Think,
if you would meet someone from the future, from
an age when all or at least most of the present day problems were
already solved. Maybe then you could understand what hese thoughts are
about.
The UFO example goes too far: that is not the level of
generality of these thoughts here: these are human thoughts which apply
also to the possible UFOs but that is different from UFO thoughts about
humans. These thoughts here are based on my experience of life and on
the ordinary things that are taught to all in schools all over the
world: that humans too are animals and that we originally lived in a
much closer contact with the nature and that we too are products of the
evolution.
(But I have thought these
thoughts silently on my own, since
no-one in my social environment has ever been interested in them at
all. I have discussed intellectually about other subjects that have
interested my environment, so my thoughts here reflect some academical
education too. But in a sense they come from nowhere, they come from
living in a culture which values holistic objectivity almost more than
anything else.)
"AN UFO STORY"
I was just playing
with this idea of meeting an UFO, don't know why.
Maybe I am frustrated: there is a paradise in this world maybe possible
and no-one is interested! No-one has ever asked me a single questions
about it, no-one answers any of my e-mail except maybe to say that they
are on a holiday...
(My own sex
theory has had over three thousand watchers and about one
thousand readers
but my own Gaia
paradise theory only a little bit over a thousand watchers..
WHY???!!! Paradise
includes sex too
but of course you have to be "smart" enough to get to think about that!
People do not seem to be all that smart... Paradise like sex in a
paradise is better than ordinary sex without a paradise.)
Meet
an UFO
In
the astrophysics laboratory of X there are the collected results of
interviews of an UFO. This probram has been made based on those
intellectual discussions, so that you too could feel what it feels like
to meet an UFO.
Is there
life on Earth?
- Not in
its ordinary form, but it is true that certain charachteristics of the
organisms on Earth interest the inquiring mind.
Is there
life on other planets?
-
Certainly yes, even though not at all in every place and not always of
the same kind.
How would
you define life?
- An
organism which is intengrately part of a bigger planetary organism
system which has the task of protecting those organisms and which
brings the meaningfulness in their lives in addition to the living
requirements of the organisms.
How would
you describe the organisms found on Earth? Us?
- Your
species used to be a form of life. Now it is broken. It will not
survive long. And the catastrophes causing its disappearance will have
disastrous consequences for much of the rest of what there is now left
of the life on Earth. It will propably take a long time for it to
recover.
What is
the primary charachteristic of life?
- It is
the securing of the future for its kind via allegiancies with others.
In other words: universal love.
What is
your reaction to the present situation on Earth?
- The
human overpopulation and the development of technology before the
means to guide it have been fully developed are both dangerous to the
organisms on Earth and to the broken whole that they form. Such lack in
planning skills must be seen as a serious defect which should be
dropped away. At earlier stages of the evolution those who went solely
with growing teeth were dropped away by pay their lack of paying
attention to the other sides of life. Now the whole is in danger. Those
who started going ashtray should have been killed right away. Love does
not mean losing compassion to those who are not present here or to the
future generations to come. So life on Earth is broken since it did not
prevent this and it did not repair the planning skills of those who
lacked foresight.
Shouldn't
You the healthy ones the cure us?
- Yes.
That is what I am here for.
You alone?
Is one enough?
- If you
do not listen to one, your reason listens to no-one and so you
all deserve to die away, leaving a healthier and happier world.
How are
you going to cure us?
- I talk
to you about the basics of life, about the need to secure the
future, about the interdependence of all life, of your dependence of
the nature environment and not on tools,... About the need to think
holistically and to feel: to be a fully functioning individual and a
fully functioning group.
A
TRUTH WHICH IS SO VERY OLD
THAT IT IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS AND OF THE WORLD
A HUMAN BEING FORMS AN
UNIFIED WHOLE WITH ONE'S LIVING ENVIRONMENT.
"All things are bound together. All things connect. What happens to the
Earth, happens to the children of the Earth. Man has not woven the web
of life. He is but one thread of it. Whatever he does to the web, he
does to himself." said the indian chief Seattle.
Whatever we do, want to do, feel motivated toward, is meaningful in
just the larger picture of life, of the lives of us all, of the world
at large.
The healthier the pieces of our natural living environment
(including the society) are and the better they are at their right
places, the better we function, the happier we are.
The amount in which we have reached the Gaia paradise,
determines what life is like to us and in what kind of shape we are and
so what life feels like to us.
We are by our nature parts of the whole world. So we are healthy just
when we are interconnected healthily and naturally with the rest of the
world. If we are treated as separate, that connection gets broken and
consequently we are broken in what comes those our interconnected sides
and so our functioning suffers a lot. This can be seen in how the state
of the world and the state of the society etc. affect our own chances
in life and our feelings and our motivation, our picture of the future.
It can also affect in more subtle ways of which we are not necessarily
aware of - see my example at increasing
intelligence.
Gaia is All Your Dreams Come True
One problem is that when you think of the past of the human race, you think only up to the stone age and not about the even earlier times when humans were not grasping tools.
GAIA IS THE
MOST PARADISE LIKE PARADISE
OF ALL POSSIBLE PARADISES
(To
the religious ones: it may be that if God created the world, he created
it to be such that healthy kind of religious life is a part of full
health and so the healthy world is also a religious world but otherwise
just like I have described here on my pages.)
The healthy
biosphere which I call Gaia paradise is the most paradise
like paradise of all possible paradises. Any imaginable paradise is a
paradise just the amount that it is like the Gaia paradise. Since Gaia
is the state of complete naturality and health, the whole world in
peace and happiness, which fulfils all our natural needs in natural
healthy ways - also the need for peace and security and our needs in
how each of the needs should be answered.
And each kind
of imaginable world will do well in competition the
amount that it is like Gaia, especially in the biggest matters. Since
Gaia likeness is what gives power and well functioning, Gaia is the
ready-made solution to everything - by God or by evolution's
competition.
Gaia is the
whole biosphere in a state of complete naturality and
health: an interconnected whole whose parts carry responsibility about
the whole, like is natural for beings with an understanding about their
life and living environment, about the beneficiality of allegiances.
Gaia is something like superbly moral co-operation in all scales.
How can moral
win? Isn't moral a thing of the past, of the age before
technology, military competition and trade? No! Moral brings the force
of cooperation. To be moral means to act for the common good and that
happens to be the most beneficial arrangement.
And feelings
tell about the importance of things to life, so they tell
information which is essential whatever one does, whether in
competition or otherwise.
Technology is
just an addition. It does not change the nature of things
in what comes to living beings' functioning. Technology's effect to
competition ability must be counted as a sum, as an addition,
separately from how to treat the living beings. As technology is
developed, it gets adabted to the requirements of living beings.
Technology is capable of adabting, living beings are not. Evolution
happens only upon time, upon many generations and it isn't jumb like,
it is gradual and that is not the case in adabting to the technology
since the technology is a new factor, a factor of a completely new
kind. We must survive through technology based on our old functioning.
Our most efficient ways of handling the technology, the enermous
amounts of information in the modern world rely on our natural ways of
functioning, for example on our capacity to handle sensory information
of seen nature landscapes - much of the most efficient thinking is like
watching imagined landscapes of structures, such is also engineering
work. And the best training for such is to lead a natural healthy kind
of life.
What then is
the ideal way of life like? It is something like the
traditional ways of Americal indians and of the other so called
primitive cultures of the world with their close contact with the
nature and with their healthy ways of living � with their enermous
amount of sensory stimulus and other factors which keep us healthy and
fully functioning. But that way of life has to be combined with having
the technology: a portable computer, a phone, etc and importantly:
modern kind of work to do. It may be that as the time passes, we will
find more efficicenct natural way s to handle the modern work too, but
for the time being we just have to combine two different types of
building blocks: academically or at least school educated with the
technology and natural healthy life with the nature. The latter gives
us the capacity and endurancy, the former is what matters a lot in the
modern world. Still, the piece of understanding that I am offering
about the value of natural way s of living and natural living
environment, may make it possible to change many things in how the
cities and modern sociewties are run, at least on the level of looks
and feelings & atmospheres, and that ought to cure a lot of the
nasty feelings that people have: we matter after all!
What is this
kind of intelligence then? Why and especially how expliciptly does it
offer advantages in the moderns world?
Based on the
natural healthy life in a healthy natural living
environment you ought to have all your capacity in use. So you would be
naturally intelligent, strong and wise also socially.
But this
presupposes that you do value the life in the nature, all the
natural aspects of your life, placing them close to your heart. Since
if you wander in the woods and say to yourself that this is only the
woods, nothing special that is, you weill pay no attention to the
complexity of the view around yourself. A huge tree will be just one
piece of something to you and you will bypass it in a fraction of a
second. So you will get no training from anything. At large I consider
it important to never say "just/only" but to trust one's emotional
understanding of the worth of things instead! So if you wander in the
forest and are touched in your heart by what you see, hear, sense and
smell around yourself and in you while walking there, you will use all
your natural capacity to conceive the things in the forest and get so
much practise that there is no other way than other forms of healthy
natural life to get such.
EVERYTHING
IS BUILD UPON THE HEALTHY
All
functioning is build upon the healthy and a healthy part is by its
very nature a part of the paradise in the beginning of time. So
everything is build upon pieces of the paradise in the beginning of
time.
This
is at the same time completely free and non-destructive, very
constructive for happy life in the world at large, a movement for
EXCELLENT MORAL IN HARMONY WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE MODERN WORKING LIFE
AND THE PERSONAL QUEST FOR HAPPINESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIETY. And
since it SHOULD BE EASY TO LEARN, it could spread, maybe even all over
the world in some sense, to some extend at least.
Could
this work efficiency (or what ever) perspective of mine make you happy
for the rest of your life?
CHRISTIAN RELIGION
AND GAIA: EDEN WINS
Gaia is
the paradise at the beginning of time: Eden. Gaia is the world the way
that God created it: a nature paradise, Eden, the whole biosphere, i.e.
all the created living beings and their environment, in the state of
complete health and naturality.
GOD CREATED A
PERFECT WORLD
God in his great
wisdom created a perfect world:
whatever you do, it is wisest to do it the way that God intentioned
human animals to function, that brings the best result. Anything else
leads ashtray, is a much less efficient and much less pleasant way to
do things and brings much less understanding than the natural ways to
do things and to live.
EDEN EQUALS GAIA
At the beginning
of time, there was
Eden. It is the same as Gaia, except that Gaia mentions the
interconnectedness of things and love while Eden mentions God and
belief in God. So Gaia goes well with the perspective of these pages
and my two books: just these scientifical kind of facts I want to
describe. But what I say about Gaia, applies to Eden too. So Eden is
the victorious arrangement. Our true nature is still connected to Eden.
Eden is the way to understand us.
GOD'S PARADISE
God in his great
wisdom created a perfect world. It is the best
possible also at these times of modern competition when there is in the
world an element that God didn't create: the man-made artificialities
which confuse our nature and make us more stupid than what we would
otherwise be. Understanding this is our road to the paradise in the end
of time: by a free competition of all the options we could be led back
to healthy natural ways of living in a healthy natural living
environment: the world and our way of living just like God intended
them to be like. This is a realistical possibility: that is why I seek
to use all the possible points of view, so as to enable people to add
this piece of wisdom to their own view too. This could also be a way to
prove God's infinite wisdom which was inherent in her (God being above
our concepts of manly and womanly, I take God capable of both and since
these modern times need especially the upkeeping and nurturing aspects
of God, I use the feminine here) creation work.
CREATIONISM
The deductions on
these pages and in my two books are based on the theory of evolution.
What is God created the living beings without evolution?
It makes sense to
guess that God created well functioning thoroughly
thought of beings whose parts fit well together and support each other,
like makes sense from the practical point of view. For such beings all
of these results apply.
GOOD
OUGHT TO WIN OVER EVIL
Good
ought to win over evil in a strongest one wins competition, like the
evolution was. To see this clearly, let�s go through the good tough
sides of moral step by step:
Human values bring
a stronger force than no or too little human values.
Objective thinking
with a holistic view brings a better arranged group than lesser quality
thinking or no objectivity at all.
Honesty makes it
possible to see how things are and so it is more benefical than lies as
a practise in a society.
Justice
gets the society arranged for the common good and is so useful while
unjustices fail to support good things and support harmful things
instead. So unjustice is a much less benefical practise in a society or
group than justice.
Carrying
responsibility helps to get at least the main things well, so it is
more benefical than irresponsibility.
So good moral would
win in a strongest one wins competition.
MORAL IS THE MOST
BENEFICAL OPTION!
Lots of allies
-> the force of masses
No conflicts in the
large scale -> no forces spent needlessly to war etc.
Doing things
according to their nature = according to how they really function
Correct feedback
optimizes and corrects errors and weak points away
Use all of your
understanding in the largest scale! Remember the value
of cooperation, in other words of peace and prosperity and safety
forever.
Natural rationality
in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the
world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
*
compassion -> human values -> health,
*
justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces
-> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects ->
guidability,
*
sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things
are -> guidability,
*
holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role
in the world;
in
other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.
Since all do not
see this themselves, there may still be some doubt
left, So I will go through the problems and classify them according to
the above principles and other cost-benefit analysis factors that they
break against:
Here are the dangers feared and after each of them explanations why
moral is a better choise than them.
Robbery, criminals,
unjustice of every kind (= a fractured whole):
* give feedback to those who cause each thing (health), so you can
optimize toward better (health)
* breaking (= a fractured whole) versus cultivating (health)
Slavery and other kinds
of forcing (= a fractured whole):
*
the human goals in life and the human needs are connected (health) +
answering the human needs and the working condition of the human are
connected (health)
* too much forcing (= a fractured whole) forces one to a rebellion, to
extreme means, so keeping the people under control is the harder and
the more unprofitable, the more artifical, unhuman and unfair the
arrangements of the rulers are (= a fractured whole)
Drugs, hypnozis, torture
etc. (= a fractured whole):
* less individual guidance (= a fractured whole)
* typically such means would be used against the reasoning of the
individual (= a fractured whole), against the individual�1⁄2s needs (=
a fractured whole) and so against work efficiency and work endurance
�1⁄2 such doesn't make sense
* also if such means are used to put a wrong class of persons into
power (= a fractured whole), against justice (= a fractured whole),
that means against reasoning (= a fractured whole) and is harmful to
the whole and to the parts;
it also centeres the lives into wrong questions (= a fractured whole)
compared to the efficiency, guidability and work endurancy point of
view (health)
Fakes, lies, false
propaganda, ignorancy, mistaken beliefs (= a fractured
whole):
* such cause that one's actions do not correlate (= a fractured whole)
well enough with the reality (health),
such creates malfunctioning (= a fractured whole) in those respects
* the natural goals of human life make sense and fit together with the
happiness of others too (health), so one should be able to live with
the whole group in a good functioning order (health), that would give
the strongest group (health)
Manipulation by the
social instincts, by religion etc. (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation by the strongest instincts of humans is like
manipulation by hunger,
it causes a situation where the manipulated person is in a wrong role
(= a fractured whole) in the society, the benefit of their work and
ways going to different hand than which created the benefit and so the
system supports some malfunction (= a fractured whole) instead of the
healthy life, prosperity and good of the nation (health)
Other kinds of
manipulation (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation means often that things are used to wrong purposes,
some shortsighted technically thinking parasite like persons benefiting
instead of those building the society, like farmers for example
producing food (health)
Mutations (=
a fractured whole):
* mutations usually create non-functioning (= a fractured whole)
individuals which die very young (= a fractured whole)
* somehow benefical mutations or gene manipulation would bring new
qualities which are not fitted well together to the whole (= a
fractured whole), so they do not support the life of the organism and
the organism isn�1⁄2t strong enough to support them (= a fractured
whole), much less of being adabted to the larger environment (health)
Cool calculating
behaviour (= a fractured whole):
* it is important to measure sizes correctly (health)
* humans have feelings in order to help in understanding things
(health),
not using feelings as a way to guide one�1⁄2s behaviour (= a fractured
whole) makes one dangerous to one�1⁄2s social environment (= a
fractured whole):
a person who even alone destrous much of the society (= a fractured
whole)
Selfishness
(= a fractured whole):
* humans are pack animals (health), the group supports the functioning
of the individual and social life is emotionally rewarding (health)
* cooperation (health) creates the force of masses, so moral is
benefical: moral means cooperating for the good of all (health)
Commercial things:
* meeting human needs sells best (health)
Supercomputers, computer
networks etc.:
* rationality (health) and optimizing
* the value of human ways (health) from the efficiency point of view
* feelings of humans connect to their needs (health) which in turn
connect to their actions and well-functioning (health)
* differencies in the type of understanding of humans and computers:
the natural understanding of humans about human functioning (health)
Technology at large,
control devices etc.:
* control to only a few persons (= a fractured whole) of a certain kind
versus
a correctable system (health) with the thinking ability of all used
thoroughly (health) in making the arrangements of the society (health)
* real support (health) leads to safety (health), guidability (health),
cooperation (health), higher intelligence of the system (health),
better endurance (health), more optimized toward efficiency
Artifical living
conditions and malfunctions created by them (= a
fractured whole):
* the human nature s still the same, one created by the natural
evolution: human needs and ways of functioning (health)
* the human being is an optimized whole: the different parts support
the functioning of each other and the whole (health) �1⁄2 if one tries
new combinations (= a fractured whole), they typically don�1⁄2t produce
good functioning since humans are very complicatedly structured (= a
fractured whole)
War, armies, militaristic
ways (= a fractured whole):
* the enermous harm caused by war versus the benefits of peace and
cooperation
* human values (health) are connected to well-functioning of the
soldiers and civilians
* upbringing of the next generation needs peaceful circumstances and
human values (healthy whole)
* a home to defend (health)
* making sense correlates with profitability, moral and cooperation
* guiding of actions (health) and correctability (health)
* alternative means (health) and optimizing
* ground for future life: fair enough, peace (health)
Short term view at the
expanse (= a fractured whole) of a long term view
(health):
* our thinking and our instincts demand us to take care of the future,
so they do not support our actions if we do not care for the long term
success. Such a deficiency in planning and motivation is a serious
short term drawback.
