a juicy utility. All of those sustain –and to be fair I should say all of us sustain— this culture constructed over oil. That is, a model of life that requires very eagerly what the soil of Irak, of Saudi Arabia and Mexico are hiding beneath their grounds.

In an indirect manner, the perfectioners of automobiles have responsibility for the invasion of Irak and for the policies that force this country to increase its export platform of oil.

27

Chart of oil civilization

On the other side, those men of knowledge who assume that their nimbleness has the obligation to recover the occidental sense of wisdom, and to hold alive the values and principles in the scientific exercise, will be capable of destroying, as Leonardo did in the XV Century, some of the discoveries or designs that could raise as evil or danger in the hands of irresponsible.

Of course I do not mean by this to proceed as ludite and to destroy the technical structure of the current world, but to destroy it in our minds, in our hearts and in our research plans, and to start to imagine how a human and sustainable world could be edified, without interests which could make war, and without the comfort that constitutes a menace for the entire existence of our home the earth.

The task is to link and orient the humanized employment of technology, and to obtain a

War for oil, heating of earth, more hurricanes, development of arms technology

Great demand of oil from Irak, Saudi Arabia and Mexico

Great business for those who build highways and rescue road broken companies

Great utilities for the industry partners, and great political power for them

Design of automoviles that produce comfort and polution

28

Petrolization of economies and increasing influence on those economies

responsible development of science. This is a task that obligates us all to establish communicant bonds and ties through all forms, to discuss the problems and the alternatives, and to arrive to a consensus over the great lines of development and social change.

Roads to humanized orientation of sciences

This task and responsibility commits us to search for the way to make the authority of science to be listened, and to rise politics to the high levels the discipline can give to it.

In this world the scientific research programs, and the scrupulousness of scientific analysis have to fight for new ways to evaluate economic models and public policies. The scientific community has to speak not in an individual dispersion, nor in a recurrent form, but in a permanent collective and overwhelming condition. The exercise of the scientific community has as its greatest foe its personalistic and disperse condition. And to conquer a new role in the future world they have to weave the multidisciplinary contributions in a coherent proposal of future society.

29

community with the groups of politics

Link the products and conclusions of the scientific

Moral and ethic uses of technology

Reorientation of the public policies and budget planning

Design of a better world withour unjustice and polution

Discussion of the risks and aberrations of current society

If the organized men of science assume that knowledge is the source of future power no other contemporary institution will occupy its place, and if they –or us—learn to reestablish the ethical values of our civilization, our weight in the main decisions of this epoch will increase, will grow, changing the character of the governments. I do not speak of the Platonic ideal of government –where the state is ruled by philosophers--, since science and knowledge must remain as guides of the people. I speak of another kind of power, that which will distinguish the human beings if we are able to overcome the risks that the civilization is now facing.

Science validation of political proposals of groups and parties

Moral and ethical evaluation of public policies

Publication and diffusion of scientific diagnosis

Education and training of society through the mass media where the scientific community deals with public interest and public programs

Autogestion of informed society

30

Source of legitimacy of power in the future

I speak of the education and training of the whole mankind under the consciousness that the humanities and the sciences can empower them to become an autogestive society, a community that needs good governments, but not ruled by ideology, but by clear and free conscience. Just as the promise and hope that twenty centuries of the development of knowledge oblige and commit us to attain.

31