Internet diary
Links
To the readers of these pages: please do observe conscientously what are the starting points of my thoughts (= all the points of view that I have heard of) which I use ONLY because you others use them, and what are the end results of my thoughts, the thus supported values (= paradise, excellent moral ad a life completely according to feelings) that I support from my heart. Here observe that the starting points are not logical premises for me but premises only for the other parties that I do oppose and to whom I try to prove my point in a discussion. I do support only the end results and not the starting points, even though I value realism but to me these end results ARE realistical values!
Supporting things that are positive for happy life, like
ice cream and strawberries,
singing and dancing,
good living conditions for children,
holidays
and so on.
This is an important part of the Finnish speaking culture of Finland in Europe.
"Live and let others live!" is the rule that we follow diligently in our lives (much more than the Swedish who claim it to be their wisdom instead but who restrict it to their own group and own nation).
The Santa Claus who is around here said to live in the Lappland of Finland, comes originally from the neighbouring country Russia.
Of music I have most enjoyed the songs from Tahiti, from the paradise islands.
Kaisa Hannele Tervola
L�hderanta 11 B 25
02720 Espoo
Finland
European Union
On the web there is information about Finland at http://virtual.finland.fi/
Maybe the tale of the Finnish speaking Finns will be like the tale about the Ugly Duckling, swan is the national symbol of Finland and our culture has some beauty of the compassionate human nature in it.
A quotation:
After us other people.
That comforts. Now already it comforts me.
In my dreams I carry in my arms a little child.
The child smells of safety and of a happy night.
A piece of Arja Uusitalo's poem book: Meren syli (In the arms of the sea)
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
K. Gibran:
"There is a green meadow between a scholar and a poet; if the scholar crosses over it she/he becomes wise; if the poet crosses over it she/he becomes a prophet."
If the scolar learns about life, she/he becomes wise. If the poet, who already understands about life, can put her/his understanding to the language of sholars too, that is true holistic wisdom, the words of a prophet with the body and spirit right, a road for others to travel in their life with both their understanding and heart.
I guess that I am good at crossing the meadow from the side of poets to the side of scholars but I am not a poet, I am a scholar. But if I could teach my skill to the poets, that would be worth a lot. Me texts here at www.paradisewins.net seek to give a picture of the world via whcih that could be possible for many. I wish you good luck! Starting with a feeling and an atmosphere, form a holistic view of the situation. Transform that view according to my picture of the world here to a mechanical language which emphasises health and harmony instead of feelings and atmospheres. Then it should be possible to make all, even the militarily or economically thinking, understand you.
REAL MASTERY IS NEAR THE HEART
Feelings reach the essential
Feelings as a map:
If we are motivated to some task from our heart, our feelings tell how we should do it: which road leads to success and which not. In other words, our feelings have memorised how well we did in each thing. So our memories about feelings and our emotional associations (structure analogs) serve as a map about what to invest in and which road to travel.
We naturally feel strongly about the central issues of human life, about their most important matters. Those things are usually common to all humans.
Feelings reflect our motivation. And our motivation in turn tells how well we have understoods the idea in what we are doing and so what kind of meaningfullness the end result has.
If we are not motivated, that can be seen in the end result too. By reading from the memory one cannot figure out anythjing new butinspiration makes one achieve better than what is usually possible for oneself by being actively observing and creative.
SEEING EMOTIONAL TRUTHS AS RATIONAL
First figure out what you feel strongly about and why you feel so. Then think of yourself by your very nature as a part fo the healthy world: all your feelings are a part of the dynamics of the world trying to repair itself back to full health: aiming for healthy things and feeling repulsion toward unhealthy things. Those dynamics are rational also in the present day world. Our understanding helps to take care of the artificialities for which there is no natural reaction in our instincts. So just see your feelings as a part of the natural dynamics of the world, then they are rational!
Why are these thoughts so simple? My experience is that people have two ways of thinking: a simple one that they use in guiding their action in practise and a more complex one that they use to survive through school like things but which does not necessarily affect the level of practise. I try to speak both of those languages at once, to be so simple that it is natural to take these thoughts of mine into account in practise too.
Mostly I have tried to write only things which I previously thought that everybody in Finland could and should understand by themselves, without being told. Especially this applies to the rationality of feelings. In short t5he reasoning is the following: we were created by the natural evolution or by God to a life in the nature. What we are now is still based on that.
My main theory is that the different sides/functions of humans connect, so that keeping them all healthy and at their natural places gives the best functioning to the whole. Likewise I think that the different parts of the societies and of the world should be kept healthy and at their natural healthy roles in the whole.
Another reason for why these thoughts are so simple is that I think that really changing the world is a huge task and that it is easier to lift to light something that people already know and show its connections to other things, its wide variety of applications (for example the rationality of feelings and moral) so that people can think things trough mostly by themselves. Maybe this aim is taoist influence in my thinking: "doing everything without doing anything". Such a goal makes it possible for one individual to affect much wider than otherwise - well, that's so in theory and even then only with the help of many many others!
Still another reason for the simplicity is that these thoughts are not born from my academical education but out of my non-intellectual hobbies, ordinary life and (early?) childhood thoughts. Personally I think that the academical people would have very much indeed to learn from those who do not speak the academical language: from the people in different areas of life with their wisdom of life and from children with their new original ideas and of course from the traditional wisdom of different cultures too.