A partial view at the
expanse (= a fractured whole) of a holistic view
(health):
* the first point in thinking is to get at least the main points right.
That is possible only via using a holsitic view. So one using a partial
view lacks the guidance of true objectivity.
I hope that You understand that these results aren't
presupposing
that you work for the good of some group. They are all right also if
your are purely selfish, care purely for yourself alone, since then
also it matters to you in which kind of environment you live and what
kind of relationship you have to your environment. You
are a part of
the world and the world's influence on your life is a part of your
fate. So it matters to optimise these things towards your greatest
survival & well-being, instead of having arbitrary goals like
"I
want to be nasty toward my big sister". This optimising is what leads
to choosing the strongest allegiancy together with healthy ways of
living, i.e. good moral and natural ways of living. The allegiancies
are wisest to form according to the society agreement type of thinking:
you will get the results of society agreenmet like thinking: you get
the results of what you cultivate, likewise do the others. Remember
that you are special only to yourself, not to the others who similarly
care mostly about their own benefit. And remember that moral in the
sense that I mean it is different from what your mother maybe taught to
you.
(Repeating:
Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the
society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health -> able
workers,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces
-> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects ->
guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things
are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role
in the world;)
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise in how to
arrange one's own group and consequently also one's own behaviour -
also for the purely selfish individual!
MORAL
Human values take care that the parts of the biological systems stay in
good health, so it is an important thing in evolution�s competition and
in God�s plan. Like I mentioned already, our feelings are connected to
keeping us healthy. So human values help to give room to our feelings.
Objective thinking, honesty and justice take care that each thing is
treated acoording to what it is like which is very important to the
functioning of the system. They make it possible to put each part to
its best place in the system. Those with good sides from which others
cab kearn, get a good position for the benefit of all. And those with
bad sides, especially irresponsibility, get punished to a poor position
so that their harmful qualities get discouraged. This means having very
many partial hierargies: one for each subject, skill, thing to decide,
piece of knowledge,� Always the ones who understand best and carry
responsibility about the consequences are in a deciding role.
In doing things intentionally the main point is to get the main things
right. That means that the biggest matters of the largest scale and of
the long run are especially important. Likewise are all questions of
life and death important. Here one must remember that 100 000 lives is
much much more importat than just one life and that the number of
people in the human kind is 6 000 000 000 lives which is about 10 000
000 000 lives which is another 100 000 times the 100 000 lives and so
even an much much bigger question than the huge question of 100 000
lives. So the large scale things affect enermously more than the small
scale things. Thew large scale consists of the small scale, of its
added effect. Our feelings should go with the large scale!
PUNISHMENTS AND MORAL
In my opinion the world is full of evil people. Trying to punish them
creates a so big counterforce that it is imposiible in practise. So
trying to punish all evil just makes no sense at all. Instead one
should find other methods of guiding the world toward better.
Usually it is evil people who have a negative idea of moral: their
moral is impossibly and uncomfortable to follow in practise. So people
in their social environment tend to get angry at moral people, as if
the moral ones were the ones forcing them and not the evil ones. But
the moral people know how to live happily and be easily moral, their
moral is pleasant and enrichens life instead of robbing anything - it
is like a gift given to them and to others. So they have surely not
deserved the attacks of the evil ones. It is the way of evil ones to
rely on brute force in guiding people in their environment, regardless
of its consequences, so just they are the ones whose demands make
people so angry that they feel forced to attack.
A REBELLION IN HELL
Suppose that you were
in hell and wanted to get out of there but there is no way: just the
hell everywhere. The only way to get out of the hell would be to change
the hell to a livable place but that seems quite impossible, things
being as they are.
In hell there is fighting all over the place. So you can
easily find people eager for power since power gives you protection,
wealth and might over the others.
Suppose that you knew about optimising the basics of what I know.
Then you could start with a group eager for power and success and
optimise it toward best success:
Those of the group who damage the group would be strictly punished.
Those who benefit the group would be rewarded.
The relationships of the group to others would be decided by the
leaders only. Those who do not follow orders and cause unneeded
conflicts would be strictly punished, since the group loses its
strength in conflicts while at peacetime it can develop in strength via
a better health.
It is beneficial for the group to ally with large powers, so it will do
so - maybe even with God too. Wjatever it is that brings the most
force, must be used fully.
Optimising this way one gets a group which is used to justice and peace
and which one can optimise further toward a better survival. Respecting
human values keeps the persons in the group healthy and makes so the
group stronger. Holistic objective thinking, honesty in communication
and demanding responsibility about all the consequences of one's
actions create a system, group, which can guide its actions in the most
intelligent and wise way according to each situation.
Optimising this way you will get the most optimised group, in other
words: the strongest possible one: which is
a moral paradise movement! since the above guidelines add to a perfect
moral of the kind that evolution or God planned us for, and which so is
the road to which our feelings and instincts guide us: the paradise
like direction.
One could of course start with a paradise movement, moral people etc.
if such are available - or with a combination of all these kinds of
beings.
A STORY
The teacher took
his decorated shaman drum and told them that they were
to take a dream journey to a past life. Lying on their backs they
listened to the steady slow voice of the drum as it took them to the
journey. She imagined that she was in a town sheltered by a stony wall,
and the enemy was attacking the walls. There was fighting all over on
the walls. She wondered how had things come to this point. Hadn't they
communicated with the enemy? Told them how peace and moral were better
for even selfish people than war and evil running free? How could she
live in a village of people who lacked social skills that badly, lacked
rationally grounded moral? Hadn't she herself been talking about these
things? It seemed unlikely. No, she would not find herslef in such a
situation! The dream was impossible, like had been the previous dreams
about past lives when she had died a violent death: with her social
style and her social skills such negligience was impossible! (It is the
friendly good willing fair playing persons who can avoid the violence
of others against themselves, not the opposite type!)
In her eyes all the
others looked needlessly, destructively malicious.
Being a thorough character that made her ponder about her own
decisions, her own courses of action. Could it be that the others,
careless though they were, had somehow managed to hit the point, that
they were somehow correct after all, because there were so many of
them? A time after time she checked and rechecked and rerechecked her
own estimates, taking everything into account – checked the thinking
types that the others had used, what they led to, what where their good
and bad sides and how one ought to correct them toward better. And a
time after time she again and again arrived at the same end result:
that she herself had been correct to begin with, that the others were
not thinking almost at all, even though they guided their lives by this
pretended selfisahness which in fact was mostly malicousness harmful to
them too.
Each day of her
life, all the years through, she checked in every way
that she could think of, in every way that true objectivity and realism
demanded, that she truly was right. And as far as she could estimate,
and that was much mcuh better than what the others were capable of, she
was right, had the correct main course of action, correct main
guidelines in how to arrange the world at large to her best benefit.
The others were just stupid, bypassing even their own wisdom – because
the TV serie films did bypass it, because they were not skilled in
making beneficiality estimates, because they could not make the
difference between irritation and an enemy, or the difference between a
harmful act and an enemy: they grouped all things as harmful to them,
oblivious to the fact that humans are pack animals by character, that
the force of masses exist at all.
They were the
masses and they thought that someone up above was
deciding all the things for them, when it was in fact their
maliciousness which decided their lives for them – not their healthy
selfishness, like they claimed even to themselves.
They referred to
the theory of evolution, to the survival of the
fittest, thinking that life was a game like a civil war, all against
all, only the evil ones prospering. So they searched to be as evil as
possible, as if that would make them as mighty as possible. They
thought that there were evil rulers in the world and deduced from that
that any kind of evil would benefit them. They did not understand that
it was health, wisdom and the efficient use of tools which bought
success.
Sometimes the
common ideas of moral did not agree with what was
healthy, so that things like self-defence and sex got labelled as evil,
this leading to evil ruling. And as the people equated their mothers
with moral, they typically equated moral with subordinance toward evil,
which is just completely irrational, crazy, but explained by the
dominant position that their mothers still had in their lives. They
knew no other ground for moral. And since their mothers had commanded
them to live in healthy ways, their disobedience turned against
themselves, against the health of their ways of living. They could not
make out the difference between artificial ways of living, unsuited for
humans, and the usefulness of tools and hard rationality in handling
tools. They thought that they could benefit from treating humans as if
humans, including themselves were as simple as machines, as
ununderstanding about the human nature and best ways of functioning. So
they ended up destroying most things of value that they could have
based their lives on, destroying all the understanding human sides of
their lives: feelings, instincts, compassion, moral, healthy ways of
living – everything of worth! They were the stupid ones.
She was wise, she
had still aglimpse of the original human nature, of
healthy ways of living and of emotional kind of wisdom of life, her
soul was still intact, the core of her being partly unharmed. When they
were stuck with inspecting single blocks, she was glancing at a whole
landscape understanding also its each detail and of course their roles
in the whole – much better than what they could even imagine possible.
Huge
Systems,
Pure Power Play and
the Fate of the Human Kind:
THE GLOBAL
PARADISE OF A
HEALTHY WORLD WINS!
Survival strategy:
Either: Be the winners
Or: Get the winners to be
on your own side
If you choose a winning
strategy, you are likely to achieve the latter if not even the former!
In short:
Biggest allegiancy gives
you the strongest force, so ally world wide, in a way that is safe to
you.
And health is the
strongest arrangement produced by the evolution's
competition, so choose the cultivation and safeguarding of good health
as your competition strategy. (The
concept of health can be generalised
to situations including the artificialities in the world. It gives you
the optimised arrangement of the whole.)
With
the existence of technology
the word "healthy" gets a new
generalised meaning:
a
well arranged
and fully functioning system.
In what comes to the living beings this is the same as the old definition of health as natural fully functioning, as a product of evolution. In what comes to the technology, it means that the same principles that the nature found useful are useful also in optimising the technology and the large systems consisting of both technology and of humans - it means that there is no better option. But if there would be a some still better arrangement, we would adobt it of course...
Selfishness means wanting things well for oneself and not caring much about other things.
It fits well together with my view here.
Wanting things poorly for others I term maliciousness. It is different from selfishness and even in contradiction with selfishness, like one can see if one uses a holistic view of the world.
So maliciousness doesn't fit together with my view: you have to give up maliciousness if you want to live in a paradise. The reclutancy of people to this I see as the major obstacle on our way to the final paradise.
Self-defence is arranged in other
ways than by maliciousness, for example by fair play.
A GLOBAL PARADISE IS MILITARILY
THE BEST OPTION
First of all I would like to remark that my idea of what moral is
includes healthy self-defence. So if someone hits you you have the
right to hit them back but not any worse than what their crime is. So
moral this way isn't as naive and defenceless as non-violence. Even
though I have heard one version of Gandhi's nonviolence principle (it
was in a book that I was reading a while ago) being the noviolence, the
positivity of love. That means nonviolence, love when watched from the
holistic point of view and not the bearing of all wrong just in order
to follow the rule of nonviolence untill everything is conquered by
others by the force of arms. Holistic nonviolence means trying to
achieve the best possible state for the whole, i.e. it means good
moral. So it is not the tools that amtter, it is the end result, which
should be good.
So if you get hit by others, try to cure the situation, whether you do
it by the force of arms or by talking or by any other means, work
sincerely for the goods of the whole. One side of that is having the
good ones in power. So if you behave morally, you should take care that
you get the dominant role. That is self-defence with a good moral and
it is good for the future too, good for you and good for others since
it is good to have the moral ones in power since they arrange things
for the common good.
In fact my main goal in writing has been to prove the following, so I
will add the text here even if it does not fit well or is too cynical:
Starting from Sunzi's The
Art Of War I can prove that a global paradise is the best
option:
Sunzi says in the point about rolling stones that it is the nature of
stones that "on a level ground they remain still but on a slope they
move". Similarly the wise commander uses his men: it is the nature of
the men that when they are truly motivated they act with force and when
they are not motivated they do not act at all. The profoundnes of this
principle is illustrated by the use of it in the major (i.e. its
dimension is huge) point in the beginning of the Sunzi's book: "The
people must agree with the goals of the government."
If we now take a look at the nature of the men in the light of our
present day scientifical understanding of the world, we notice that the
charachteristics of the men stem from the time when humans were still a
part of the nature, of the healthy natural world. (You can compare this
to the Tao.) It is the nature of healthy wholes that they try to cure
themselves when wounded, so the men as parts of the world have as their
motivational ground the making of the group as strong and flourishing
as possible without it costing overly much to them. All the natural
motivational factors of the men together with the aim for strenght and
safety guide them toward best health and that means living as a healthy
whole as a part of the healthy world. That is the safest and strongest
choise which is also supported by our nature, it is a paradise upon
Earth and the best ultimate goal for a military commander to choose.
What kind of choises in what comes to the course of action and values
to take that entails and why, I have discussed in my free book Power
Politics Leads To Excellent Moral which is available at
stores.lulu.com/khtervola but which might demand a some kind of
registering first.
Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the
society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces
-> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects ->
guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things
are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role
in the world;
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.
So let us take a young happy and healthy naturally beautiful (beauty
tells of well functioning - see my other book or my pages about
feelings) young maiden on a flowery meadow as an example of a paradise.
You may ask: how is this a militartily strong way to arrange things? I
must refer to my usual example of a wooden leg working less well than a
real alive leg. Also stiff unreactive parts of the body and mind, of
whatever alive thing, work less well than those parts as healthily
working and reactive. So the young maiden is an example of healthy well
functioning and since she has a rewarding social life too, she is a
good social example to others about those healthy ways to live. The
world being huge and complex, it does not matter whether you were given
a strong manly structure or a "weak" female structure if you just can
serve as a model of the best kind of way to live to others, since there
are so very many of the others anyway. And the maiden isn't stiff like
the men - she is alive and has an excellent understanding about life
and about the world - see my page
www.paradisewins.net/atmospheresthink.html. Well, this is a feministic
perspective but should be militarily correct.
A remark: a fine instrument seldom looks sturdy but can be extremely
valuable in practise.
What you ought to do
if you were a beautiful young butterfly on a
meadow and knew that the world was conquered by giants who build ever
larger works of their own, making the world so uninhabitable to a large
part? You ought to cure the situation but being small and wise you
could not build any competitive structures. Instead you would have to
rely on other means: on social communication, on being a healthy
example of a good healthy way to live. But if even the social skills of
the giants were damaged, you would have to rely on being beautiful, a
part of the nature that they would remember and treasure close to their
heart and so learn from you. So you would have to fly beautifully,
nearing a flower completely thrown to the flow of your deepest
heart-felt emotions, the letting go, flying freely, nearing the next
temptation etc. So beautiful, so healthy, so universal, such an
enermous cure: just follow your own nature fully, it tells you what to
do and what to not to do in the wolrd! And sure: butterflies are like
that! What an enermous emotional kind of beauty they are: what a wisdom
of life they have!
In social
relationships she valued friendship instead of military
practise like the other kids did. She knew that the healthiest soldier
was the most capable and that the biggest healthy group the strongest,
so she valued everything that could give her full health in every
respect and was prepared to commit herself to achieve the best kind of
allegiancies: real friendship. Toward the healthy we feel love, love is
what gives us strenght, so it is also militarily the best option. There
is no difference between the search for happiness and the fight for
survival, as long as one does not resort to artificial means like drugs
and negligience, lying so to oneself in one’s search for happiness. And
moral and happiness connected via the need to do meaningful things in
one’s life, to gain social position, to protect the things that give us
good life, to protect the future too. Living in social contact with the
rest of the living world you can best form allegiancies and in other
words care for their well-being via compassion and they will in turn
protect you since you are useful to them, to their happiness and
well-being, to the state of the large things in the world that affect
their lives enermously.
Maybe you could
understand this better if you thought about each human
relationship as a fighting team on life's sea. That is what it really
is!
The unequality in human relationships ought to be taken into account in
the following way: you get what you buy for a certain price only - this
is the healthiest way to arrange things, giving the strongest
allegiancy. If you want to buy loyalty, a quarantee that the other one
will not hurt you without a really good reason, you have to pay the
price by being loyal yourself that amount - or by being safe enough for
the other one and exchanging the rest, upon the agreement of the other
one, to some other good side of yours that the other one lacks, like
teaching the other one some great skill that is useful in living and
that the other one really wants to learn. The other one needs to know
your lack of loyalty, if the human relationship is one-sided. Otherwise
it is just like an attack against the human nature, against the natural
society agreement, which says that you cooperate for the goals that you
have in common and are in a clearly seen way on different islands
otherwise. Emphaty together with other social skills ought to make this
natural society agreement work naturally and with least danger,
producing the very strongest allegiancy for all parties without
endangering the ground for life, like less instinctual arrangements may
do.
Follow
your heart's voice in the tough world!
Your
nature was created by the evolution to guide you toward the best
survival. Your feelings and instincts guide you toward that best
fitness by helping to answer your needs which in turn safeguards your
health: your overal fitness needed for any task at hand. So the demands
of modern work efficiency agree with your wish to live your life fully
according to feelings.
Living
fully according to feelings does not mean lying to yourself.
Thinking must form a holistic view of what the situation is like. Only
after that will you be guided correctly by your feelings!
This
explains for example how good (=allying as much as possible, as
wisely as possible) can be better in a fight than evil (=having the
additional goal of causing needless damage): realism demands that the
good too have to fight, otherwise they lose all power to the evil ones
who bother to fight. It is used to be a part of the generally accepted
moral that one ought to fight to defend good and oppose evil, but wrong
kind of pacifism has removed thsi part of moral, making so the power
dynamics of the world go all wrong. All the usual kind of motivational
factors are for a happy kind of allowing non-religious moral, nothing
for evil, IF healthy self-defence is allowed and encouraged as a part
of moral. Realism says that we have to defend ourselves. One should not
group moral wioth pacifism, not with the refusal to defend oneself, not
with the giving of power away to the (evil) ones who do not care! The
destructuveness of modern weapons means just that they should be used
with great care since they cause great losses. All the available means
should be used in guiding the use of weapons rationally TO the defence
of good! There isn't any new factor in the world because of the
existence of nuclear bombs etc.: just the dimensions have changed. Even
at earlier times countries were afraid of too large destruction and
figured out treaties to solve problems before arriving at such. So
there is no need for changed policies: taking all the factors and their
dimensions into account the old rules, like aiming at justice, should
be all right! No need to replace them, for example true justice and
carrying responsibility about one's actions, by pacifism by any means.