Nevertheless, I think that my texts could offer a good starting point for academical research of these subjects - maybe in practical philosophy. Somebody else than I should do that work since I am badly burn out from academical work and completely unsuitable for academical work by my values and my social style which ends me in a figt with just about every academical person that I know. I do not understand why academicals do not allow the freedom of individuals in deciding one'w own values, profession, idols etc. And personally I do not value the sciences so much: their objectivity is at the hands of those who do research and at the mercy of the traditional methods of gathering and interpreting information. I value the oriental philosophy (mainly I am aquiantaged with taoism, buddhism and some of the Indian knowledge of the connection between the mind and the body) with its trust in the wisest and with its wide view on life much more. Especially I value its trusting of the individual understanding of each instead of trusting the understanding of the systems. There is a Finnish saying that clearly illustrates this point: "In a group stupidity gets more abundant." even though the Finnish culture in its trust of the systems often forgets this - maybe only the teenagers and some individuals remember it. An explanation for this is the idealistically beautiful motivational ground of the Finnish systems which corrects many of their errors even though not all of them: see the beginning of my main page www.paradisewins.net/index.html for this paradise movement idea - that is the usual motivational ground for us Finns even though typically not said aloud and typically thought without the faraway hope of a paradise explicitly mentioned: it is just the best imaginable direction to got to that we aim at, that we see as the rational choise.
Always use your understanding fully. If some simple thoughts already give you answers, like the value of health versus the harmfulness of brokenness, do not confuse yourself by trusting unobjectively more complex thought structures and complex points of view with which you cannot figure out how the whole works together. Always trust your surest - the simple! - understanding most and the unsufficient (too complex to be handled) means of thinking least!
Even though I have written a lot, these thoughts are not my whole picture of the world and not all that is typical to my thinking. I have just tried to answer to the value-free perspective with its torture like views on academical work efficiency that my social environment typically uses. What I am personally interested in is a different matter: mostly I am interested in life at the level of practise and in the oriental philosophy of life. Nowadays I do not think so much since I have no-one to discuss these things with and even no penpals. But in a way it is the same as before: I have never had anyone with the same intellectual interests as I have, so these thoughts are just my own answer to how I see the more cynical side of the world around me. I am not sure whether intellectual communicaton is needed - as long as one can still try to answer to people's needs.
My view here on my pages is NEW. That's why you are not familiar with it. As far as I know, my view is correct. I have typically bewen a very sure thinker: having always checked my views again and again, these views that I have had all of my life are quite sure indeed. But even if my thoughts were not correct after all, they could be the material of tales, I think. So beautiful my view is and so close to our wishes in life. But now that my thoughts are still new, I have tried to phrace them in the terms of old familiar truths of common sense and science, so that the whole would be easy to grasp. That should be no reason to doubt them: there are an enermous number of everyday things from which to find analogies to more theoretical thoughts. An ability to find those analogies is one step toward successfull communication.
Maybe you know from your own experience that feelings do not always seem rational. My thoughts here seek to teach you how to find the rationality - even hard war like or benefit oriented rationality - in following feelings. (See /theoryofevolution.html, /feelings.html and my book at stores.lulu.com/khtervola.) That should be a natural skill for all once they have learned it. But it seems to demand a holistic view in thinking and a sense of health.
These pages are divided to eleven groups, some of them consisting of two link pages and some of only one. The groups are the ones above. Read a page, then return to the link page in order to find a next page to visit.
Please read my main page at www.paradisewins.net
(I wonder if I should have chosen the domain name www.paradisewins.fi (Finland) instead but no-one had yet chosen the .net . The paradise wins idea is my own and so nice and culture free that I hope that people from all over the world will enjoy getting to know it, while almost no-one would find the .fi on their own if they are from some far away place. This is quite an impossible combination: a paradise and a victory in a competition, so maybe the domain name isn't as wanted as one might think to begin with. So I guess that I will continue using it unlesss someone comes up with a better idea to which to use it. It is better to offer something than nothing...)
I wonder why selfishness is typically equated with evil and not with good? People typically reason that they want to be selfish, so they do evil. On the same grounds one should do good things instead. If I want to myself as much good as possible, it is important that I create some good myself and avoid destroying good things that others have created and avoid teasing others into breaking what is mine. That means moral action opposed to evil action.
Also I wonder that why when people want to be selfish, want things well for themselves, why they then trust thought (often taught by others) instead of feeling (this feels good for me). Often relying in thoughts makes people behave senselessly toward others (and toward oneslef!) while relying on feelings would make them enjoy life in harmony with all the others. Nothing has gives me as much pleasure as buddhism with its tight ethic rules about feeling compassion for and working for the good of all living beings. Well, that is another thing but a goos example. Here on my pages are some other examples of selfishness leading to the direction of love's traditional wisdom.
In my opinion, in the present day world it matters a lot what stance we take toward selfishness. Since the market economies are connected to some kind of selfishness - be it moral or not in your eyes. Working for the common good is in my opinion moral even if you benefit that way yourself too.
I have been trying to write a book. These pages are the end result of the work of a few years. The main reason for my failure seems to be a lack of writing skills and an extremely poor memory to handle the different sides of my bunch of texts in the writing work. My mother tongue is Finnish and not English, but the widest audience seems to be reachable via the English language and it matters a lot to the writing work to whom and from which perspective one writes. The Finnish language has a much more holistic perspective than the English language and many of these thoughts are already parts of the extremely rational traditional Finnish culture. Maybe some others with some more writing skills or whatever needed, will continue from here. This is a good starting point, a well selling bunch of ideas, I suspect. Feel free to use any, some or all of my ideas as you please for a better (happier) world!