Universal love, as I see it,
does not mean pacifism by any means,
without any limit i.e. without regard for its costs to human (&
other) lives. It simply means that you care for all and try to affect
things toward better via your greatest ability, for
example while
understanding that you just have to carry responsibility about all your
actions: you cannot help devil like people out of kindness - that would
be torture-orientedness in practise when watched from the point of view
of their victims AND of the world at large, of the fates of us all!
There is a big difference between whether you reach for money or for what you can get by that money. The latter sets your goals straight, toward good life. It is the same in having an army: the wars and military precautions are just tools: you have to aim at the end result being as healthy as possible, only that having health in the central role sets your goals straight, gives you the best motivation and ffits together the pacifist and militaristic viewpoints.
What is the use for an army from:
∑ An increased ability of its members?
∑ A better organisation of the whole?
∑ A better motivation?
∑ A better acceptability of its actions in the world at large?
∑ A real apprexiation of the rationality of its decisions from both the
outsiders and insiders?
∑ An increased understanding and responsible action of its members?
This is what my thoughts: the health, excellent moral, the so called
soft values and women can give to the army.
A question: What to do
when hard reality (the existence of all kinds of
evil, wars, lack of moral, cool calculating behaviour with a complete
disregard for feelings and the good of others, etc.) meets the soft
values (moral, feelings, religion, the values needed in upbringing
children, etc.) ?
Then it is a matter of who is the strongest. That means that one must
increase
one's own strength via health and the strength of one's
group(s) via their health and the number of one's allies via as many
allegiancies as possible. So the answers given by the soft
values
apply, but one
must be keen on noticing who is on one's own side and
who not, so social skills matter a lot. Between the groups
there is a
"war" of some kind, it depends on the groups how much figting there
will be. A
society agreement like picture of the situation would help
one to see how much one can trust each party and how one so can form
the maximum, best amount of allegiancies. For example one
can form
rules of behaviour inside the allegiancies that take care that people
behave all right even if they are not themselves moral. But defence
orientedness is needed. Inside a big group tha often happens via
specialization while individual evil ones try to fight on all fronts at
the same time. The same happens when the level of moral in a group is
low: the individuals get forced to a fight against each other and so
the remaining part of their forces is smaller, producing less strenght
and a lower standard of living.
How to go about this fight in practise then? You might agree with Sunzi
who says that "The victory giving battle is like a stone smashing to an
egg." But just take care that you are not so the egg and the stone the
enemy, i.e. generalise
enough in order to see the true consequences of
your actions: if you attack women and children thus making the war more
disastrous than what it used to be like, the others will do the same to
you and so you have lost safety instead of gaining. The point
is to not
to break any rules of the society agreement but to fight with excellent
moral, opposing only evil things and things which lead to evil if they
are allowed (like pacifism to the extreme of allowing all evil),
thus
you see the targets of aggression and the things to defend and the
motivation behind your actions and those of others. What is needed
after that is strenght, intelligence, knowledge and skill. That you do
not gain by attacking the innocent, you gani it by fighting with your
true enemies. A good way to understand the ground for things is to use
the islands of the society agreement like picture of the world: all
things being created and supported by certain factors, persons and/or
groups: just oppose or support each kind of island's supporters. Thus
you can build anything and safeguard things valuable to you, while
seeing in which way to prevent the disastrous things.
In theory it goes like this: suppose that you meet a mean guy
or a group of mean guys and find yourself threatened by them, then you
should look for someone higher in the hierargy than what they are or
for some more intelligent mean guy who is interested in one's own
benefit. Then you could use these efficiency grounds of mine to speak
for justice, human values and responsible behaviour. If you find
someone who really trusts objective estimates of things, that MIGHT
solve your problem...
How to fight a war and be moral? You ought to ally with the (good of the) enemy people too, in a fair way, opposing only evil customs etc., articulating well your grounds for opposing them and your grounds for supporting the people so that you would name customs, values and leaders with whom you ally - not just puppets or reflections of your own culture or your own cultural influence in the neighbouring country, but real values close to the soul of the "enemy" people, phraced in their traditional ways, values that they really care about (happiness, safe future, traditional wisdom,...), explaining your own piece of wisdom thoroughly by mouths that are valued on both sides of the border, explaining how far you agree and why and where you want to take into account also other truths,...
One
can optimise wholes in practise a charachteristic by
charachteristic: if they are very different, they are independent, and
if they are very similar, one can optimise them the same way. So choose
from the following what health is (always the first option in the list):
strong
or weak,
sensitive
and intelligent or unsensitive and idiotic,
allies
witha huge group or in conflict with a huge group,
follows
one's feelings i.e. follows one's own instructions of usage or
does not follow feelings i.e. does not follow one's own instructions of
usage,
allies
to build the strongest group possible to the extend that is
prepared to sacrifice one's own life to protect it or does not care to
invest in the strenght of the group,
social
and so able to take the most out of encounters or unsocial and not able
to get anything much from encounters,
follows
rationality or does not follow rationality,
thinks
of the whole or not.
You may ask: how can one then ally if one is a predator. For this see
the answer in my own Gaia theory in my Gaia pages. One way to ally is
to ally with the group instead of with its individuals: to eat away
only the ill ones in order to increase the health of the population and
to live healthily so as to by one's example support healthy ways of
living in the society. One can also ally on the parts that one is not
in conflict with anyone, like for example a murderer who is against
rape does...
So if soft values really are a wiser choise, how do they exactly win
over the hard values? In my opinion one needs the hard values too: the
safeguarding of good. But the point is that the soft values, especially
good moral, are the rules in how to arrange the whole and not the hard
values, especially not evil as a rule. Moral used to be a matter of
defending good. In that sense moral is still the correct choise. But
moral which is almost equated with pacifism suits inside a group of
allies, not among all.
So maybe you believe that health of all the wholes that you
belong to, is the best alternative to you. But what about having
enemies? Make their moral a condition for their health,
i.e. demand
health of their relationship to the whole world as a prequisite for
their own health. Then they cannot use the fact that they are to a
large extend healthy themselves unhealthily in what comes to the rest
of the world. In other words: do not give the evil ones too much room
to live and to ruin your life, the lives of us all. A happy moral way
to live builds a better world for all of us, so it is good to let it
rule, even if you are not all that moral yourself - yet!
Then why is the paradise here a global one and not for your own group
only? You are a part of the world, so your relationship to the rest of
the world matters a lot. If you are for a paradise for all, you
obviously ally with the motivation of the enemies too, even if their
own side isn't able to ally that much... But what matters especially,
is that you should follow the most beneficial guidelines in the world
at large in order to benefit from them, in order to win as much as
possible in the future and to lose as little as possible in the future.
If you do not follow justice in the world at large, your own side may
degenerate since you do not always support the best alternatives. If
you do not allow human values for those who aim at the global paradise,
you lose allies. But of course you must demand that the enemies must be
moral enough before you can support them. Anyway, the level of the
whole is important and just in that ( and in other things too) it is
important to follow the best choise, the moral paradise movement.
Otherwise people would copy the strategy that they considert the most
intelligent and the leader's too "selfish looking" choises would be
repeated in their own group which would weaken the group, see the page
/justice.html (?).
SELF-RELIANCE IS A
NEEDED SAFETY PRECAUTION FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM
In order to arrange
the whole well, each part has to be treated
according to what it is like. This is a fact well understood in market
economy, justice, honesty and holistic objectivity. But what it demands
in practise is that all the parts of the system are enough self-reliant
in answerig their basic needs, so that they cannot be pushed about and
robbed arbitrarily because someone else controls the answering of their
basic needs. Instead each part has to gain its place in the system by
its own virtues only (and lose position fairly because of its faults).
HONESTY AND HAVING ENEMIES
Moral demands honesty toward the healthy parts of the natural world.
Those healthy parts form a whole whose functioning is beneficial to you
and to your group.
If your enemy is just malicious and overaggressive compared to what is
fair, refuse to communicate with that enemy at all. Keep your mouth
shut. Since if you would lie, that would be like pretending to be a
part of the same group. It either is of no use or then works only for
the part that you are taken as a group member when you in fact are an
enemy. Not recognising who allies with whom and who supports what, sets
the whole ashtray, everything to more or less wrong role in the whole,
so it is one of the crimes that OUGHT to be most opposed, since it
takes the ground away from the system: supporing parasites instead of
farmers etc. But of course lying is widely spread and kind of accepted
as a major part of human to human interactions. One cannot remove it
just like that. One still could avoid lying in the major matters of the
world, say in questions of life and death and in more important
matters. That means among other things that one should value honesty in
leaders. I guess that that works only after people have learned to see
their enemies as partly healthy and as partly "the shadows that one
oneself casts" like the chinese classic Tao-Te-Ching says and only
partly as things/deeds to fully resist because of being evil/harmful in
essence.
DARKER MOTIVATION:
WHAT IF THERE IS DEVIL IN POWER?
Suppose that the worst happened: that the big devil did exist and got
to rule the world. Why would we still have hope?
Devil worships evil or then he is power oriented. In the latter case he
listens to the optimising of wholes.
In the former case we can conquer the world from him by the force of
arms and by the force of optimising.
In any case the healthy world: a global paradise i.e. good would win.
A
BAD DREAM
She
awoke with a start. Someone had been
taking to her, repeating something again and again.She did not know
whether it was a dream or something else. She barely remembered what
they had said but the basic idea was clear: she was inside a finely
build artificial world and the world was broken. It had been finely
build for the purpose of living in it, but people had not understood
the need to live in such a world, so they had tried to escape, or to
oppose the rulers. In any case they had done everything imaginable to
oppose and to break the whole system. They ahd opposed every single
thing of worth in it and opposed even their own natures to break it.
And they had succeeded. Now she was inside a giant torture machine.
Since that is what a giant life sustaning system becomes like when one
intentionally breaks it. Her only hope was to repair it. There wqas no
special method of repairing. She had to trust in her ordinary everyday
communication skills to convince the countless others inside the
machine that one ought to stop sabotaging things and repair them
instead. It was an ages old problem of creating good moral to where
there were nothing to begin with... There was no on-off switch. It was
a long road to travel, and her fate depended on her travelling that
road all of her life!
Is
this our future? If it is one of the possibilities, the we had better
prepare ourselves for it!
THE
EXTREME POSSIBILITY OF ALL BEING SPIRITS OR ALL LIVING IN A VIRTUAL
WORLD ("NO MATERIAL WORLD"):
THINGS
STAY THE SAME IN WHAT COMES TO THE BEST OPTION IN HOW TO ARRANGE THINGS.
THE
SAME APPLIES IF THERE ARE LOTS OF ARTIFICIALITIES IN THE WORLD.
What
if we are spirits or virtual, what if the world doesn't consist of
atoms, molecules, we not of cells, what if everything such is just
faked, how are things then, what happens to all our deductions about
the usefulness of Gaia? Things stay the same since we are still some
kind of entities, which have the same characteristics as wholes, so the
theory about wholes and fractures in wholes stays still valid, and Gaia
is the most beneficial option.
(If
everything were of spirit and the world at least partly created by
our beliefs about it, that could appear to us modern people as a
virtual world.)
Also,
if whoever would rule a virtual or spirit world, the ruler would
need guidability - that means honesty, objectivity with a
holistic view
and true justice - and well-functioning of the parts and of the systems
and subsystems - that means health (since healthy parts
function well
while broken parts do not function at all) and naturality
(since our
functioning is based on the natural ways of functioning and on nothing
else) which mean at the level of individuals human values.
Putting
each part of a system to its correct place and correct role in the
whole, so as to get the whole to function as well as possible, means
health and naturality of the whole and its parts and structures since
that's what their functioning is based on.
It
is quite easy to figure out what is the best way to
arrange a virtual world for just about any purpose: respecting health
of the individuals (human values) and of the systems (including
naturality and moral) while having natural hierargy in who can affect
what. This should be easy for all to learn and to
understand:
For how to program a world governing computer to be completely moral, see my page:
NATURAL
HIERARGIES
There
is a natural hierargy in human societies: the way that is
according to real justice, for the good of all.
If we get apprexiated for our good sides, they get supported for the
good of all, and others can take us as an example for themselves
without losing position at all. If we lose position when we do not
according to justice deserve a good position, our bad sides, especially
irresponsibility, get discouraged.
When the one who understands better and carries responsibility is in a
deciding position things get done well for the good of all. This is
possible by using many many partial hierargies at the same time: one
for each subject, skill, thing to decide, piece of knowledge,...
Correcting one's own errors is a thing to value and to be demanded from
all, especially from those in a deciding position. This creates a
natural repair mechanism for the society and is an ideal way to arrange
things.
CARRYING
RESPONSIBILITY of the whole and using a good picture of the whole with
all emphazies and roles of things right, guide the whole toward the
good of all. One is not allowed to affect things which one does not
carry responsibility over.
There
is a saying in Finland: "Honour those who truly deserve respect."
(Meaning: even when it is an unorthodox choise, and do not give honour
according to custom to those who do not according to justice deserve
it).
This
is the way that we organize things in my homecountry Finland in North
Europe.
Let us suppose that
we are all virtual, all the humans, all the animals
etc., maybe even theUFO:s adding a flavor of their own to that mixture.
Each human is virtualised to one's own virtual world with its own
rules, everything run by huge superhypercomputers or however. How does
that enrmous huge complex whole work? What would make sense for the
individuals to do in such a world? What are the dynamics of that
system? Each human being is different, so we have to take a look at
what we all have in common, take a look at the human nature. All
dynamics 9in connection with the living beings is born out of what the
living beings are like. So if someone wants power or workers or
whatever, they have to
count on the human nature. That's what gives the
functioning needed for reaching any kind of goals. In that one must
remember the value of human values: a healthy one works better than a
broken one. Also justice and true objectivity are musts for the
buidlders of such systems and for those who want to benefit from their
dynamics: treat each part
according to what it is like, so you can best
benefit from it. Read the texts about rational moral! … So it stays
valid that Gaia
is the best option, the answer to the question
of hgow
to arrange one's forces best and how to best arrange the rules in the
virtuyal worlds. And Gaia for Gaia
is the answer to how the individuals
and groups could best benefit themselves and their goals in such an
enermously complex and seemingly arbitrarily arrangeable world.
Paradise is the
best
Let's take the hypothetical situation where people are just a computer
figure colonny living inside a computer so that everything
is possible.
Then you might think that if someone has something good, one ought to
take it and spread it as widely as possible, via artificial
arrangements. But that does not work since that makes people copy from
all those lower quality people when they want that good thing for
themselves too. So the whole deteriorates all the time. That is
contrary to the situation of fair play where all get their own good
sides and nothing else. Then everybody knows from whom one can learn
things that one wants to one's life. This is a better way to reach good
life and even a paradise upon the "Earth(?)".
SELFISH TO THE EXTREME
In the end, what matters,
is what life is like to you yourself, since
that affects you the most. What happens to the others is
of little
significance in itself, but is of course important in giving you the
environment that you live in. So it matters enormously to be selfish,
in a sense that is the only possible rational choise for the
individual. But that does
not mean carelessness in what comes to
treating all the others, more likely it means well planned
strategic
action in social contacts: sometimes careful and sometimes when there
is no need to be careful, even completely careless. A well planned
strategic attitude toward others is different from pure maliciousness
which is more like a thing based
on social feelings than any cool
calculating behaviour that would be determined by its beneficiality to
yourself. Rather than to act based on maliciousness, anger, agitation,
the wish to neglect others or any other negative or positive feeling,
one ought to
start by examining feelings: what is their role in your
life, what are they caused by, why, what do they lead to and is that
end result beneficial or unbeneficial to you?
Whether God created living beings or they were purely results of the
natural evolution, life goes on. The very weak die and the very fit
prosper. As the time passes that produces a situation like the
evolution, which God and the genetic wisdom in living beings born from
the unnumerable many generations of natural evolution must know well.
So what we are like has
been chosen by the previous circumstances so
that it brings us the best fitness for the life in our living
environment.
What
we are means our whole being, including instincts, feelings and
social life as well as thinking and knowledge. All those things in our
nature are beneficial for our survival if we just know how to use them
right.
One of the strengths that is good to have, is the ability to estimate
situations right, in other words good observational skills and real
objective intelligence to make the deductions about what one has
observed right.
The first point in objectivity is getting the main points right. That
is impossible if you have no idea of what the main points are like. You
can get that idea only by having a proper view of the whole thing and
of its major relationships to other things in the world & of
its
role in the world. So only holistic thinking is objective thinking.
Other more partial forms of objectivity are just fakes and no use to
you if you want to find out how things are and what would be best for
you.