I have used many perspectives in trying to tie my bunch of thoughts together. The major one is that of rationally grounded moral, which I have managed to collect to a book which I have just (January 2007) published in the internet at stores.lulu.com/khtervola under the name Power Politics Leads To Excellent Moral. Other perspectives still remain unfinished: that of work efficiency and interconnectedness, the rationality of feelings (which I have just (April 2007) collected to a book published in the internet at stores.lulu.com/khtervola as a book named Work Efficiency and Likings and can be downloaded there for free) and the Gaia paradise wins idea. There are also some additional texts about objective thinking and other subjects which do not seem to fit anywhere.
I do not see moral as a road of sacrifices. Instead I see it as a way to advance one's own good via affecting the practises of a society toward good. Similarly I do not see friendliness in social contacts as a sacrifice. Instead I see it as a way to enjoy the social contact the most and to take most advanage of such an encounter. Besides, in order to have something to give to others, you need to lead a rich life yourself, so that too is for your own good. I am not greedy but I am always aiming for my own good, for happiness, be it with others or alone, right now or in the far future.
How come these thoughts are so positive and have such a negative point of view? One can question things only as much as one is capable of building back. Otherwise one just destroys things of worth without any hope of finding anything better. It is always good to trust also the traditional answers, the understanding of other intelligent people. My answers agree also with the traditional Finnish speaking culture of Finland, so they are ot based on my own understanding alone which too is unusually good. Also: in thinking the idea is to affect things with the help of thinking as much toward goood as possible, so if the end result of thinking is not an improvement but has a harmful effect instead, it is better to leave the thinking part away and go only with feelings, instincts etc. That is often possible by using a holistic view of the world and of one's feelings, with proportions and roles of things right in that picture. Then you can follow all of your feelings at the same time. Remember to not to think in words but use an ordinary holistic picture instead, otherwise you are sure to get confused by the complexity of things and fail to be consistent in following your feelings. The task of thinking is to get the roles and proportions right and to form such a holistic view - there isn't anything more that thinking can or should do for you... (Read the page /emotionalobjective.html about how to fully follow feelings without losing objectivity - good also for emergencies etc when you are fully influenced by strong feelings. But it should also make thinking make more sense to you, since thinking only helps in following feelings as well as possible.)
I am higly intelligent in theoretical things. My intelligence quotient in a standard non-verbal Mensa test was 170 which is higher than that of 99.8% of the population. I am university educated in theoretical physics and mathematics, but very badly a burn out from those both. Those do not represent my thinking type, even though I can survive through such tasks too. I have always been more interested in all other kinds of things than technical ones. Especially I am interested in the world at large. But since it seems that without a suitable academical education it is impossible to get any other kind of academical work either, I find it easiest to get the work that I can � be it newspaper delivery or farming work or whatever and to do my share on making the world a better place to live in by writing during my free time. This way I can benefit the society more than I could by doing any engineering work. See the example of increasing (also technical kind of) intelligence on my pages about objective thinking. Last spring (7th of May 2007) I started on a course to become a wilderness guide, so that I could then teach my work efficiency perspective to my possible customers, to engineers and other academicals. IF it really could increase the average work pace to manyfold in some tasks, my work as a wilderness guide could be of a much bigger benefit than any academical work that my education would support (but from which I am a burn out!). The course is over now. I passed most of the examinations but not the ones in trekking and guiding skills. I might try them again in December but propably not: I am not the show type of person that they are looking for.
You ask: isn't the job of a wilderness guide and a teacher a too nice one, a kind of needless one, one in which my abilities get wasted? No. There is no other way that I can benefit the society more than by this efficiency perspective of mine, and this perspective demands a change in the ways of living toward healthier. The perspective would not appear convincing if no-one could change their lives toward better based on it. Or if I couldn't get a single penny out of it.
My thoughts are:
* hypothesies from the point of view of scientific kind of objective thinking which uses a holistic view of the world,
* and agree with common sense,
* feelings,
* instincts,
* moral,
* health,
* the need to live a full life,
* the need to secure the future,
* the totally value-free work effectiveness point of view,
* the wish to protect nature
* the wish to develop technology
* my own experience and
* our local Finnish tradition about what is according to common sense and moral.
The concept of health is good for fitting together all the different viewpoints:
* power (health gives strenght),
* benefit (health gives a strong and well arranged working force and consequently a high standard of living from which to benefit, healthy goals give a strong motivation),
* freedom (live and let others live is a rule to follow in order to achieve a maximum amount of freedom for everyone and a healthy society in this sense),
* control (the health of practises makes people agree with the practises and creates no opposing forces),
* life according to feelings (healthily according to feelings is a part of the full health),
* moral (moral means guarding the good health of the whole world, evil means needless breaking),
* science (a healthy animal is the fittest),
* most religions (a healthy world / a paradise and good moral are things to aim at),
* computer logic (healthy = fully functioning = times 1, broken = non-funtioning = times 0),
* common sense (health is a common sense concept which all know well),
* the views of those who bring up children (they are typically for healthy ways of living and good moral),
* the views of the traditional Finnish culture and propably of most other cultures too (it is good to cultivate good health and stupid to break needlessly),
* a view capable of handling large interconnected systems (health is a good concept which can be generalised to all kinds of systems),
* a sexuality oriented view (what could be more attractive than health and happiness),
* the points of view of aiming at manliness or womanliness (healthy natural life according to emotions is what the charm and capacity of each sex is based on),
* the view that no material world exists (the wholes stay unchanged and the truth about healthy versus broken functioning stays valid),
* the wish to protect nature (health of the world means among other things the protection of nature) and
* the wish to develop technology (a healthy life in a nature environment should bring the best ground for theoretical intelligence - see my pages /increasingintelligence.html and /interconnectedness.html).
Politically I support the Social Democratic party of Finland and the Green party.
(Could this work efficiency (or what ever) perspective of mine make you happy for the rest of your life?)
Oh by the way, the letter that I wrote to the United Nations was about me writing a book about the beneficiality of moral in the light of our traditional culture. And my e-mails to the White House were about that type of moral and about my book.
I am a WOMAN and I have never valued manlikedness and unjustice at all.
I try to explain my basic point of view:
My feelings are my soul, they are the essence that I am made of. According to the biological picture of humans, harming my feelings means harming my structure and preventing me from my natural ways of functioning. Letting me to live freely according to my feelings and according to my own understanding morally, is what keeps me in good functioning order and makes the society work well together.
It is good to be a strong proud woman.
Love should be one of the possibilities in human life, and not sex only or hard work only. Love and safety.
A challenge that the existence of tools sets to human thinking ability is to abandon the old instinctual behaviour and instead make a mechanical tool like model of humans and of the world at large and to count the beneficality of each option according to that. My own model "Healthy is strong." gives such a wanted mechanical understanding. At the same time it makes us look at the evolution as an optimisation process, as a safest one wins competition, which has given us the most beneficial ways: those according to our instinct nature, those of pure health. This way our feelings guide us toward the best possible functioning.
How come my perspective is so outrageous: supporting a paradise etc? Once there is the dream of peace, a dream of nonfractured healthy world, it is easy to apply the same idea, that of an unfractured healthy whole to other things too and such produces an amazingly beautiful result: the beauty of health and harmony, the ideal of the healthy world in the beginning of time. If we could learn the value of peace, we would learn the value of those other things too. Since this thought - or a way of thinking: the holistic thinking - is so easy and this thought even mechanical, it should be possible to apply it to everything without it ceasing to be valid. So:
The thoughts in these pages are directions which are meant to be followed in practise, that's the point in them.
Why am I so interested in moral that I have, among other things, written all these pages about it? I think that there are two goals in life: to live a happy life without suffering and to do something of worth in the world. Doing something of worth means doing something of worth to at least some of the countless living beings who are capable of experiencing life, and that is just what moral means. And what must be most feared in this context, is causing great suffering to the countless living beings - that's just what is meant by great evil. So doing something of worth and avoiding causing catastrophes equals good moral. But also if one only wants a happy life for oneself, one must arrange it together with the other living beings, in other words that goal too equals moral. That's why I consider moral important in life.
Making successful solutions
BOTTOM-UP: The typical error of many is to try to solve problems by building from the habitual building blocks that they have solution attempts which they then try out.
TOP-DOWN: The correct ideal way to solve problems would be to begin in the opposite way: from the idea of a solution: figure out what you need, then figure out how to build such things: what structures you need, what kind of building blocks are available to build those structures and what kind of structures you can build from such building blocks (Only this last phase is availabke for you if you try the other way around.). Then just build those structures that you need for the solution. Ready!
By the way, I am not in the least interested in thinking and hearing people's views. Not even if I could be a professor of theoretical philosophy, which is the best place in the university that I can imagine or maybe cultural antropology with its wise view would be better - but I do NOT want to! That's why I do not fit into the academical world at all. I JUST WANT TO SAVE THE WORLD. I do not want to get tortured and academical work is like torture to me. I need practical life at the level of the body andf the SENSES - otherwise I will suffer to an extend that seems unimaginable to the others. If I need thinking for something, I will turn to art (See (atmospheresthink.html) and religions (See /Taoism.html). I get nothing out of the university stuff but feel it to be a completely brainless robot like thing with no value. Something suited only for purposes of torture. This is the truth. Even at the school times years ago when I was not yet a burn out from too much acdemical kind of work, I was almost suicidal because of not being able to bear the school. So I am just not suited for thinking work. Besides, I have already written a book Work Efficiency and Likings about my own work capacity. I guess that that should have enough grounds for me doing anything practical and things according to feelings instead of the awful academical work. Since in the end, it is only myself that I have written about. Other people may work differently, even though the theory backs up my view. More life and less hard work for the school children is my hope for the future. Understanding more about the human thinking ability, about learning and natural communication one could teach children to think very objectively about everything in a short nd pleasant way, I think. I wish that others too would becaome interested inthis point of view of mine and read about it from the pages of mine and from my above mentioned book.
How to apply the thoughts of my book Work Efficiency and Likings? They apply especially to the cases where there are strong feelings supporting them, so they should apply especially to burn outs and to people who are not suited to academical kind of work or even to school work: in other words to people who really feel the lack of other things from their life, so they apply to the "rebels" especially and not to the "well adabted ones" so much at all.
Trying to change the world is a huge task to do but it may be simpler than what you imagine.
In trying to change systems you need to have grounds for those changes from the following points of views:
* the system's way of working, its goals
* the goals of the individuals in the systems (selfishness and high ideals)
* the demands of the world at large (optimising/ tough play and moral).
So one answer is that you should refer to health in your grounds: health agrees with all these goals at the same time. Support good health in the world and in the lives of each. You can phrase your view in different kinds of languages for the different audiences: the scientificial language, common sense and moral.
You can see three examples of this approach in my texts: my two self-published free books at stores.lulu.com/khtervola and these internet pages of mine. Please get to know them - especially my book Work Efficiency and Likings could maybe change your life toward better!