You are just a one single person and the world is enermous. You can
affect you fate by doing different things in the world, which will then
have (positive or negative) consequences on you yourself. The wise
affects one’s own fate toward the positive, but what that positive is,
depends on the individual: someone would like to be happy, for the
others security and survival in the long term are often the only
possible goals. But the evolution or God was wise: it is often possible
to use the search for happiness as a tool for survival, that is how God
or the evolution meant things to be. So before you drop all feelings
away as a needless stuff, let’s examine more closely their usefulness
to you. At big catastrophes to your wishes & needs in life, you
feel down. When something great happens to you, you are glad. This far
fine: feelings guide you in a way that makes lots of sense. But what if
you have many contradictory causes of feelings? Use a holistic view of
the situation, with proportions right and causes and consequences taken
into account, and let the feelings find their balance. Typically if
things still do not work out all right (do you feel happy and
secure?!), you have neglected some causes and consequences in your
thinking. Typically such happens when someone that is more intelligent
than you are fails to understand the importance of a holistic view and
uses a partial view instead, taking so only a part of the facts into
account and neglecting all the rest regardless of how important they
are in practise. One can do this big errors only at a great cost to
oneself. Well, this thing about understanding how to live with feelings
without giving up selfishness is a thing to be handled by making honest
observations about the end results of following feelings – and remember
that looking less fortunate is equal to failing, not equal to being
manlier than you! Others trying to save face when they are in fact
stupid is usually of no use to you. Please read my book Work Efficiency
and Likings about the rational grounds for trusting feelings!
I care about myself but why would I care for the people of the whole
world, much less for the animals? A holistic
view means thinking about
the whole world, it does not necessarily mean caring for all the
people, even though it easily leads to it as we see how caring is
really beneficial for ourselves. We are not alone, the
world affects us
enermously. But where many go wrong is the thought that since the world
is so enermous we cannot ourselves affect our living conditions, since
after all we do affect enermously our nearest social contacts – whether
they are near because of living constantly with us side by side or
because their identity is like ours – for example selfish. If you
choose a certain strategy in a certain kind of situation, all those
near you, all those like you and all those like thiose near you,
reflect on how well you did succeed by that strategy, and if you
succeed really well, the rumour spreads and all of them start to invest
in that same strategy in life, making different versions of it. So if
you think that you have a good strategy in life, ti is not yours alone:
it affects an enermous number of people, so you know one thing for
sure: your environment does NOT stay constant regardsless of what you
do. So you just have to take a look at how you affect your
environment
in the likely case that others copy from you. That is done by assuming
that all or a big part of the humans in your environment rely on the
same type of tactics, with individual variations and inventions of
course. This is easiest if you think that as some fraction of the
effect of all following the same course of action: for example do
people get supported for doing beneficial things (= justice, market
economy) or do they guide their actions in a way that makes most sense
(= holistic objectivity, carrying responsibility of the consequences of
one’s actions). Because it is a questions of masses of people – your
environment + its environment etc. – working together for the things
that benefit them all, it is the same things which has traditionally
been called moral: the optimisation of the whole, wisely!, toward the
greatest benefit for all fairly. Fair play allows feedback for the
chosen strategies, so that the masses of people ca guide the whole huge
group toward the greatest benefit: safety, prosperity, happiness,…
whatever goals the people have.
Kind of gold rush connecting your strategy to the behaviour of many
many others, making your own behaviour so echo in the behaviour of the
masses of people, changing os your whole environment and making it thus
important for you to think of the consequences of that change instead
of estimatig everything as if others did not notice anything of your
strategy. So you have to use a holistic view and think what would
happen if everyybody would do like you! That brings your attention tio
the laws governing the whole and makes so you work for the common good
instyead of bering a parasite - IF you want to advance your own good.
You can count the optimised result for the whole: that is best for you
since the effecvt of your environment to your life is so enermous. And
that optimised option is perfect moral, like you will see if you count
the best allegiancy for you: it is to ally with an as strong group as
possible. In the strongest group all work for the strenght of the group
all that they can and are fairly rewarded for that. Another word for
that is moral.
SELFISH TO THE EXTREME
In
the end, what matters, is what life is like to you yourself, since that
affects you the most. What happens to the others is of little
significance in itself, but is of course important in giving you the
environment that you live in. So it matters enormously to be selfish,
in a sense that is the only possible rational choise for the
individual. But that does not mean carelessness in what comes to
treating all the others, more likely it means well planned strategic
action in social contacts: sometimes careful and sometimes when there
is no need to be careful, even completely careless. A well planned
strategic attitude toward others is different from pure maliciousness
which is more like a thing based on social feelings than any cool
calculating behaviour that would be determined by its beneficiality to
yourself. Rather than to act based on maliciousness, anger, agitation,
the wish to neglect others or any other negative or positive feeling,
one ought to start by examining feelings: what is their role in your
life, what are they caused by, why, what do they lead to and is that
end result beneficial or unbeneficial to you?
Whether God
created living beings or they were purely results of the natural
evolution, life goes on. The very weak die and the very fit prosper. As
the time passes that produces a situation like the evolution, which God
and the genetic wisdom in living beings born from the unnumerable many
generations of natural evolution must know well. So what we are like
has been chosen by the previous circumstances so that it brings us the
best fitness for the life in our living environment.
What we are
means our whole being, including instincts, feelings and social life as
well as thinking and knowledge. All those things in our nature are
beneficial for our survival if we just know how to use them right.
One
of the strengths that is good to have, is the ability to estimate
situations right, in other words good observational skills and real
objective intelligence to make the deductions about what one has
observed right.
The first point in objectivity is getting the main
points right. That is impossible if you have no idea of what the main
points are like. You can get that idea only by having a proper view of
the whole thing and of its major relationships to other things in the
world & of its role in the world. So only holistic thinking is
objective thinking. Other more partial forms of objectivity are just
fakes and no use to you if you want to find out how things are and what
would be best for you.
You are just a one single person and the
world is enermous. You can affect you fate by doing different things in
the world, which will then have (positive or negative) consequences on
you yourself. The wise affects one’s own fate toward the positive, but
what that positive is, depends on the individual: someone would like to
be happy, for the others security and survival in the long term are
often the only possible goals. But the evolution or God was wise: it is
often possible to use the search for happiness as a tool for survival,
that is how God or the evolution meant things to be. So before you drop
all feelings away as a needless stuff, let’s examine more closely their
usefulness to you. At big catastrophes to your wishes & needs in
life, you feel down. When something great happens to you, you are glad.
This far fine: feelings guide you in a way that makes lots of sense.
But what if you have many contradictory causes of feelings? Use a
holistic view of the situation, with proportions right and causes and
consequences taken into account, and let the feelings find their
balance. Typically if things still do not work out all right (do you
feel happy and secure?!), you have neglected some causes and
consequences in your thinking. Typically such happens when someone that
is more intelligent than you are fails to understand the importance of
a holistic view and uses a partial view instead, taking so only a part
of the facts into account and neglecting all the rest regardless of how
important they are in practise. One can do this big errors only at a
great cost to oneself. Well, this thing about understanding how to live
with feelings without giving up selfishness is a thing to be handled by
making honest observations about the end results of following feelings
– and remember that looking less fortunate is equal to failing, not
equal to being manlier than you! Others trying to save face when they
are in fact stupid is usually of no use to you. Please read my book
Work Efficiency and Likings about the rational grounds for trusting
feelings!
I care about myself but why would I care for the
people of the whole world, much less for the animals? A holistic view
means thinking about the whole world, it does not necessarily mean
caring for all the people, even though it easily leads to it as we see
how caring is really beneficial for ourselves. We are not alone, the
world affects us enermously. But where many go wrong is the thought
that since the world is so enermous we cannot ourselves affect our
living conditions, since after all we do affect enermously our nearest
social contacts – whether they are near because of living constantly
with us side by side or because their identity is like ours – for
example selfish. If you choose a certain strategy in a certain kind of
situation, all those near you, all those like you and all those like
thiose near you, reflect on how well you did succeed by that strategy,
and if you succeed really well, the rumour spreads and all of them
start to invest in that same strategy in life, making different
versions of it. So if you think that you have a good strategy in life,
ti is not yours alone: it affects an enermous number of people, so you
know one thing for sure: your environment does NOT stay constant
regardsless of what you do. So you just have to take a look at how you
affect your environment in the likely case that others copy from you.
That is done by assuming that all or a big part of the humans in your
environment rely on the same type of tactics, with individual
variations and inventions of course. This is easiest if you think that
as some fraction of the effect of all following the same course of
action: for example do people get supported for doing beneficial things
(= justice, market economy) or do they guide their actions in a way
that makes most sense (= holistic objectivity, carrying responsibility
of the consequences of one’s actions). Because it is a questions of
masses of people – your environment + its environment etc. – working
together for the things that benefit them all, it is the same things
which has traditionally been called moral: the optimisation of the
whole, wisely!, toward the greatest benefit for all fairly. Fair play
allows feedback for the chosen strategies, so that the masses of people
ca guide the whole huge group toward the greatest benefit: safety,
prosperity, happiness,… whatever goals the people have.
Kind of gold
rush connecting your strategy to the behaviour of many many others,
making your own behaviour so echo in the behaviour of the masses of
people, changing os your whole environment and making it thus important
for you to think of the consequences of that change instead of
estimatig everything as if others did not notice anything of your
strategy. So you have to use a holistic view and think what would
happen if everyybody would do like you! That brings your attention tio
the laws governing the whole and makes so you work for the common good
instyead of bering a parasite - IF you want to advance your own good.
You can count the optimised result for the whole: that is best for you
since the effecvt of your environment to your life is so enermous. And
that optimised option is perfect moral, like you will see if you count
the best allegiancy for you: it is to ally with an as strong group as
possible. In the strongest group all work for the strenght of the group
all that they can and are fairly rewarded for that. Another word for
that is moral.
To advance one's own good, at any cost, is what
pure selfishness means in the ears of most. This is what is generally
agreed about selfishness. What is not agreed about, is what course of
action is best for each individual. The individuals with different
types of understanding and other strenghts prefer different roads to
their goals, may even choose different types of goals and lie about
their ultimate aims.
What do the bosses think?
The bosses
are typically theoretically more intelligent than the majority of their
subordinates. So the bosses high up in the hierargy may understand well
many things of whose existence the others are only vaguely aware of. If
they too are purely selfish, it is still good for the others to
understand that typically their own good is tied to the success of the
enterprise more tightly than thge good of the subordinates. So what
matters to the boss, is the optimisation of the whole, in other words
good moral.
A GUIDE FOR THE PURELY SELFISH INDIVIDUAL
PURE SELFISHNESS
SELFISH AND STRONG INDIVIDUAL
PURE SELFISHNESS INSTEAD OF MALICIOUSNESS
IS OR COULD BE THE WINNING OPTION
A COURSE IN SELFISHNESS
THE TRADITIONAL
EXTREMELY RATIONAL MORAL OF THE FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF
FINLAND
The traditional
moral of Finland in northern Europe is on strong
rational grounds which can be put to the form of optimising wholes.
These grounds are largely based on two simple advices which all
children are given: "It is good to cultivate good health (of the
individuals, of the ways of living, of the social relationships, of the
society, of the environment and of the world at large)." and "It is
stupid to break."
The easy principle
"A HEALTHY WHOLE WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN A BROKEN
WHOLE" helps you to find answers to seemingly impossible questions,
like the value of peace, justice, human values, honesty, democracy,
freedom, Gaia, love, beauty, sex etc. from the beneficality or
efficiency optimising (military or economical) point of view. These are
all charachteristics of the healthy world and thus beneficial.
HOW TO MAKE GOOD
WIN OVER EVIL
Build in your mind
a good picture of what a healthy whole is like:
healthy society, healthy human kind and healthy living king, a healthy
world. That is what to term good.
Now, compare the
evil option to that picture: what is lacking, you
should see as a fracture, brokedness in the whole, also malformations
should be seen as brokedness of the whole.
And healthy works
better than a broken one. So good is stronger than evil.
Also on the following kind of ground it is possible to find that moral
is the most benefical, winning option.
WHICH ONE WINS (MORAL DOES WIN)
What means totally value-free optimizing of benefit without
preconditions:
It means interest in
what gives most force, power,
what gives protection and how,
what is the best strategy,
what must one take into account about the future,
how to arrange one�1⁄2s relationships to other powers,
which solutions win and why,
what is the most benefical thing,
what must be most feared and
how to protect oneself,
who are the benefical allies etc.
In this analyzis one needs
Extremely good objective thinking with a good holistic view
And openeyedness toward all options, both the dangerous and also the
non-dangerous ones is needed in this because it is the creation of
force which is important in this analyzis, so if soft means give any
advantage that too must be used FULLY.
HEALTHY VERSUS BROKEN
All functioning is
build upon the healthy. Healthy versus broken is the
pair of opposites to use in order to understand the world. I will apply
this pair of opposites again and again, all through this book. With it
you can understand a lot about the functioning of biological beings and
societies and about the value of moral.
What about the old
pair of opposites then: healthy versus ill? Ilness
is a healthy function of a broken biological being, a way of it to try
to cure itself. In other words, ilnesses are combinatrions of
brokedness and of a curing reaction which seeks to make sure that the
living being survives better in the long run by resting, having a fever
etc.
In my opinion the
word �ilness� isn�t as useful in understanding things as the new pair
of oppoisites that I use.
So. A healthy
individual works better than a broken one. And a healthy
society works better than a broken one. But what are the healthy
individuals and healthy societies like. What to aim at?
A healthy individual
is by one�s nature a part of a healthy
society. As a part of the healthy society one works best, is the
happiest, has a most rewarding life. Healthy functioning at large gives
the most rewarding life. That�s what the evolution � or God �
quarantees about feelings.
But if the society is
broken, it is the same as if in individual is
broken: the healthy parts try to cure it back to full health. Each
healthy individual is a center of recovery for the whole society, even
for the whole human kind as a part of the biosphere. Health in this
sense means healthy ways of living. Having found the true chord about
the art of living, understanding deeply about life, the healthy
individual is naturally a center figure in the social environment
having a healthy curing kind of effect on all. This is a moral thing to
do since it is for the good of all. So a healthy individual is by one�s
very nature completely moral in a healthy happy natural way!
The health of a
society means that it is completely morally arranged. A
society is a cooperation attempt and cooperation is something which has
turned out to be useful during the evolution � or in God�s eyes.
Objective thinking says that cooperation is useful because it brings
the force of masses. That can be seen as a vector sum: harmonical or
contradictory vectors. Those with like interests can ally for the
common good.
WHAT I SUPPORT
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!
SELFISHNESS
Technology is
typically build to a certain purpose only, with a
complete disregard for its relationship with the rest of the world.
That is contrary to the nature where the health of the whole (incl.
pack & liv. environment) helps the survival of its parts. And
since
animals can understand the value of their own health, can they via
compassion and an analogy of the whole to their own life UNDERSTAND
also THE VALUE OF THE HEALTH OF THE WHOLE, WHICH understanding HELPS
THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. -> GAIA!
What is already
ready made, complex but well fitted to form a
well working whole, well suited to its purpose,like the nature is, is
in character very different from things in their building phace where
product development is still lacking, like is with tools and technology.
We have natural
ways of looking at the nature, understanding it in its
complexity and intentionality: emphaty and feelings at large. The ways
of looking at the much less complex technology and the build world are
different.
PROTECTION
To live happily
and to wish well for others sounds nice but how to
protect oneself? The need for protection isn�t in contradiction with
the wishing well to others. I didn�t say that you should sacrifice
yourself for others, I said that you could live happily! And if you are
moral yourself you deserve to be protected because you thus work for
the common good. You can yourself be one of those who protect you. You
must protect yourself from those who might harm you, that means from
the evil actions of others and of yourself i.e. you must demand moral
from yourslerf and from others. If you yourself err from good moral,
from the wish for good life for all fairly, you are thus not allying
with the health of the world and so you are harming yourself compared
to how things would be if you allied with the health of the world.
Better than unjustice is to build on things of real worth. That�s why
you can sometimes benefit from punishments which guide you toward more
moral action. It is better to see the power dynamics of the world: of
how people like to be treated, what they answer with good, and how they
do not like to be treated, what they answer by attacking. Wish well and
protect yourself � that�s morally fully OK, even demanded by moral
since as a moral person you are a person of worth� Protection of good
is an important part of moral, and what would be good if not happy life
with no suffering and a good future ahead? This is exactly so when
watched from the holistic point of view!
If you have
difficulties with just this point, please read my page
www.paradisewins.net/societyagreement.html . Friends can coperate and
benefit from that, enemies cannot and must defend themselves against
each other, not trusting the untrustworthy. But one can be fair and
moral in this. One should divide all rights on the condition that they
are not abused in any way. So all rights are conditional. This leads to
very unequal division of rights since the individuals are very
different indeed, but that is only fair and not against the equality of
individuals since all are entitled to the same rights IF they only
satisfy the same comditions demanded by true justice and responsibility.
IDEA SOCIAL GROUP
= the best arrangement created by the evolution
Loving feelings
tie each part to its best place in the whole.
Imagine two parts
(berings) loving some good sides of each other. They
get tied together by that love, forming so a subwhole = friendship.
While they are independent where they do not like some charachteristic
of the other one.
Hate (which, like
love, MUST always be directed toward /against JUST
the thing that caused the feeling - otherwise things go badly
ashtray!!) gets rid of parasites and of other harmful things.
In the perfect
group all beings and all parts of beings get their place
according to what is best for the group: high if skilled and
responsible, low if unskilled or unresponsible. One hierargy for each
thing to decide.
Justice keeps
things so.
Honesty helps in
keeping up justice, so that one can form the strongest
possible allegaincy and aren't fooled to accepting a much much weaker
one instead.
These calculations
about the effect of practises to the whole concern
so huge things to the individual that they overrun in importance the
position of the single individual in the group - it is better to have
the whole on a good ground: also rewarding social life where you can
trust people and not jsut some money - so very few have enermously much
money, it aren't beneficial to support parasites benefitting that much,
since money counts only when there are big differenciesd in the money
available for a certain use.
THE HEALTH OF A
SYSTEM, OF THE MODERN SOCIETY
There are some
basic truths about the functioning of complex
wholes. This include the importance of putting each part to its correct
place in the system. This is connected to the value of objective
thinking, honesty and justice and to the success of market economy: in
each of them one gives things feedback according to what the things are
like and that enables one to put each thing to its correct, best place
in the system.
Having each part
at its correct place in the whole means that
the system isn't broken. This is connected to the value of unifiedness,
fracturelessness in well "planned" systems.