The mode needed for thinking things mechanically through, which many men try to use, is different from the mode for following the correct end results in practise, which many women try to do. The latter brings success, the former is just a tool and worthless in a sense.
By the way, freedom is given by moral. Since if you do not follow the rule "Live and let others live." others cannot for their own sake let you live freely. But if you follow the rule, that's all that is needed. But of course: you need to use a holistic view and a sincere heart in following the rule! Moral isn't any more complicated than that!
And why would the others bother to leave you alone if you follow this rule? You would set a positive example to them and to others about how to live without disturbing the others at all. So the others would concentrate on preventing others from harming them and you would serve as an example to them about how they want others too to live.
And why would the large systems or whoever is in power care about wherher you follow this specific rule? If you follow the rule "Live and let others live." you life in a healthy way in what comes to your social life. Health gives the best functioning in the society and that is beneficial to the rulers. Why is it just this rule that gives health of the system? One part of the health of the system is that no part gets broken and that each part of the system gets the place in the system which is best for all i.e. justice. "Live and let others live" keeps each part healthy, unbroken, and a holistic view shows you the value of justice: take benefit (= give influence to them) from the best alternatives and prevent harm.
How to see my texts as simple - how to read them at all? Take what there 8is simple in my texts and apply that as far as you can. Whatr seems obscure, needs concentrating into: take the purely complex part as a separate entity and pay attentyion to it separately, trying tro figure out how to apply the familiar concepts of health and brokenness into such a subject. Do not think in words, instead think in pictures, in landscapes.
What about understanding the more complex ideas like the value of justice in the light of the success of he market economies? First understand the principle: giving each thing feedback according to what it is like. Then go to each application separately and concentrate into seeing how the principle is there in use: 1. market economy, 2. product development, 3. evolution, 4. objective planning, 5. justice, 6. honesty - this principle is the common feature of these all.
What then about the island model of the whole world? You should start by choosing some area of life, the easiest and best example (=profound) might be farming. Then just divide it to different areas like meat and vegetables, and those to subareas, etc. Thus you can think about the whole world - whether you and name the reasons for different things or whether you have to just mark them "the unknown reasons for these phenomena". This is well possible also in social things - at least if you use simple divisions like conflict versus sooperation, and harm versus no effect versus benefit caused (who to whom!!), and healthy versus broken whole, I guess. But feelings do seem rational in my eyes, so please read my book Work Efficiency and Likings about them.
How to think objectively anout feelings? First, observe your life and your feelings about things in a way that does not use any words or theories. Just let your experience form alandscape in front of your eyes. Then take easy objective concepts like "this feeling", "my goal in this", "my values concerning this", "my other observations about the subject" and make these word clusters point to the picture about your experience, defining areas (like: lately I have been feeling sad) in it. This way you have undisturbed = the best kind of objective observation of your life and feelings, and a theory perspective pointing to it. Your life at the level of experience is what the theories refer to.
Handling large systems in thinking:
∑ Good quality holistic view, with NO errors -> can be applied much much wider
∑ use simple divisions as far as you can; our everyday vocabulary is ideal because it is simple in our eyes but contains all kinds of structures � you can translate your theoretical terms to everyday language.
∑ use an analogy to your own body: healthy versus broken, minor or major, basic or distant
∑ generalise things i.e. find features that are common to many same kind of things and essential in practise for them and/or for the world.
I want to remark that there is NO academical kind of work that I could get - I simply do not have the education. Besides I am very badly burn out from all academical kind of work. These pages and my two books are the end result of a work of years and there is absolutely no place in the academical world for the thoughts in them. So I am completely an outsider from the academical world. The closest I can imagine evr getting to the academical world is getting my books published - but that is NOT a way to make a living. So I should indeed be allowed the freedom of deciding myself what I do for my living! Those who do not grant me the freedom to decide about my own life deserve to go to Hell, whether such a place exists or not...
I am not a pacifist: I am against evil and sometimes that fight needs the force of arms too: you cannot give all the military power to those who are not on your own side. That's why I feel that I agree with the foreign politics of the USA better than people generally around here do as far as I know. In my opinion USA and EU are on the same side but the EU has chosen a pacifist tactic while the USA takes care of the military side of the power dynamics of the world. Of course peace and prosperity � happiness! � are very important goals but one-sided disarmament of the moral, democratic ones is not the road to a lasting peace. One should not judge the USA any harsher for running the arms race than the Japan for forcing people to work too much in order to survive in the economical competition.
Why do I have a this dark view of the moral outside European cultural domain? Often the people in other countries use a perspective not wider than their own nation - that is not wide enough for the moral caring for of all the world.
What it honesty? It means that I give you the kind of idea of how things are that you connect to how things are. It does not mean telling you everything that I know. Neither does it mean expressing oneself as if one were alone: I have to take into account how you understand my message and choose the message so that you will understand correctly the point about how things are. So sometimes honesty means acting, it means telling things that aren't exactly true but by which the others reach closer to the truth than they would ever otherwise get. But then of course you have to take the audience into account, and the ones bypassing and hearing - that they too would understand everything right. That's why you have to mark to your communication style to whom you are talking to. I am here talking to many kinds of people at once, so I use the scientificial kined of perspective (biology) since just about all know it, and that together with common sense, since that is the major means of thinking of most.
My beautifully ending perspective should be valid from all kinds of starting points. But since people typically guess that it would not be valid from the cynical starting point of military or economical realities, I am forced to use especially the completely value-free perspective. That is not my choise: I would have preferred a view completely according to feelings.
To be clear: I know nothing of this but it appears to me to be in the following way: As the USA tries on its part to lead the world toward good, ons of those good directions is the good sides of the European culture. And a typical "good" example of the European culture is Sweden, its culture. But the Swedish culture isn't all good: it is too bound to an outer form, too unconvinced of its own truths, sabotaging things beneath the surface. So if USA really leads toward Swedish culture, it may be that the bad arbitrary sides of Swedish culture ruin the whole thing: are what we all desist as the bad sides of the USA. SO one ought to compare outspokenly and sincerely honestly the same and different features of the European cultures in order to find ot which features are the best ones to aim at. It is my opinion that the culture of Sweden would not win in that comparison. At least the Finnish speaking main culture of Finland would be a much better choise.
By the way, I am a very unusual person: I have never ever met anyone even remotely like me. So if you consider writing to me but think that you are not entirely on the same wavelenght with me, write anyway! I have this far gotten only two answers: one a very much religious one from a Jehovah witness and one from an Arab interested in the relationships of women and men - plus the much more "official" answers from the White House, the UN and the Dalai Lama plus some short answers (= thanks and bye) from some political places or persons. And that's EVERYTHING. So I am very much looking for conversations, however different we may be. People always think that I am not like them themselves but like maybe someone else. It should be good to know that there is absolutely no-one like me, even though I am very much Finnish.
THE BASIS OF MY THEORY PROJECT
My intention is to repair the gaps in the pictures of the world by figuring out new theories and connections between old theories, to so give answers to questions which are important in practise, and to form a holistic view of the world which everybody can understand and with which safely guide the large systems and to set large scale guidelines. To this I use my scientifical holistic view of the world and my biological picture of the world which I translate to the language of common sense with my skill.
But there is no-one who would pay for me to do this work or even publish any of my texts. (Except sometimes some newsletters who do not pay anything and are not widely read.)
Whatever motivational ground you have, seeing it as a part of the world helps you to ally with the rest of the world in a way which makes completely moral action the most beneficial route to achieving your goals. This is a consequence of the fact that all motivational factors of humans and all goals which benefit from using humans can be seen in the context of the biological picture of humans, where the optimised action is found from the health of the whole, since the whole supports its parts and the healthy parts support the whole. The strenght of the influence of the whole on the parts is what makes completely moral action the optimised choise.
Why a culture should not support lies:
Lies make it impossible to see under the surface, so their abundance leaves people dumb. And if those for whom it is easiest to see under the surface are the not-at-all-fair ones, the ones least likely to treat each thing and person according to what they are like and what they deserve, then they are also the least objective ones, so the society is not supporting objectivity but unobjectivity. So things do not get treated according to what they are. That does not make sense!
Suppose that everyt5hing were just lies, that you would be like a person in a clishee like Arab environment. Even then you could take each thing that causes you feelings, and if you are clearheaded enough, you can notice how those things are important in your life: the causes of good feelings make you stronger and the causes of bad feelings make you weaker. So you can see how it is beneficial to you to follow your feelings. Some truths stay, you can be sure of them because they are based on your own observation of what life is like and not on the lies of others.
It is an illusion that people would listen to rational grounds and choose rationally what tool like goals they use. Instead they are just fixed to their old habits because of liking them. When I had this view of mine people liked it but communmicated (non-verbally) that because of the USA they needed to adobt a harsher more evil style. Now that I have received some kind of positive feedback from the USA there ought not be such a problem. But now the people around me have turned to evil as a value in itself, not at all toward the paradise like ways of life which ought to interest them much more.
If people lie about important matters, that makes it impossible to treat those matters according to what they are like. So actions cease to make sense in their most important respects. Such a society dioes not work as it should and like it could if the people were honest in important matters.
Why does it seem that there is no room for this picture of the world of mine? Why is no-one interested in it?
Those who feel urgently the need to thjink more, i.e. the slow-witted, spend all of their time thinking about things. Those who have in a fraction of a second thought things thoroughly through, much much more widely than the slow- or average witted, do not feel any longer (i.e. after that fraction of a second) the need to think. Instead they feel urgently the need to concentrate on the other areas of life. Consequently they are not suited to academical kind of work at all. Still they are the ones who understand things best. The anuversity is a giant force in the world of intellectual discussions. Still, wisdom is found elsewhere. The academicals should be forced to accept that also others than academical workers should be listened in intellectual questions - even when it obviously means also accepting new thoughts and new ways of expression, new ways of thinking things through!
To get the most out of somebody's talent, you ought not to force them to work hard at some task in your field of expertise, instead you should encourage them to teach their talent to others, so that after a short while there will be many who can solve such tasks. And the most intelligent ones should send influence to very many - the best way to do so is as an artist, I estimate: there they can influence the ways of very many in a way that those others remember since it has touched them. So one should not force the intelligent ones and one should not term artists unrealistical or something of the kind. Instead one should value the answers that they have found: that we can follow even if we do not fully understand why to do so except that it works out well...