The value of
fracturelessness is in turn connected to the value of harmony:
Imagine a system
broken into pieces, starting to repair the system you
put some parts to their correct places: you get small unified,
harmonical islands, the better repaired the system becomes, the more
harmonical its functioning, the more unified the whole. A well planned
system functions without contradictions and fractures, harmonically.
The next step from harmonival is unified well functioning. Such are the
systems of nature.
The value of
harmony as a vector sum
Several harmonious
forces sum up to much a bigger force
than a group of contradictory, unharmonical forces
or a separate one of the forces in question.
< >
v ^ contradictory
versus
> >
> > noncontradictory, harmonical
Harmonical
solution creates more benefit and loses none to opposition
- unlike the
contradictory solution attempt.
Thus, cooperation
gives strength while strength is lost in conflicts.
So one who values
cooperation is stronger than a like one who values conflicts.
And so "soft"
harmonical means prove to be valuable.
Like this one can see how peace is more beneficial than war and count
the difference. One must just add the huge effect of the enormous
destruction caused by the enemy. Also there is a loss in war to the
safety of the future, like the society agreement with other countries
tells.
Applying this
result thoroughly gives the efficiency-optimised result:
the most
harmonical arrangement:
the natural and
healthy (in harmony with the natural ways of functioning of the living
beings)
loose (according
to the way that things are)
global (all
parties in harmony and cooperation)
cooperation.
Ally
as much as you can. That brings you success in life. Ally with the
society in order to produce good living conditions, ally with the moral
ones for the same common cause and with friends to defend the things,
which you value. Ally with the living kind to achieve the paradise,
Gaia.
Compare the value
of harmony to the value of unifiedness and fracturelessness.
HARMONIC FOREST
ISLANDS
Harmonic forest
islands is the best way that I can think of to think of
people living peacefully together. Each person alone is an island with
harmonic forest growing on it. Each cooperating group is a harmonic
forest island. One can think through the whole society agreement this
way: the structure of the whole world in a way, which is constructive
for happy life and good moral. This natural division of the world also
teaches one healthy independence at the same time as harmonical
cooperation.
This way of
cooperating can be described also by marking each thing
done a vector and by grouping the vectors according to their direction,
so that one gets an optimised use of forces.
THE SOCIETY
AGREEMENT
The island
principle
A way to arrange
cooperation:
either cooperation
or independence.
(Use separate islands for different conflicting parties.)
People who
CULTIVATE the same thing belong to the same ISLAND.
Share results of
cultivation on the island according to justice, which
takes into, account the basic living requirements of each. ("Live and
let others live." is a good rule to follow.)
Check who belongs
to your own island: those who do not follow some set of rules, do not
deserve the benefits created by them.
One can create
islands for the exchange of benefits.
Like this one can
count what are one's responsibilities and rights
toward the society: which islands one is on, what are the rules needed
for cultivating those things: that's what benefits one has gained and
that's what one must follow. This is called the society agreement.
By taking into
account also other kinds of islands, i.e.
all things that one causes (cultivates), one can see how we together
make the world what it is.
One of the most
important islands is that �in emergencies one
is fairly helped by those who are capable of helping�. It includes an
obligation to help but one gains the protection in emergencies which is
dearly needed.
Forming groups by
being in a same situation or by caring for the same thing:
* all mothers
* all those who
care for children (including children them selves)
*
all those who support good moral, obliged when they find themselves in
a situation like this, needing moral guarding behaviour working for the
good of all
* all who care for
the future of us all
* all living beings
The society
agreement says: all those of the group agree to work for
the common cause according to real justice which takes into account
human values, carrying responsibility of the whole, with the help of
common sense with a holistic view.
The freely
organized citizen democracy in Finland in Europe is of this type.
Compassion helps
us to see the similarities between our lives and so to form this kind
of cooperating groups.
As a helping aid
in forming this kind of groups, an objective holistic
picture of the world formed by objective thinking, which doesn't take
sides, and which recognizes things as phenomena with feelings connected
to them, feelings that tell about the importance of such things in life
and in the world generally and about what to do with such things: which
things to support and which to prevent for the good of all: children,
free time, catastrophes,...
Feelings of this
kind are typical to the Finnish speaking Finns:
what is the role
of each thing in life and in the society,
how do things form
our fate - is it good to have such things in life or not?
It is typical for
us Finns to use a holistic view of the world at large all the time.
Remember this also
at the times of war: do not break against
justice even then. There is a society agreement with the enemy too,
preventing the wars from getting longer and more cruel. Check how much
is lost when you do not follow some rules. That much you have to lose
yourself, even if you are a man and soldier and think that what you are
doing is for the common good. Those who keep the society agreement, are
still entitled to their share of good, even if they are female and
civilian. Read my text about healthy aggressivity. More than that isn't
allowed. Being for the good health of the world and of the societies is
moral, so it is supporting some islands of the society agreement, not
destroying them. The army of Finland is strictly for defence only plus
for some peace keeping operations of the United Nations.
The society
agreement like picture of the world allows one to make cost
benefit analyses also at the times of war. The costs of a war are huge,
peace is a much much more beneficial option.
NATURAL PATCHES
AND SOCIETY AGREEMENT
NATURAL PATCHES
* individual
* social group
* group working
together
for some goal
following some set
of rules
(not hurting each
other,
co-operating for
the goal,
nice behaviour
and so on):
1. Things that one
needs to run one's life:
* home
* food
* means to get
such for oneself (work and the possibility to work)
* safety
2. Things that one
likes:
* hobbies
* delicious food
* and so on
And arranging
these together:
* hobby group
* ordering food
from shop
* And the
possibility for such
Large groups
agreeing not to
hurt
each other badly
or at all
(no need to, if
the places are separate
or far away from
each other)
Justice
&
A Harmonic Forest
Islands type of society agreement
(like the one
above)
Rights and
priviledges are conditional:
shared only
according to justice!
DEFENCE AGAINST DECEPTION IN ALLEGIANCIES
Think of the world as a huge society agreement: who is really on
your own island in each question, you can trust. Who is not but appears
to be, who is disguised as one of your own, you cannot trust. So you
need an island against the dangers created by those pretenders,
especially if they are enemies. One way to guard against such attacks
is to use separate islands in deciding about things: you decide on your
island on objective grounds which support common good and then check if
it agrees with the decisions of others and communicate about the
decisions so that you and the others can learn from each other. This is
the reason why we are individuals and not solely social beings: so we
can make defences against betrayals. If your decisions agree, you are
parts of the same group in that question. If not, then you are somewhat
on different islands - either as a result of differences in
understanding and experience - like usual: that's why the communication
and social instincts are needed. Or because the others try to deceive
you to an action which is harmful to you or to your group or serves
some other goal which you do not agree about - that's why you need to
trust your own understanding too.
HANDLING UNSURENESS ABOUT TRUSTWORTHINESS
If you are in a situation where you do not know how things truly are,
for example whether you can trust some person or not, you should act in
a way that is O.K. from the point of view of the both possibilities.
Take yourself care of the important things in your life, so that they
get well even if the other person is not trustworthy. On the other
hand, give yourself and the other person a possibility to living in
harmony, in a constructive way: do not break anything that you do not
need to - especially not those things that the other person needs if
she/he truly is trustworthy. Try to do things according to justice, and
work for common good, without harming good persons and without letting
the evil ones to benefit in any way more than they deserve when they
are judged according to their moral. Like making an ordinary deal with
safety precautions. These safety precautions mean in practise moral
guidelines and making the morality of action in practise the condition
for any rights. (Rights can be refused also afterwards and deals
devalidiated if the other one breaks against the moral guidelines.)
HOW TO AVOID CONFLICTS
One simple advice on how to
avoid conflicts, is to get more independence when one feels the need to
aggressively influence things, so that one can peacefully influence
them instead.
Read my texts about the healthy aggressivity.
INDEPENDENCY
AND COOPERATION WITH UNIFICATION
How
to fit
together the needs of independency (defence, justice) and the benefits
of unification and cooperation? One needs different degrees of freedom
and safety precautions in addition to unification. One can have
separate islands for each party, or them in harmony and cooperation, or
such with a promise to stay so, or such for a long time or one single
area. Safety precautions make it possible to sift to a more independent
arrangement if one gets abused. The ideal is to be free and cooperate
at the same time, such is the healthiest kind of system, I think. In
other words the arrangements should be so ideal that a new participant
would on one's own choose the same ones as are already in use. This is
the way that the culture and the society of the Finnish speaking
Finland work. That is: if they try to choose the best ones and not
sabotage the systems. Separate islands and independence are needed just
as a defence against sabotage and other attacks. Those who cooperate
survive better.
Between
island there can be exchanges: what one has a lot it will give
to others and get something that they have a lot in return. If someone
has lots of strength, it can help the weak ones, who in turn make the
promise to help in return.
DEFENCE: SAFETY
PRECAUTIONS
Always make
carefully sure that the most important things get right!
Make several checkings instead of just one: use all the weight of the
importance of the thing in question.
If you go to the
right direction, you might get something
done. If you go to a wrong direction, you surely do not get anything
done. So it is worth trying.
I never take an
evil person as a model for myself.
Instead I trust my
own sense of health and happiness.
NOT TAKING SIDES
Not taking sides is
a prequisite for justice and for true objectivity.
HONESTY
X% honesty in a
system gives (X%)^n effectiveness to the system
where n is the dimension of the system and X% the amount of hitting the
truth, what ever the reason for it. So systems are build on honesty.
Speak the truth
when you say something. The deeper you touch
the truth, the better you will be listened to. Your soul is like that
of others.
Honest looks
If the looks of
people are not correct, honest and sincere, people get
wrong roles in the society and the functioning of the communities
suffers a lot.
One should not allow the disguising of evil as good. That is against
honesty and justice, against the functioning of a system and against
correctability. The Swedish speaking Finns do not understand this, the
Finnish speaking Finns do understandf it.
NO social roles
Social roles are
partly lies: they try to
build on a ground that does not exist or deceive others into supporting
unjustices. These are both serious faults, which should be avoided.
Lies and unjustice decrease the
effectiveness of arrangements.
There is a Finnish
saying: "What the big before, the little ones
after." If the leaders of a country steal by lying or doing unjustice -
either from other countries or fron their own subordinates - others
typically copy the amount of lies in order to trust in the most
intelligent ones' understanding. So if the leaders gain X% extra by
lying or doing unjustice, all the others try to do the same. That means
at least X% of everything lost to lies, so the effectiveness of the
system decreases X% per every dimension of the system. So the leaders
gain (100+X)% * ((100-X)%)^n = ((100%)^2 - (X%)^2
)((100-X)%)^(n-1)<
(100%)^2 - (X%)^2 < 1. So since the dimension of the system, n,
is
at least one, the leaders lose instead of gaining! For example the
dimension of the system n=2 if there is stealing plus laziness because
of lack of motivation because of the stealing. That would cause a loss
of 2X% in addition to the gain of X% by stealing, so the total effect
is a loss of X% to both the leaders and to the citizens. In other
words, lying or unjustice as a practise in a country decreases its
standard of living noticeably, so much that honesty and justice would
be a more benefical option.
A proud nation is a self
sustaining nation! Also if it is a big nation
capable of mistreating others - It will not mistreat others even if it
were strong enough for that.
Remember that if you are
in an important place in the market economy so
that you could gain a lot by stealing a little or even more, you are
one of the leaders of a country and so the above calculations apply to
you too. (You are an opinion leader, an example to others, especially
in your own branch where your money comes from.) So you will lose by
stealing and doing unjustice, not gain.
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
THE GLOBAL PARADISE
WINS
So has it always been
and so will it forever be...
Only if the world is
guided by what we think and if we think, like
many have thought this far, mistakenly that the above is not true, then
we will guide the world to a wrong, unbeneficial direction and there
will be no paradise. But if there is a free competition of all the
answers and true objectivity governing, it will be a paradise which
wins!
This should mean that
as time passes we will eventually end up in a
global paradise much like the one in the beginning of time - now we
have the technology tools but it ought not to prevent us from reaching
the paradise - if we just trust objective thinking enough. This time
the paradise will be WITH the technology but otherwise very much like
the paradise in the beginning of time since the instructions of usage
of humans have not changed and the natural healthy goals of humans
still make sense from the point of view of survival and that's why we
need the Gaia paradise from the point of view of modern competition.
See for example the page /increasingintelligence.html about the
connection of academical or engineering work efficiency and
natural&emotional life. Or my book Work Efficiency and Likings
which you can download for free at stores.lulu.com/khtervola
THIS
IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION IN THE WHOLE WORLD!
A task for
the reader: Can you think a bigger thought than this one? Think of an
as important thought as you can and then compare to this one: was your
thought already a part of this thought, how do these truths connect?
The task of thinking is to affect as much toward good as possible in as
important questions as possible... If you cannot find an even bigger
thought (and anyway) please share this thought with others too!
For a religious answer too see www.paradisewins.net/Godstory.html - it
is quite outrageous but in the light of the thoughts on that page it
seems that the above thought could be even the reason for God's
existence and especially to the purpose of our existence, to the goals
of God creating us.
I added the story here:
Once
upon a time there was a God, not the highest one of all but an
ordinary ruler of one world. The God was worried about the state of the
universe since there was too much evil around. Beings didn't seem to
understand why to not to be evil. So the God decided � it was the fate
of the God � to try to cure all the countless worlds. In order to do so
the God created a world, and created us in it, not to be spirits and
capable of much like most of the beigs were, but to be of flesh and
bone, and with a lesser intelligence, so that everything would be clear
for all to see.
Now in this world we manifest how good is stronger than evil, because
good means cultivating good health and evil means needlesss breaking,
and because we all understand that a healthy one works better than a
broken one. From a technology hell with evil around we have found a
road back to the paradise which God created: it is the cultivation of
good health of all scales. It is what makes us strong and happy and
brings us the best intelligence that we can have. It is what saves this
world and all the others.
One might add that if God created the world, God created it this way
perfect.
A HEALTHY WORLD WORKS
BEST
To be clear: Here are
two thoughts:
The first thought is
about the strenght of healthy ones and about the
healthy world being the best functioning arrangement tested by the
evolution. (How does evolution which works on the level of the parts
bring a tested arrangement of the whole? Those who ally in good ways
benefit the most, from getting a healthy group - just like a high
standard of living benefits the citizens. The strongest group is one in
which all its members cooperate for the common good without any unfair
arrangements - see my pages at www.paradisewins.net/rationalmoral.html)
The truth that a
healthy one works best is an ages old truth, proven by
the evolution, created by the evolution. How well does it apply at
these times of modern technology? First there were the requirements of
the humans, then the rerquirements of the technology but now the
technology has become so far developed that it has become more and more
adabted to the requirements of humans which have become to count again
in questions of optimising the systems. Answering the needs of humans
keeps humans fit to work. That means keeping humans healthy by
following human values.
How sure is this
thought about a healthy whole working better
than a broken whole then? It is among other things a common sense
truth, so our everyday experience about everything backs it up - such
is an enermous amount of evidence. It also agrees with our scientifical
picture of the world - as far as I know: at the very least it is a
hypothesis which could be proven to be true. The thought is also a part
of the traditional Finnish speaking culture of Finland, so it has been
proven by time and by the understanding of some five million unusually
rational people. It is also a thought which agrees with our feelings
and our natural sense of atmospheres, which should indicate that it is
a way to see the world which evolution has proved useful and so true.
So it should be an as sure truth as possible for a "new" thought to
ever be.
With the existence of
technology the word "healthy" gets a new
generalised meaning: a well arranged and fully functioning system. It
means among other things that each thing is treated according to what
it is like - that means true objectivity and something like justice.
Also that each part is unbroken so that one can optimise the system -
in questions of human beings that means following human values.
Also for solving the
problems with the concept of the healthy biosphere
which I call Gaia and about Gaia being the winning option, use the
above definition for good health and relate that only afterwards to
what the nature is like: so you will find the balance points between
opposites, like for example the purpose of competition is to keep the
populations as healthy as possible and to develop new strategies, not
to destroy everything in short-sighted excessive ruthless competition.
Some principles which are needed in this are in my texts about the
rationally grounded moral and in my Gaia pages.
If it really is, like
it seems, beneficial to ally, why people do not
always do so? One must ally for the best health of the whole, sometimes
that means conflicts too and sometimes it is mistaken to mean
conflicts. But often the reason is just that we have become confused
and stopped from following our feelings fully. And our understanding is
often too little to bring us the whole way toward full cooperation.
It is easy to
optimise any whole: seek to maximise its health:
its functioning is based on its health parts and healthy substructures
and structures. This means minimising its brokedness since broken parts
do not work at all. And already optimised whole, like a biological
whole which has been optimised by the evolution, is contradictionless,
so leaving some parts unactive does not make the whole function better
but instead lessens the functioning of the whole since the parts
support each other and the functioning of the whole. (For example the
thinking ability of humans is supported by the sense of sight,
wandering in nature and sensitivity to atmospheres - see my page
www.paradisewins.net/increasingintelligence.html Similarly the parts of
a well working society support each other - see my pages about
interconnectedness: www.paradisewins.net/interconnectedness.html.) This
method of optimising wholes by keeping them non-broken and healthy
applies to all wholes of all sizes. Since the biggest things matter the
most, one should start by keeping the biggest scale healthy and
unbroken - that means peace as a strong value. Such peace means most
peace in the world in the long run and not the avoidance of all
conflicts untill evil has conquered the world and there is something
like a civil war all over the world. Also fair play is typical to a
healthy whole. Justice which aims at respecting human values - live and
let others live! is a rule to follow. So one can let the different
strategies compete about which one is the most beneficial to the whole
and support just such strategies while punishing those who damage the
system. Defending just one's own good isn't the thing to value but to
defend the greatest good of the whole, including peace and large scale
cooperation. Via the health of the whole one gets most prosperity since
just good srategies are counted on and bad ones dropped away. So it is
good also from the selfish point of view to act for the benefit of the
whole more than one acts for one's own short-term good. This way one
can build friendly relationships to others which will be beneficial in
the long run but also in the short term.
What about the human
goals in life?How do they connect to the
optimising of a system which has both natural and artificial parts?
Humans were created by the evolution and have not by their nature been
adabted to the existence of the artificialities. So the human goals oin
life have been created by the natural human goals in life which seek to
keep both humans and their environment in full health. Our thinking
takes the artificialities into account, our goals stay unchanged. If it
is the goal of the systems get enough working ability and/or to keep
humans under control, they need to answer human needs, in other words
safeguard good health of humans and their environment. That means
respecting the human goals in life.
Also if the rulers,
be they some kind of a cool intellect like robots
and computers running wild or whatever (This refers to aliens and to
technology, not to cool calculating living beings, since even though
one could argue this way also about living beings, there are much more
common factors between living beings tying us all into one big
allegiance for a life according to our nature since that is the only
kind of life that we can bear. Our needs are alike.), if the rulers are
not interested in humans as a working force or as happiness as a goal
in itself, they have their own fate to think about. Maybe they will
some day meet someone stronger than they are, so they have to be
prepared for that too. Then it might be that they would be treated
according to the same principles that they treat others with. Not
destroying others needlessly they might not them selves be destroyed.
If they killed us, they might be considered without the protection of
the "articla" in the society agreement which says that all the likes of
them should be protected. The society agreement says that you buy your
rights by the obligations that you follow. If you are too dangerous to
others because you do not protect or respect any values, you will be
killed by the others who want a safer world. So even robots as rulers
should respect our right to healthy life. So a healthy way for them to
build a system is to treat humans fairly and according to human values,
giving them lots of freedom to moral action.
The extend to which
we are dependent on our environment makes it
understandable how our own well being is dependent on the health of the
whole and how consequently selfishness equals moral. We are
concretically dependent on our environment if we are, like I claim
since it was and still is the most beneficial choise during the
evolution, by our nature parts of a bigger whole, of the whole
biosphere in good health. But even if we weren't, our well being is
affected by the amount of conflicts in our environment: how much we get
harmed or benefitted by the environment and how well the environment
works together to produce a higher standard of living and how much it
consequently can help us toward better life when it decides to do so.
So whether or not we are parts of a bigger whole by our nature, we are
in practise parts of a bigger whole and our whole life is dependent on
the relationship that we have to the whole.
What means totally value-free optimizing without preconditions:
It means interest in what gives most force, power,
what gives protection and how,
what is the best strategy,
what must one take into account about the future,
how to arrange one's relationships to other powers,
which solutions win and why,
what is the most benefical thing,
what must be most feared and how to protect oneself,
who are the benefical allies etc.
In this analyzis one needs extremely good objective thinking and
openeyedness toward all options, both the dangerous and also to the
non-dangerous ones - it is the creation of force which is important in
this power analyzis, so if soft means give any advantage that too must
be used fully.
For example even
the softest of things: feelings, tell things of
importance from the tough point of view: If one takes things that cause
very strong feelings, one can see that they connect to things which are
important in the hard point of view. For example death has a dark
atmosphere and is clearly harmful in that. And a childhood with all
one's needs answered has a light reddish atmosphere and is clearly a
strong ground to build upon the future. Even feelings which tell of the
importance of feelings themselves make sense after this: they are signs
that we should take big factors like these fully into account.
Following feelings in important questions makes the society strong,
since feelings tell of the importance of the major factors of life -
they bind the level of our picture of the world to the level of
practise makin it possible to act in a way that makes sense.
It turns out that the
healthy world is the most beneficial option. It
is the species which need to survive in the long run, so there is lots
of variation inside each species to ensure the adabtability of that
species to different living environments. Consequently there needs to
be a healthy amount of competition so as to drop away the strategies
that are not suited to the present day situation. The same competition
makes adabtation possible whenever it is needed. But too much of
competition would result in short-sighted decline of the population, in
other words the population would not be fit to live any more or at
least not to flourish.
Today there is lots of cultural "competition", some cultures vanishing
away, the multitude of cultures changing to a "single species
ecosystem". Such reduces the variation to almost zero. It is not a wise
strategy in the light of the evolution.
Even the competition between those who trust technology or other sides
of life, should not be so harsh as to erase away the good sides of each
strategy. The natural strongest option would be to ally: to develop
technology while keeping the contact with nature and the wisdom of
other areas of life (even where the science is not able to follow).
Apply very
thoroughly to everything the truths that you can be
sure of. That way you reach much farther with your thoughts than what
would be otherwise possible for you. Remember that the level of the
whole is especially important.
One basic truth
that we all humans and animals, maybe even plants
understand with all our being and which should so be very sure indeed,
is that a healthy one works better than a broken one. One can reach
very far with this simple truth, proving that it is the healthy world
which will win in the modern competition too, only with this time all
the technology around but without it affecting things in what comes to
the living beings.
The health of the
world isn't as problematic concept as it might seem
at first glance. We are nowadays far away from the full health of the
world, that is true. But things haven't been this way for so long. We
can argue about wheher the world earlier was healthy either, whether it
has ever been completely healthy. Still, that does not remove the point
in aiming for full health and I think that that goal is deeply embedded
in our genes, in our very nature. Since full health means full
functioning. We can think of helath as a direction to aim at instead of
as a state that had to dominate over time in order to9 have any effect
(what an absurd thought this latter is! Since ths is not a question of
habit or social custom but of what is the best way to arrange things,
i.e. a question of the objective truth which does not need to have been
the practise, especially not for a long time, in order to exist and
affect things. The strongest one will win even if there has not been
anyone that strong before.). So from the scale of your own life you
understand the importance of some principles in building or cultivating
anything. Now just apply them to the large scale too.
These thoughts are
not as complicated as they seem. You just have to
apply thoroughly to everything what you understand for sure:
A HEALTHY SYSTEM WORKS BETTER THAN A BROKEN SYSTEM
A healthy system
works better than a broken system.
And several harmonious forces sum up to a bigger force
than a separate one of the forces in question.
As grounds for the
comparison use these divisions at least:
* co-operation
(brings force while none lost to conflicts) versus lot
of conflicts (lost force, lots of damage, nothing gained by
allegiancies)
* unified harmonic
(the parts supporting each other and the whole which in turn often
supports the parts)
versus scattered
one that does not work together to form a well-working whole (nothing
gained from the presence of the others)
* healthy versus
broken (check in your field of experience)
* on a healthy
ground (trustworthy), steady versus unsure, unsteady
* long-lasting
(usable for a long time) versus easily scattered
* strong (can bear
many things) versus weak structure
* according to
motivation, feelings and
the intellect & the idea in things (according to these
forces/guiding factors) versus against them
This is a basic
truth and has a very wide area of validity. So apply it very thoroughly
to everything!
About what means the
health of the whole biosphere, see my Gaia pages
at /Gaia.html and at links from there, especially have a look at my own
Gaia theory!
Since there are so many perspective which support my view
here, my whole social environment tends to go totally ashtray,
supporting the only remaining opposing view of evil as a value in
itself (and not just as a tool) - instead of even the other major force
of the demands of the use of technology (in other things as workers
work efficiency) i.e. the force that must be counted as a separate
direction with some connections to the goal of a healthy world. How to
count this: attach a gummystring to the goals of systems from each part
of the world: the more essential the part is, the stronger the string -
even if that essentiality comes because of tool value, like the value
of human ways for a selfish computer like mind.
So, PLEASE avoid the pitfall that they have fallen into! My thought
here is the truth and agrees with your very own goals too, so please
let this truth be as it is and SUPPORT it. At least do not oppose
solely for the sake of opposing or for not trusting me enough, since so
you end up opposing yourself and the things that YOU value. This can be
the truth, even if this is new to you and to your environment!
OBS!
This is a complex view, a whole picture of the world here. So no wonder
that it is new!
THE
FINAL PARADISE
I know that this is a whole bunch of new ideas. I have tried
to make them as simple as possible, so please do not get too much
surprised when from old well known starting points we arrive at
something completely new.
Please
don't be deceived into thinking that there was an error somewhere along
the way: these are thoroughly thought of things and I am an unusually
clear headed person.
What
would You be interested in if not this?:
"I love Life, happiness and things positive for
happy life - like most of the others, like You too. This is why I
support from my heart the things that support good life and oppose the
things that ruin it."
It is easy to understand and agree about. Still, I think that there is
nothing much more needed in running the society and even the whole
world well.
What
you need in addition is a proper holistic view of the world with causes
and conditions taken fully into account in it, so that you can guide
your actions toward your goals well. One such picture you could maybe
learn from reading these pages of mine.
My above thought
describes something very essential in human nature: what
the driving force is behind all that we do, what is the ground
(feelings help us to answer needs which keeps us healthy which in turn
helps us to meet our goals) of all
achievements, both small and large, and what is the base for economical
success (what sells well: the meeting of needs, and what is the base of
our working ability: meeting our needs). Since my thought is ok at the
level of the biological picture
of humans, and says nothing that would depend on the circumstances, it
ought to apply fully to the ancient times too. At least
it could be our most educated guess of what applies, what is wealth,
worth, success and meaningfulness based on in all times, both those of
the ancient pharaos and these modern times. It applies everywhere, in
all corners of the world, during all ages. Just sometimes it is
emphasised differently: those who are not free, yearn for freedom,
those in danger for safety, the suffering for a peace of mind, the
miserable for happiness etc. What is just one value among others for
one, can be a distant dream for another one. But the direction that we
aim at, according to our own understanding, in ways that vary
according to our personality and our situation, is always the same:
toward a better life in better living conditions and toward a safe
future for us. All human action is in essence like that. That is what
is meant by good and consequently that is what moral, the base of
society, handles, that is what moral ultimately means: action
according to the ages and ages old human nature.
The time of the pyramids was a manifestation of the human nature! We
are interested in what life was like then, what life should be like
nowadays, what was worth a lot then, what is worth a lot in the world
even nowadays, what brings the meaningfulness and content to life, to
the lives of us all...
(The base of wealth: the motivational ground, the ground of your
working ability and what sells best, what is most needed.)
What is my
project? I try to offer a holistic view of the world which
would be easy and obvious enough for all: centered on easy rough
divisions like natural/artificial, now/long time ago,
healthy/broken,... And since our perceptions affect our actions, I have
tried to choose the focus of attention so that the end result would
lead us to a better world, to an as good world as possible: to a
natural healthy paradise upon Earth, to the most paradise like paradise
of all which could last forever since it is the strongest and safest
option in how to arrange things in the world. This I have tried to do
in a way which would not demand one to make big changes to one's
habitual ways of thinking: in a way that would agree with most of the
already used perspectives! In my opinion I have succeeded quite well in
this, even though I know that as people are not good in mechanical kind
of thinking, in handling mechanical kind of systems objectively, but
still insist on using just that way of thinking, the result may seem
very complicated - remember that it is a whole picture of the world
though! Via following my advice you could develop in mechanical or
technical kind of thinking: take a picture of the thing in question,
observe its atmosphere and see how the atmosphere correcponds to the
main features of the seen landscape of the things to think about. That
way you can conceive objectively an enermous amount of details if you
just build the picture objectively.
Some of my other
pages also contain thoughts about the beneficality of moral: see the
links on the page Rational Moral.
Feelings
were created by the evolution or by God to be a force which guides us
toward the best survival. That�s why the best option in questions of
survival is a paradise to us. But you have to follow all feelings fully
for this to work, in other words you need a holistic view of what you
feel about things and of what the world is like, of how things
interconnect. The positive feelings set goals and the negative feelings
mark things to avoid. You have to follow both kind of feelings but just
the positive ones mark the goals and the negative onbes tell of things
to avoid. Realism and good social eye together with the tendency to
support good instead of evil quarantee that this works. One must
believe also in punishments in order to get the feedback systems
function properly, even though communication is another way to correct
things and social skills still another.
The global paradise
(movement) is the healthy world and as such the
strongest arrangement producerd by the evolution. Love keeps it up,
fixing each part to its healthy, best place in the whole - best for
each individual, for each group and for the living kind. That's why the
healthy world is a paradise: love binds the parts of the biosphere to
their correct places.
This answer stays
valid despite the existence of technology since the
human nature has stayed unchanged and the development of technology
makes it possible to adabt technology to the requirements of humans and
so one can optimise both technology and the human part separately, each
according to its nature. The nature of technology does not set any
requirements to humans, so one can optimise the human workers and human
groups in the evolution's way: via health!
If this paradise wins
idea sounds too outrageous to you, you might try
phracing it in a much much milder and surely objective way, like is
customary here in Finland, and then just mention that this truth is so
objective that in fact one can in theory go very far into this
direction without it ceasing to be beneficial direction to go to. "It
is always good to cultivate good health in everything!" and "It is
stupid to break!", says the Finnish culture...
(I want to remark
that there should not be any fault in the
objectivity of this thought and of the different grounds for it that I
list later on this page!)
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 have succeeded in this.
I can even prove it for computers governing instead of lving beings and
for the case that no material world exists and we are just spirits or
some kind of intelligent constructions run inside a huge computer brain
(The beneficality of the optimised solution to the whole does not
demand that you would have been planned and especially fitted to that
kind of whole by the evolution or by intelligent planning.). I do not
know what more I could do, the rest is up to you.
I just watched a
marketting video at
http://www.passporttowealth.com/?id=secretcash, it could have been made
to sell my work efficiency point of view: the human nature does all the
work for you if you just work some time - see my book Work Efficiency
and Likings for that: You really could earn lots of money by selling
those ideas of mine, i think, and it wouldn't cost you anything, not
even to begin with, much unlike of what they are marketing, whoever
they are and whatever it really is that they sell. And if you get
interested in my ideas, remember that it is a holistoc view of
everything that ties your feelings to be a part of the whole in the way
that most makes sense.
How to make the calculations in an easier way: count on
healthy (=fully functioning) and harmony (you can see it is a vector
sum) in everything!
Let us look at the world from the most usual starting points that
humans or some kind of groups like big companies use in looking at the
world. Let us see how all these fit well together via the goal of
completely healthy world, which is so healthy that it is the best
functioning arrangement and at the same time a paradise on Earth...
ABOUT 30 MOST COMMON
VIEWPOINTS SUPPORT
THE GLOBAL PARADISE
OF A HEALTHY WORLD:
1) The
goal of NATURE PROTECTION, for example that of
preventing global warming because of co2 emissions etc., is to have the
biosphere healthy and natural. If we could smallen the amount in which
we disturb the nature, radically smallen it via changes in the ways of
living, that would be a very good direction of development for the
nature, just what we wish for!
2)
The ages old quest for HAPPINESS. Healthy natural ways of
living in a close contact with the nature are our best quess in what
gives happiness. So please unify these ways of living with the ideal of
a healthy natural world where technology disturbs the nature as little
as possible. This is the extend into which health and naturality must
be followed in order to reach the health of the world as I here mean
it. The whole world in a good state gives a safer future for us all.
3)
The wish for FREEDOM means freedom to live freely according
to the human nature: happy life in a good living environment according
to the human nature. It does not mean the freedom to destropy all the
others. The rule "Live! and let others Live!" gives the maximum amount
of freedom that one can arrange for all in harmony and it fits well
together with the goal of a healthy world: happy people living in
natural ways.
4)
The need to SECURE THE FUTURE obviously brings the same end
result: healthy natural happy ways of living and the living
environment, the world at large in a good state.
5)
MORAL means cultivating what is good and preventing
catastrophes. Good is healthy natural ways of living in a healthy
natural living environment with the world at large ina good state.
Moral is what is needed for upkeeping those.
6)
The major goals in UPBRINGING OF CHILDREN agrees typically
with these goals of healthy ways of living and good moral which ensures
a good future for all fairly.
7)
The views of most RELIGIONS: a healthy natural world like
God created it, with healthy natural ways of living according to the
ages old human nature and according to perfect moral are things to aim
at.
8)
MOST CULTURES: it is wise to cultivate good health and to
take care that the future is in a good state as well as we can it
quarantee. Needless breaking and especially the causing of bigger
catastrophes is stupid.
9)
SCIENCE says that the healhty animal and the healthy group
are the strongest and the happiest, especially if the living
environment is healthy and natural.
10)
Even COMPUTER LOGIC understand the following: healthy = fully
functioning = 1, broken = non-functioning = 0.
11)
Also COMMON SENSE understands that health is a good thing
to aim at in everything, and that brokenness is non-functioning, so the
healthy is the wisest choise in what to invest in.
12)
THE NATURE OF ANIMALS and other living beings understands the value of
health (versus brokenness).
13)
The VIEW THAT NO MATERIAL WORLD EXISTS: we are still some
kind of wholes and clearly acompletely healthy, fully functioning whole
works better than the same whole as broken, as non-functioning.
14)
A picture of humans according to which there is NO NEED
FOR EXPERIMENTS ON HUMANS like those done during the Holocaust:
completely healthy is the fittest for any task, since our functioning
is build upon our healthy parts. If also its society and the rest of
the environment are healthy, the individual is even fitter!
15)
The wish to DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY: the healthy human living a
natural healthy life in every respect is the fittest for any task, also
for intellectual work: see my pages
www.goodwillwin.info/increasingintelligence.html for that.
16)
The NEEDS OF EXHAUSTED WORKERS needing rest and variation to their
lives agree with the healthy natural ways of living!
17)
The DREAMS OF just about all SCHOOL CHILDREN of more life
and less dry school like things agree with the goal of healthy natural
satisfying life according to feelings and a full understanding.
18)
A view capable of HANDLING LARGE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS:
the concept of health is a good one for this purpose and easy to handle
by the help of our everyday experience.
19)
The wish for CONTROL over masses of people: health of the
practises makes the people agree with the practises and creates no
opposinfg forces.
20)
The WISH FOR POWER: helaht of the whole in every respect, for example
the health of the practises, gives strenght.