About the level of thinking in the university of Helsinki: I used to practise aikido in its aikido club. Once a man there showed me which way to stand and said: "Have the right leg in front and the left leg in back, the inner foot back and the outer in front." That is four times the same thing in a row without any reason to say it even once! I consider such malicious behaviour: being quite quick witted I find it hard to bear. With such a level it is impossible to work with anyone. One cannot call such communication at all. It is more like a joke, nothing to call thinking. Besides I find it hard tpo bear even the ordinary scientifical or philosophical level: I would be interested in what is essential in practise and in having a wide view of the world, not in messing with details, especially not with the details of expression like is usual in the university. Even the most liberal minded of the teachers in the university, philosopher Esa Saarinen, complained to me about such things as if I were a beginner, as if it were not the thoughts which were important and their impact in the world and in lives and not the details of the doctrine as a value in itself. So I do NOT fit even to the most high classed university of Finland, i.e. that of Helsinki, not even with Esa Saarinen either...
Why if I am interested in the fate of the world, I do not look like a soldier? Have I forgotten that armies exist? Have I forgotten what all boys have to bear all their lives? No, I have not forgotten. Even though I enjoy the role of women, I have always thought that if I were to have some militaristic role that would be in the planning department. I am extremely interested in the general principles guiding things and in figuring out which kind of guidelines should be followed in the largest scale, which would be the most beneficial to have. My looks too reflect my interests i,e, the large scale and not the scale of an individual soldier lowest in the rank. In the large scale it is important to value peace, both as a tool and as a goal. That's why my looks are quite pasifist, even though I admit the need for having armies. The amount of conflicts that one can allow in the large scale is much much smaller than what one can have in the small matters. That is so because the questions are so huge and because one can use the most intelligent ones in large scale planning: they make fewer mistakes and no errors. It is just so that you should train your social eye to understand size classes!
Generally I do not like the intellectual side of others. I do find it easier if I can agree with the views of others but I do not like the explaining that is needed in order to drag the others along. Everything intellectual feels like as if I were dragging a stone sledge which is formed by the intellectual understanding of others. I am not that much more intelligent, I think. Merely I am much more thorough than others are, much more experienced in thinking, quicker, aquiantaged with a wide variety of views and having several entirely my own observations. Anyway, typically thinking does not feel like thinking to me: it feels like a nasty social situation where others are cold and irresponsible. I would like to concentrate to feelings and other similar things which connect strongly to the human nature - that's where I can learn something new and what I feel pleasant. Consequently I do not find intellectual discussions fullfilling any lack in me, instead I would very much indeed like to have a positive emotional contact with my social environment. What lacks from my life, is the other areas of life, not thinking. That is seen also in my thinking work: all new ideas come from doing other things, completely unintellectaul or at least unacademical things! Arts are nice. Most of all I like sports. I also enjoy animals and nonwordly social life. Those things teach me a lot. Buddhism and Taoism are my main intellectual interests and in connection with them I am also interested in the human nature at the level of sensations, sensed observations, as unfractured as possible - in other words: meditation in daily life.
Now I have managed to get one person read anbd comment on my book Work Efiiciency and likings. Thanks!
It is not our job to look at the whole, at what we can with our skills build, what kind of part to the working of the whole. Instead we have to take a look at the general guidelines governing the systems and seek to repair the whole to a good state. I.e. instead of just building from blocks and instead of just increasing the speed of the systems, we have to take a look at the direction that the system is going to. To that we have to usde4 all our understanding, also the common sense things that we know so well. And we have to aim at thinking without any errors in generalisations. (Often many refuse to think of the whole by generalisisng social things all wrong.)
I am not talking of a change, I am talking of an addition to many canons. People do not need to change they can continue being what they are like, just the official point of view which reflects what objectivity says about things, needs to change itself, like is supposed to be its nature. And how to follow a this good moral and live according to feelings, there are many already existing examples of that, your own nature being one of them, then there are all the values of women's culture: half of the population, the Finnish, European and russina cultures, the truly moral sides of people, all the people aiming at true objectivity, emotional people, artists etc.
How to stay arranged without a system?
If your ability to objectivity is lesser than that of the system, you obviously can benmefit from using the system. But is your objectivity is greater than that of the system, you can manage well without the system. The typical case is somewhere in between: you can benefit from some sides of the system but other sides of the system fail to reach as far as your own understanding. So you need to trust your own understanding in both: when to trust the system and when just yourself. This is an easy pisce on knwolwdge to understan and to apply. I hope that it would be respected better!
I do not know where the possible weak points of my thoughts are. Everything should be surely objective. You should tell me where the possibilities for improvement are. I have tried to reach the most beautiful things that I know of, make them real and world wide, starting from an as cynical point of view as I can imagine i.e. from the completely value-free competition for power and benefit, and from all the nicer points of view that I know of. If things are even worse, i.e. evil ruling without other goals than just destruction, we can use the value-free competition to put the more moral ones, our own side into power, to let the global paradise wins. I do not know what more I could do, the rest is up to you.
We cannot choose the world that we live in. We cannot just shut our eyes to the reality and say "I wish that all could be artists!" and then find out that someone comes by the force of arms and takes us as slaves to do some awful work. But what we can do, is to notice that we would win in the modern competition if our engineers etc could have more room to their feelings, more room to art, sport, family life etc. And we can notice that with the increased intelligence bought by better freeer ways of living we could find better ways to solve he tasks that we need done.
For example I have heard that all mathematics has been put to computers. That means that all erngineering work could be put to computers too. We could let the computers do the conputer like works that are nto suited to humans, like engineering and mathematics especially are not suited. And it is possible to make computers an optimisation based moral, so that we need not be so much afraid of them. At least the mechanically thinking humans could propably adobt such a moral. That would make the world a better plave to live in.
I have been objectively thinking since the age of five or so, in any case from earlier than I started school. I am not so much for school. I think that there must be an easier way to reach the same goals. It is just that my parents are extremely study oriented. That's why I myself have been educated so much, which I have really suffered a lot from. I think that one should look to Taoism for answers on how to teach things easier. Even preschool children could be tught holistic objectivity, if that is one of the goals - see /emotionalobjective.html and /thinking.html .
Nowadays that machines and tools are so important, most people try to figure out things connected to humand in a machine like or stone like artificial way instead of by the help of feelings and a holistic view of the world. So why isn't correct mechanisation of humans which would make people value health, naturality, feelings and moral, taught in schools at all? People think those roads anyway. One should teach them to arrive at the right conclusions!
About how to save the world, I do not know. I have had this view (the oaradise wins idea) all my life, and it hasn't made a single person in my environemnt more moral than what they would have otherwise been. More likely the opposite. In my experience people are completely without moral. You cannot just blow a bomb to kill all the very evil ones: that would be the end of the world. So many are there of those who never mind the consequences of their own actions. Hopeless.
I just wonder: I have always been interested in the biggest things possible, so what is the role of training in the development of my thinking ability. I haver always had an excellent world wide moral, even as a baby I had this picture of me as healthy and as a part of the healthy world by my nature - that's what I learned from my parents the world to be like: abiological whole. So at first I was interested in dinosaurs, then at the stars, then at the fate of the world, the at the dynamics of the world, then at differnt cultures and pictures of the world, now maybe in world history too and full life and individuals with ahigh capacity... I do not mean working with these subjects, more like them having been the central interests of my serious-minded intellectual interest in the world. To think about it, my perspective years back does not look so intelligent, but on the other hand I have meories of some time in my childfhood when I was able to do many of the things that are nowadays my strenghts ib thinking - see what is the role of schooling? I must have learned something from the philosophy lectures that I attended to, or is it just disrespect that I learned?
My moral is just for happy life, it does not make me want to work. But it makes me want to spend the work that I am forced to do in meaningful ways. So I find also morally painful this extreme lack of responsibility of those who want to force me to academical kind of work and so destroy everything that I might possibly give the world. I am extremely srious in what I write in my book Work Efficiency and Likings about work efficiency: if I am not allowed to follow my likings, I am just out of order, of no use to anyone! That is what my life at the level of practise has shown and that is what my theory shows too. If you do not have the ability to look at the whole and to be honest enough in your thinking so that feelings would make sense, that is YOUR problem and should NOT affect my chances in life at all! What is true about me stays true even if you acnnot follow at my footsteps because of your lack of moral.
So what is moral? Isn't it wanting the good things well grounded in practise instead of in wishes alone? There is this difference between theory and practise. Too often theory os equated with good and realisticality with bewing evil. And in today's world the command for everyone to be realistical is great. So these tow things have gotten mixed up: moral has gooten the role of evil, of unrealisticality, and evil has gotten the role of good, of realisticality. Realisticality does not mean military things alone: it does not lead to death alone. Instead realism demands that THE ARMS SHOULD BE IN THE HANDS OF THE GOOD AND REALISTICAL!!!!
People always make the error of trying to think of humans ina mechanical way. They term it realism but in fact it is just a model that they have copied from the build environment and termed realism since they can handle the aretificialities fully with it while hu,mans are always more at the mercy of circumstances and so more unpredictable. The way to count humans through is to divide them to components: thinking, feelings, social factors etc. and to count through each kind of factor, see how much they follow those factors and then just count the effect. This is quite easy and can be sone in a mechanical way but typically it produces the result that it is some far away person like a TV serie's stars which determines every major guideline in your saocial environment, so the possibilities of influencing things are quite small unless you have big friends in the Hollywood... Which you do not have. So never mind counting them through. You had better just stick to what ought to cause good: to the good moral and to the beautiful values that you have!
Today is 6th December 2007 and Finland has its 90th independence day. (I must go somewhere to celebrate...) The culture of Finland is extremely rationality oriented. So what is rationality in essence? It means forming a holistic picture of the world together with its cause-consequence relations. So thinking is just a tool in manoveuring in the world. Once you are done with the task of forming that picture, like I feel that I am, there is nothing much that more thinking could offer. So the main emphasis becomes the life in the living instead of caring for the future and for the whole which is just an automatic side task. Typically the goal of rationality in the Finnish culture seems an endless task, but I feel that I am done with it - there is some roof to that side of life anyway and some do reach it. With a better choise of what is taught in schools, maybe the roof could come lower for many and that would be excellent: just what the goal is.
So what is it that should be taught in schools: how to think holistically and why to do so, why is it good to be moral and why are the soft values valuable in the tough world,... Many of these things are taught between the lines in the school, I think that they should be taught explicitly - but maybe there is some reason for not doing so... Still, these things should be taught in a way that can bear the gurden of the existence of the military service. Maybe a more moral view of what is the AIM in defending the country could solve the problem.
There is some clishee that if one is strict with moral, then one should consider Arabs evil. An important part of moral is the fight against evil. So no wonder that USA fights just with Arabs.
I always think that as one thinks about something, it is the biggest matters whicvh one ought to get right. Other things matter only after that. That is in my opinion the oly objective point of view. On the other hand oit leads me to thinking of the whole world.
In thinking of the whole world I am not inventing any solutions and then trying them out. Instead I just make as sure observations as possible and apply them to the large scale too. That is what one well can do. Inventing solution attempts isn't good since the erraneous attempts obscure one's view of the manin lines of the whole world, making so enermous errors possible. I never think that way. Instead I analyse structures.