21)
GREED/BENEFIT agrees so with these same goals too: health
of everything gives a strong well-arranged working force which results
in a high standard of living from which to benefit.
22)
So also the SOVINIST POINT OF VIEW of wanting everything
well grounded ON HARD VALUES agrees with these goals: health gives most
strenght (you get added strenght from the health of the practises of
the world), benefit and power.
23)
HARD WAR LIKE RATIONALITY, like if evil got to rule the
world and there would be a fight over who is the strnogest, agrees with
the value of health: your health is beneficial to you and the hgealth
of the practises of the rest of the world, i.e. good moral, supports
your own health.
24)
It is also a view which could PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING
CONTROLLED BY THE FORCE OF TECHNOLOGY, like by some global computer
network, because health of the individuals (human values taken to the
extreme) and healöth of the practises (high moral and natrurality of
the ways of living) are the most beneficial choises for anyone
interested in what they can gain from controlling human lives.
25)
This direction of healthy ways of living, high moral and
health of the whole world also agrees with ONE'S OWN GOOD, so that teh
harder one reaches for eny goal or the harder one is pushed toward any
direction, the more moral and positive for happiness one becomes since
health and allying with the health of the world give the strnongest
allegianvcy.
26)
This direction agrees with FEELINGS AND INSTINCTS.
27)
What would be SEXually more attractive than health and happiness?
28)
The points of view of AIMING AT MANLINESS OR WOMANLINESS
agree with these goals: healthy natural life according to emotions is
what the cahrm of each sex is based on.
29)
Also the FEMINIST point of view of wanting respsct for FEELINGS AND
MORAL agrees with the same ways of living.
30)
The goal of SOLVING THE FIGHT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL as well as
possible!
31)
Even the point of view of following names and symbols as
wisely as possible agrees with thsi view: reach for good health in
everything and avoid needless catastrophes, even needless breaking of
anything. Toward the positive, away from the negative, sometimes with
the help of tools...
32)
The wish to get something like the hippies back, this time without
drugs and in a lasting way by the help of a theoretical framework which
can protect the hippy movement from assaults from those with a tough
view on the world.
33) Greed for money and social position
Say
that you are an ordinary African who would like to benefit somehow. By
taking these truths to your heart you could serve as a positive example
to others in a way that is economically valuable to your employer and
so better paid than a less moral coworker. As a boss you could help to
spread these thoughts, increasing so economical beneficality of your
work and getting better paid for it. In the future you could be
remembered as one of the early advocators of this positive way of
living and be respected and liked because of that.
Why
happens this to be so? Is it just an unlikely
coincidence? No: it is a truth which we can well trust since the
EVOLUTION has shaped us so that our health and health of the society
are what our nature, our feelings, instincts (= directions) and
understanding (= a map, directed only because we have the goal of
answering our needs which the feelings and instincts too help to
answer) together, guide us toward and what gives us, the society and
the world at large its best possible functioning.
MANY POINTS OF VIEW
Since there are so
many different
viewpoints here, the perspectives on this page are very different
indeed, so that you may find it convenient to jumb over some and return
to them later if you want or need to.
There is a lot in
common with many of these viewpoints so that it is
possible to handle many of them at a time and then unifie them all to
this one single conclusion of the global paradise of the completely
healthy world being the best option from each and every of them.
Please spread this view:
THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF A HEALTHY WORLD WILL WIN!
A healthy whole works much much better than the same whole as broken.
And full health and happiness go hand in hand.
Outrageous but true:
Applying this to the whole world, one gets the result that in a
strongest one wins competition the healthy natural world is the
strongest option,
i.e. the healthy natural world should be the winning option over any
other kind of world.
And that the healthy natural world is a paradise.
In other words, IT IS A GLOBAL PARADISE WHICH WINS if there is a
competition of all possible arrangements and competition strategies,
including the very militaristic and incredibly evil torture-oriented
ones, still it is the world wide paradise movement which wins!
THIS IS WHY WE HAVE FEELINGS
This is the evolutionary reason for us having feelings: feelings and
instincts guide us toward the best survival - see my two books about
that! Also God created us so that we could keep to God's wishes, to the
correct way of life, because it really is the best in practise, also in
the tough world.
THIS IS A
THOROUGHLY THOUGHT OF VIEW
This is a
thoroughly thought of view. I have an unusually great capacity to
objective thinking and I have thought this through from many sides,
from all that I come to think of, like you will see if you bother to
read this page through and take a look at my two books.
The above are the
general guidelines of what I have ended up - they are
not just a mistaken common sense view od what one would think the first
time that one comes to think of the question. On the contrary: they are
the end result of many long chains of thoughts which just happens to
ber understandable by the common sense.
(Examine the motivational factors, the guiding forces of humans and the
guiding principles of the other forces in the world and ensure by
sharing information (=this theory of mine for example) that they all
will lead toward a better world, toward the best possible world, which
will also be the winner in the modern competition:)
29 POINTS OF VIEW WHICH SUPPORT THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF THE COMPLKETELY
HEALTHY WORLD AS THE BEST OPTION FROM EACH OF THEM
K. Gibran (a famous writer from Lebanon): " I have chosen both the
joys of this world and peace in the world to come. Because I feel in my
heart that the Upmost Poet wrote just one poem and its structure is
perfect."
The concept of health is good for fitting together all the different
viewpoints:
1) POWER (health gives strenght),
2)
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),
3) 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),
4) CONTROL (the health of practises makes people agree with the
practises and creates no opposing forces),
5) life according to FEELINGS (healthily according to feelings is a
part of the full health),
6) MORAL (moral means guarding the good health of the whole world, evil
means needless breaking),
7) SCIENCE (a healthy animal is the fittest),
8) most RELIGIONs (a healthy world / a paradise and good moral are
things to aim at),
9) COMPUTER logic (healthy = fully functioning = times 1, broken =
non-funtioning = times 0),
10) COMMON SENSE (health is a common sense concept which all know
well),
11) the UNBRINGING OF CHILDREN (those who bring up children are
typically for healthy ways of living and good moral),
12) 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),
13) a view capable of HANDLING LARGE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS (health is
a good concept which can be generalised to all kinds of systems),
14) a SEXuality oriented view (what could be more attractive than
health and happiness),
15) 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),
16) the view that NO MATERIAL WORLD exists (the wholes stay unchanged
and the truth about healthy versus broken functioning stays valid),
17) the wish to PROTECT NATURE (health of the world means among other
things the protection of nature),
18) the wish to DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY (a healthy life in a nature
environment should bring the best ground for theoretical intelligence -
see my pages www.paradisewins.net/increasingintelligence.html and
www.paradisewins.net/interconnectedness.html) and
19) the need to SECURE THE FUTURE.
20) a picture of humans according to which there is NO need for anyone
to do experiments on humans like those during the HOLOCAUST
21) the hopes of exhausted WORKERS NEEDING REST and variation to their
lives
22) the dream of just about all SCHOOL CHILDREN of more life and less
dry school like things (see my book Work Efficiency and Likings for the
rationality of feelings and the role of atmospheres in thinking) (This
is my weakest point.)
23) the goal of solving the FIGHT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL in a positive
way via the concept of health - which should give you what you want or
even more...
24) the SOVINIST point of view of wanting everything to be well
grounded on hard values too (see my two books!)
25) the FEMINIST point of view of wanting respect for women's values:
for feelings and moral (see my two books for the fitting together of
these last two!)
26) hard WAR like rationality i.e. pure power play like if evil got to
rule the world and there would be a fight over who is the strongest
(health gives strength)
27) a view completely according to feelings and even the sense of BEAUTY
28) It is a view that could PREVENT people being CONTROLled BY the
force of TECHNOLOGY etc. in a way that is in contradiction with the
freedom of individuals or moral. (Health of the whole i.e. high moral
is the most beneficial way to arrange things.)
29) ONE'S OWN GOOD, so that the harder one reaches for any goal or
the harder one is pushed toward any direction, the more moral and
positive for happiness one becomes (Health and allying with the health
of the world = excellent moral, gives the strongest allegiancy.)
30) (the most natural way to interprete names)
All these 28-30 viewpoints support the global paradise of a healthy
world as the very best option when wacthed from that point of view.
NO
PARADISE WITHOUT MORAL
But there will be no paradise without excellent moral. One cannot keep
up a paradise without excellent moral and one cannot build a paradise
without moral. Moral meand cultivating and safeguarding good (That is
just what good menas: things that cultivcate the paradise direction,
like the avoidance of catastrophes, the supporting of practises that
lead the world toward better, etc.)and resisting evil = things that
might prevent or even break the paradise. So the prequisite for all who
want to live in a paradise is to cultivate excellent world wide moral
in their lives: to cultivate the health of the world, the health of its
practises with all their might.
What then is moral
in this sense? Moral turns out to be a relatively
simple matter. It means absolute justice, objective thinking with a
holistic view, honesty and human values while carrying responsibility
about the whole and about all big matters.
What is UNUSUAL in
this view about moral, global paradise and universal
love is that it rejects pacifism as a part of these valuable things and
instead recommends healthy self-defence! We cannot support any huge
evil just because we stick to some rigid rule of nonviolence. We have
to understand that some things just have to be opposed and that there
is violence in the human nature for a good reason: for the reason of
allowing us to guide our lives in practise - toward better! There are
times for being in peace and occasions where fighting is needed. This
is just realism, a part of carrying responsibility and so a part of
good moral!
Like the need to
survive, i.e. the need for healthy self-defence, is
the wish to pruduce healthy offspring an enermous driving force in the
world. So moral should not include a negative view on sexuality.
Instead moral should be open-minded and allowing toward free sexuality
in harmony with feelings and understanding. Otherwise one would be
supporting other things as moral by these great forces i.e. supporting
evil by their force and that does not make any sense! Let all good
things, at least moral, happiness, self-defence, sex and healthy
selfishness, ally for a better world! Let's call THAT moral - instead
of the old views on moral which have been affected by the needs of
making religious moments more dedicated, more effective (the most
religious moments are not your whole life even though religion can
affect your life a lot).
(Also: It was an
error to count technology and tools as evil: they are
such a great force in the world that they made evil win in our eyes,
even though it was just the era of tools coming and not the other forms
of evil winning. Technology and tools, all the artificialities, ought
to be counted as an outside factor with which to ally instead of as
good or evil in itself. Thus the end paradise here is the healthy
biosphere together with all the technology - not without either part!)
It is a fact that the existence
of technology makes it much
more difficult for us to life in natural healthy ways. But
there is no
intention toward that difficulty in the technology, the difficulty is
just a byproduct, and as
the technology gets developed further, it gets
better adabted to the needs of humans. At the beginning of
the era of
technology humans were forced to adabt to the needs of using the
technology, as if it too had been a part of the nature, in order to be
able to benefit from the technology. But with the new techinologised
ways of thinking, there came competition which made exploitation a
not-so-good tactic and equality + cooperation a better one. So as the
time passed, the needs of humans were learned to take into account too.
And as the technology develops, it becaomes increasingly much possible
to adabt it to the needs of the humans, so that the contradiction
between having technology and living healthily lessens. but of course
solving the problem demands lots of wisdom. Still, we do not need to
consider technology as evil - it is just dangerous, not intentionally
evil.
And since technology gives a
competition advantage, it can safeguard us
against the non-caring. The winning option has both
technology and the
needs of living beings taken into account! That is the best that we can
in practise, with the power dynamics of the world that we happen to
have, achieve from these starting points, so let's call it good! It
ought to be a some kind of paradise on Earth after all, so it ought to
be good enough! And if we end up in that final paradise and notice that
it still isn't good enough, that means that our feelings advice that we
would feel better in other kind of comditions, in a real nature
paradise, then maybe the technology has developed far enough to allow
also that option and since our feelings advice toward it, it can be
deduced that it best for the survival of the whole! So this direction
together with the technology ought to be good enough. Let's term it
good!
This
is just a generalisations of good in the old biological context:
1)happy
life, health, moral, best survival for both individuals and the whole,
for us and the generations to come.
Now
take that term "health" and say it in a way that applies also to
machines:
2)
fully functioning optimised and fitted together with the whole
-
that is what is good in technology: it works (functions optimisedly)
and it produces us things that we need (it safeguards the future
survival of the whole by taking care of the biological part).
Watch my video
about how to achieve a perfect moral very easily.
UNIVERSAL LOVE
The Japanese have a point of
view that I, a European, do not know almost at all but which fascinates
me. It is the point of view of universal love, love of the individual
toward the world at large and love of the world at large toward an
individual. That connects to my own view of the world which is a simple
mechanical model.
Feelings affect things. In that sense they are forces in life. Knowing
that those forces are products of the evolution or creations of God,
one can deduce about them. They have to affect the world toward a
better health. That�s also what they in my experience have always been
doing. So, the repelling feelings repel away factors which are harmful
to health, the moving feelings move the world toward a bigger health
and the binding feelings bind the world to the biggest health. So the
completely healthy world must be a world full of binding feelings: full
of love and happiness.
One can unite this idea with another simple idea and get a very
beautiful result. The other idea is that healthy biological wholes work
while broken wholes do not work at all. If one breaks a biological
whole, the level of the whole works no longer. But some of the parts
may have been left unbroken. So thoser parts may still work. To all
levels of biological functioning applies that healthy wholes work while
broken wholes do not function at all. The functioning of a partly
broken whole is a sum of the functioning of the healthy parts. Applying
this to all levels, from atoms to the biosphere, one gets the result
that all biological functioning is build upon healthy pieces of the
healthy natural biosphere.
These two thoughts together make us notice that all the functioning of
biological beings is build upon things toward we and other healthy
animals feel natural healthy love.
The existence of all the artificialities in the world does not change
the nature of living beings, so this result about the world being build
upon the things which we love stays valid. The change in living
conditions by the introduction of technology has been too arubt to
allow considerable adabtation by the evolution. God didn�t recreate
humans when Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of good and bad
knowledge. So, the world is still build upon the things which we love.
But loving things is a complicated thing. It is based on our
perceptions about the reality. If our minds are too confused about all
ther artificialities in the world, we cannot conceive right what is the
role of each thing in the world and so we do not feel love toward the
right objects but are instead sometimes mistaken: love the not-so-good
instead of the really good.
But one with a really healthy mind and spirit would observe correctly
what to love and what to resist as harmful. And to such an individual,
the world would really be based entirely on loved things. I hope with
this book to teach you some of that perspective. So that you too can be
one for whom the beautiful phraces are not empty words but the reality
of your daily life.
FEELINGS
You can download for free my book about the rationality of feelings at
stores.lulu.com/khtervola
FEELINGS ARE PRODUCTS OF THE NATURAL EVOLUTION
We are products of the natural evolution. Our needs help us to stay fit
and our feelings help us to answer our needs.
Our
functioning is largely based on social things. We are pack animals.
That's why we feel strongly about social things: they affect a lot our
chances in life.
We are also adabted to a certain kind of living environment: to the
nature. Just such environment makes us function best. That's why we
feel strongly about the nature and the weather.
We are also adabted to certain kind of ways of living and to a certain
kind of functioning of the human groups that we belong to. So we feel
strongly about questions which have to do with the ways of doing
things: do those cause us enjoyment or hurt us?
LOVE
When I say "love", I mean health and full
functioning with all the needs answered from the point of view of life.
Love is a charachteristic of a completely healthy system.
Answering needs makes the whole function well: that's why needs exist,
that's what is meant by needs.
PEACE
VERSUS PACIFISM
With the modern weapons it is easy to get much destruction with only a
small effort. So it is more important than ever to support peace - just
in the relation that the arms are stronger and more destructive. But
even though that may be a great difference to the times long past, that
is still different from pacifism
in the sense of supporting peace at
all costs.
Aggression
exists for a reason: in order to protect ther
best alternatives against evil and degeneration. So pacifism at any
cost is equal to supporting evil: it makes no sense. One should just
respect moral, and justice as a part of it. Peace and equality sound
beautiful in the ear of most, but justice is even better!
One should
weight the different things and see so which one is the best
alternative. For exampkle Margaret Tatcher by fighting a
tiny war
propably did so much good for the respect for women at large that the
benefits of that war counteract by far the losses - even in the eyes of
pacifists since women are typically more capable of supporting peaceful
alternatives.
A CULTURE BEAUTIFUL
LIKE A RELIGION:
THE TRADITIONAL FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND
Compassion
for all living beings, a life long all-encompassing devotion to their
good, a devotion that rises straight from one's own heart and is put to
practise with all of one's own understanding and all knowledge and
wisdom that one has managed to gain. Everything seen from this
perspective, all the time: first a feling: what life is like, what to
support and what to avoid; then devotion born from those feelings and
one's whole life accordingly � as far as one can oneself influence
things, in a culture of complete freedom of individuals � with only the
MASSES OF foreign influence from other cultures disturbing�
= THE FINNISH
SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND
A paradise
movement
I love Life,
happiness and things positive for happy life
- like most of the
others, like You too.
So I support from
my heart
the arrangements
in the world which support good life,
moral in this
sense of the word.
This is all that
is needed for a better world.
(Speaking out this
view is also a good way to win new friends.
It works well also
wordlessly, on gesture language.)
(If you base your
emotional life solely to the things which can bring
you happiness at this very moment, you will find a peace of mind. Do
not base it at all on the things that you want to oppose, like things
causing suffering or good valuable things lacking: do not unwisely
grasp those negative things with your feelings. Instead oppose the
negative things and support the positive things. That's it.)
And please believe
me when I say that this perspective is in fact
just one version of the traditional Finnish speaking culture of
Finland, even though propably most Finns would not recognize it since I
have chosen the terms and the perspectives differently from the usual.
In my opinion and in the opinion of many other Finns too Finland has
many really excellent solutions to offer to the world and so should
have the role of leading the world toward good that Sweden nowadays
has. Swedish culture is much less convinced about its own "finery" and
is needlessly malicious under the surface. Compared to that Finland has
lots of sincerely more worthy things to offer - without selling any
drawbacks as a part of the deal like Sweden does. (The Swedish demand
you to trust the Swedish culture instead of your own understanding,
Finland respects the understanding of each and offers just thoughts for
support, so you can "buy" just a part of the whole bunch of ideas.) It
is just that our traditional ways of expression are too modest and
self-critical to the extreme in our culture's endless search for true
objectivity and great trustworthiness in offering the best
alternatives. We always trust that you will see the value of our ways
yourself (that's how we treat everyone) because that's the way that you
can be surest about them and that's the most fair way to treat you -
but of course you won't see if you cannot even get to know our culture.
Good life for all fairly is our goal - realistically in the modern
world. That all in the world would be happy and free, deciding
themselves about their own lives is the common dream of us Finnish
speaking Finns. The following of the behavioral rule "Live and let
others live." that we all respect and which we also demand others to
respect quarantees that there is no room for evil deeds in this -
please think this through with examples: otherwise it may be difficult
to see.
There is a big
difference between the Finnsih speraking Finnish way in
which everyone lives in a way whcih arises stright from one's heart and
the culture is just a common expression of this, spread by
communication and sharing of thoughts, and the Swedish ways where a
predetermined outer form determines the allowed behaviour of each,
often supressing what people really are and causes so maliciousness and
so more supressing of valuable things. The Finnish ways really work: if
each one is demanded to follow them there is no fear of evil running
free. And the way to get the people to follow them, is to just tell to
them of the possibility of following them and of the benefits and other
good sides of them and to let them choose freely. It is a pity that
there is not more of this communication between cultures so that the
Finnish culture would spread. Often the looks of Finns are too rational
- that amount of rationality is explained by the excellent motivational
ground of Finns and by our unusually good ability in holistic thinking
which in my opinion can connect to our language and to our valuing of
nature. Would it help if people knew that sexuality here us free: each
one is allowed to choose just the partner that they want to. As people
behave responsible, there are no drawbacks in this. And since there is
no role play, there are much much fewer forced kind of sexual
encounters than in most other cultures, including the Swedish speaking
cultures of Finland and Sweden. So the atmosphere of sexuality is
really nice - for all! We here think that the Finnish culture could
solve the world's huge problems - just like that if it just would
spread like the culture of USA owadays does or even maybe like the
culture of Sweden does. And how much easier it would be: just leave
people the chance to do things in Finnish ways and tell them in a way
understandab�le to common sense and feelings why those ways are for
their own good and follow their own ideals.
Finland is a very
peaceful country where it is difficult to get
people to understand that if our country were conquered by others, they
would not necessarily immediately adobt our ways - because the
distances are too wide, because the ways of adpobting new things are
different, because the people in those other countries are not
necessarily as free (completely free), because our culture hasn't even
this far spread to all over the world like it in our opinion should
since it would be good for all and allow the keeping of all the old
good sides of all those other cultures. Our Finnish speaking Finnish
culture is a free cooperation of all the citizens for better life for
all equally in the best ways that we have come to think of. It is a
system correctable from all places. The only drawback that we have is
that we are not perfect as humans: the systems can reach only our
common level but we always keep the ideals as a direction to go to and
in our opinion that is the vest way to do things - that too is under
discussion if anyone wants to challenge it, like everytyhing is, by not
likely to change as long as we all agree about it staright from our
heart. The work motivation in fInland is very high: so much we agree
with the ways of our society and so the standard of living in Finalnd
is unusually high. The amount of corruption in Finalnd is the lowest in
the world and the crime rates low. One of the first thoughts in this
internet page, the paradise movement idea, is our common tune. Our
views are typically all human but of course to some extend coloured by
our own culture.
We Finns think
that it would be for the good of all if the Finnish
speaking Finnish culture had a dominating role in the world. The
problem maybe is not Sweden but the fear of honesty of many people from
the other cultures. The Finnish culture does respect honesty very much
but still most Finns lie outrageously, much like is the reputation of
Arabs - while Arabs maybe lie even more. So I guess that the honesty
demanded by the Finnish culture would not be too much for anyone. It
just helps to arrange things to everybody's benefit. I myself am
honest, really.
According to these
calculations it would pay well to invest a lot in
supporting the traditional Finnish speaking Finnish culture with its
moral.
It may be that the
too tense and cruel atmosphere of market economies
has to do with the too tense and cruel cultures of the countries
(Sweden and Japan have rigid social codes which give too little room
for the individuals) which serve as model economies. It would be better
to choose the traditional Finnish speaking main culture of Finalnd with
its values to be a model culture in how to live with a market economy.
The coises of the Finnish speaking main culture of Finland are on
rational grounds that fit together with the market economy - unlike the
tradition based rigid forms of the cultures of Sweden and Japan. If one
looks at the soul of the Finnish speaking culture of Finland, it is
very positive to happy life and extremely moral: one that cpould solve
the world's greatest problems at the same time as offering economical
prosperity, stability and true enjoyable freedom of individuals and
groups ina very peaceful way. This is the dream of the Finnsih speaking
Finnish culture because in its excellent caring moral it wishes the
best for all the world: all the good things that we here understand and
enjoy, while needing to give up none of your own good sides - replacing
them with even better would be good though...
One example of the
Finnish way to conceive things is that one places
weight on what one can get with money and not on money itself. That
makes sense objectivily looking and makes people much more motivated
while increasing their understanding of what matters in the world.
The Finnish
speaking main culture of Finland values personal estimates
of things, so the whole culture and society structure have been
approved by some five million unusually able objectively thinking
individuals on their own.
Sometimes it is
difficult for the outsiders to observe the Finnish ways
and values, since those are based on the personal estimates of each and
people from other cultures often have the idea that their own
understanding should be supressed by some rigid rule of conventional
ways and the understanding of those in power. Besides, the looks of
Finns may lie because the Swedish speaking Finns are mixed with the
main culture and have a different, to foreigners more familiar social
position centered and outer looks oriented way of doing things than the
actual Finns. (The Swedish speaking ones get their cultural features
from Sweden.) The Finnish speaking Finns like to build all things on
true ground - that's what one is motivated to if one is free to follow
one's own choises in life, and that ought to be, theoretically
estimatedly, the economically best alternative too.
Finland shouls not
grant Sweden the right to claim that it is like
Finland in what comes to its culture or to be anything else than what
it really is like. Otherwise things go ashtray. Each country should be
treated according to what its culture is like. In regard of Sweden one
should mention also the bad, evil sides of the Swedish culture and its
attitude toward other nations and cultures which differs greatly from
the very moral globally responsible and even loving Finnish culture. If
one is not honest about these things, one is misleading people very
badly - so very many are mislead to follow Sweden - and damaging, maybe
even badly, both one's own country and the other countries of the world
as well.
Sweden has long
been rich. Finland has started from a poor beginning
and ended up being one of the countries with a highest standard of
living in the world. So what kind charachteristics in a culture create
economical wealth? Sweden being rich, it has been typical to respect
Sweden for that without querstioning its cultura� charachteristics,
without counting the benefits and losses they create compared to for
example the Finnish speaking culture of Finalnd. For example the
typically Swedish sin of maliciousness prevents full cooperation which
is a way to gain wealth. And where malicousness prevents full justice,
things do not get treated according to what they are like and so one
does not become as rich as one otherwise could become. This contrasts
to the Finnish rule "Honour those who truly deserve respect." And the
freedom and the good will born from the Finnish rule "Live and let
others live!" are a good ground for cooperation. In my opinion one
should examine cultural charachte5rstics objectiverly and copy only
those which it is good to copy and not harmful. economically or
otherwise. The Finnish culture is on strong rational grounds while the
Swedish culture is more arvitrary.
The traditional RATIONAL MORAL of Finland: OVERCOMING THE OPPOSITE VIEWS
A CONTRASTING FAULTY
VIEW ON EVOLUTION
Many people
think that if one by any means manages to win, for example to kill the
other one, that is somehow good in the eyes of the evolution.
This view
would lead to evil ruling if it
were correct, but it isn't: Compare two
different areas where in one the competition is like above, by any
means, and another one where the competition is of the kind that lets
the best one win in each thing. Now in the first area the population
would develop toward mean and cunning, while its general health and
performance in any other tasks would suffer. On the other area the
population would stay completely healthy and develop in strenght. If
these two areas were in competition later on, the healthy ones would be
stronger and win. So it is only healthy competition which is right in
evolutions eyes. Short-sighetd
solutions do not let your genes survive.
And if the group were very large like the whole world's population, and
the evil ones in power in that, they still would degenerate and some
unobserved healthy group inside the population would win in the end. So
if you think that you are in competition with others, too harsh
competition isn't good for your future survival, neither is competition
by any means available ok for your future fate. Competition
that
ensures your own health asnd the health of your own group is the best
for you. That means also supporting healthy competition in the scale of
the whole world, since if you are under the power of others, their ways
influence your own life and survival: their ways should be kept as
beneficial to your own health as possible - that isn't the
smae as
being better than your neighbour, that isn't enough if there is some
faraway danger that you ahve to fight too: you have
to reach your full
potential, to benefit from every chance of improvement that is
available. Only then have you made your survival as sure as possible
for you.
The society agreement is the way
that ordinary people ally for their
present and future wellfare. That's why good moral is important
- see
my calculations earlier on this page.
OUR
FEELINGS GUIDE US
TOWARD THE BEST ALTERNATIVE
IN THE
TOUGH WORLD
The
evolution found the
strongest and safest, the best arrangement in every way in the tough
competition. Term that "the completely healthy world".
Suppose that
feelings were created after that or at the same time or adabted to the
thus found best choise: the task of feelings is to guide us
toward that
best choise, toward the health of the world. So
what feelings guide us
toward, needs to be the best choise in the tough world, the choise that
will win in practise - not only because our feelings wish
so but
because of its "every" feature! On the other hand, what
will win in the
tough world, is the healthy world and that is a global paradise in our
eyes!
MY TWO BOOKS (AND
MY OTHER PAGES) BACK UP
THE THOUGHTS AT THIS PAGE
Please, if you still doubt the validity of these thoughts, read my two books which are available in the internet for free: one about the beneficiality of excellent moral from the pure power-benefit point of view, and another one about the rationality of feelings and instincts in the light of the theory of evolution - in the tough modern world. See the link at the bottom of the page to my homepage for finding the books. The official version at stores.lulu.com/khtervola includes pictures and is in the pdf-format. The other versions are just ordinary text only internet pages here at www.paradisewins.net but should be easier to reach. Personally I think that the pictures and diagrams are handy though.
My first self-published book: Power Politics Leads To Excellent Moral
which is of the hard rationality of moral, and
My second self-published book: Work Efficiency And Likings
which is of the hard rationality of feelings, which is somewhat lighter to read (a more pleasant subject).
Please, if you find these
thoughts interesting, advertise my
pages and my two self-published books or the ideas in them, so that
others too will get to know them.
Please
note that you should not doubt things which are too
complicated for your own understanding. Follow the truths that you can
understand and don't waste time destroying already existing answers
which bring the world toward good. But if you can think things through
by yourself, please check these thoughts yourself too!
You might be
interested in what kind of thinking I have used.
The idea is the following but I am not sure whether you can follow it
through - see my book Work Efficiency and Likings at
stores.lulu.com/khtervola or at www.paradisewins.net/WEL.html for the
rationality of feelings. So I start with an atmosphere: an atmosphere
of a landscape of things. Then I use my sense of sight to get objective
proportions to the atmosphere & to the landscape, and use my
feelings, the feelings in the atmosphere to obtain an understanding of
the meaningfulness of those phenomena to life and a philosophical kind
of view to their role in the world. This is an objective holistic view
of the situation. The phenomena get their areas of apperarance from the
sensed reality and then I just classify them according to the
scientifical picture of the world which together with objectivity at
large give the phenomena their proportions, areas that they affect and
their relationships, in the world at large forming so a mechanical kind
of holistic view of the phenomena and of the whole world. It is
essential here to use a holistic view of the world!
A
SIDE STEP: OPTIMISING THE TECHNOLOGY
So an optimised
system consisting of both natural and artificial parts
is optimised as healthy. This is a generalisation of the term "health"
to such systems: fully functioning and optimised in many ways goes my
definition of health of such systems. For such a system to be
optimised, the parts of it have to be adabvted to each other and
optimised, healthy and fully functioning, themselves. So how to
optimise the artificial parts? For that you need engineering type of
thinking: objective thinking with sizes and connections of things
right. That is an ongoing process: the development of technology. What
it requires of humans is good thinking ability and that in turn is
based on healthy natural ways of living. So the development of
technology and the changing of ways of living to more paradise like is
possible simultaneously! The change in the ways of living supports the
development of technology.
Increase
your intelligence to hundredfold in handling complex structures like
the whole world - easily and pleasantly!
THE RATIONALITY OF FEELINGS
Feelings help us
to answer needs, and answering needs keeps us healthy.
If
something is fully according to emotions, it is well suited for life.
But if there is something lacking, it causes negative emotions, so that
we would know to fix taht shortcoming away.
If you do not see
your emotions this way rational, you are propably
making some thought errors, for example that of not using a holistic
view of the world and remembering that the health of the society and
the health of the world at large are good for yourself too. Or then you
lie to yourself because of social position, imagination or a lack of
trust in feelings, etc. Or then you think in words, which offer a very
narrow fragmented view of the world instead of the single holistic view
that is the most efficient way to think and natural to humans.
THINKING
OBJECTIVELY BY STARTING FROM FEELINGS
So if
you have a holistic view of the world, you can start from any feeling
and see what phenomenom in the world it concerns and what are the
structural parts of the world whose health it tries to safeguard.
A PROBLEM
Here
are answers to many of the major questions that interest
people - as objectively as is ever possible for one single capable
person. Why bothers no-one to take it seriously? I am very intelligent,
yes, that is why my thoughts go quite quickly and need translating to
the pace of an average (academical?) individual or community. Still,
that ought not lessen the value of my answers here. The only problem is
that my thoughts are quite theoretical and the practical solutions
involving social complications thought only part of the way, according
to my own social abilities and general knowledge of the world (which is
far from good enough). Still, my thoughts are true, they offer new
answers and insight into the widely varied phenomena that I handle. As
such they are extremely valuable and ought to be taken into account
just like one listens to the thoughts of many established academical
thinkers (philosophers). I am academically educated too: I have those
good sides in my thinking. Where my thoughts and style differ from the
academical, I have tried to rise above the ordinary academical level of
expertice, uniting all the viewpoints that I have heard of to one
single holistic view, using all the time all the criterions for
objectivity, essentiality and skill that I have heard of. So my
thoughts differ from the ordinary, yes, but for a good reason. I am not
neglecting the ordinary academical level of handling things. I am just
too familiar with it, so I pass through it in a fraction of a second
and continue handling more difficult things, things of greater
importance in the world!
One
ought to choose important things so that they lead the
world toward good. That is the principle according to which they ought
to be chosen. That could mean that this perspective of mine should -
soon? - get a leading role in how to arrange things in the largest
scale and in making tough decisions - completely morally and in harmony
with happy life & feelings.
I
am somewhat horrified by this, since it is so hard to achieve and a
really big role to get. But of course one does not do this kind of big
things alone - everything is done by many many highly capable
individuals.
Still, I do not know whether I am up to the task: for example, what
would be the first step for me to take? Is there anything that I need
to do in addition to what I have already done?!??!!
The difference is that where ordinary thgoughts use some
partial
perspective, say that of an individual soldier of a certain war, I use
a holistic perspective of the whole wolrd and of the human nature.
So where ordinary things start from the level of daily life and arrive
at the complexity of the nearest environment, my thoughts start with
easy sure divisions in the whole world, like natural or artificial,
healthy or broken, the best possible or clearly something less, and an
easy model of what the whole world is like (all biological beings are
by their nature parts of the biosphere + the nature of all biological
beings is a product of the evolution), arriving so at truths whose
areas of validity are very large indeed and which can be proven true
both by theoretical means and by comparing to one's life in practise.
The difference
between ordinary non-objective selfishness and my view
on true selfishness is that the ordinary "selfish" person thinks of
himself/herself as separate of the rest of the world and thinks that
his/her own good is equal to something which depends only on
himself/herself, without the state of the world affecting it at all. My
view is that selfishness means reaching for the best possible fate for
yourself WHILE taking into account also the rest of the world and how
it affects your own good. So where the ordinary "selfish" person
manoveurs in the world without regard for how those maneuvers affect
the world and via that his/her own good, my view on selfishness means
paying mostly attention to the world at large, reaching for the best
possible fate for oneself via affecting just the rests of the world and
one's relationship to it. The rest of the world is such an enermous
factor in our lives, that one ought not neglect it!
Why do I insist on using a holistic view when many others bother to use
only a partial view of things? The one using a partial view is like one
travelling with a tiny lantern in darkness in an unfamaliar district
where he can never know what is behind the next corner. On the other
hand, the one using a holistic view is like one watching the whole
landscape from a hilltop from where she can know most of the main
features of where she is going. So a holistic view is much better and
it is also easy, like you can see if you visit my page /thinking.html.
The whole is huge. It affects your life enermously: it is your whole
living environment with social relationships as a part of it. So what
the whole is like matters enermously to you. Each time that you think
of some phenomenom, think what such phenomena mean to the whole: see
them as building blocks of and as structures of the whole. Like: with
this kind of building block with this variation from place to place,
from time to time, you get a whole that is structured this way. From
that you know at least these things of the whole. Like: naturality
-> natural living conditions -> health and happiness;
artificialities -> not suited to base one's whole life upon them.
ATTENTION: I am
not doing any thinking work to produce these thoughts,
I am just communicating, going through my old picture of the world in
simple ways. So if you have something to ask, please write to me and
ask it straight ahead, even if you yourslef are not / are an expert in
the subject who isn't / is supposed to know these things that interest
you!
Maybe I should add
a word or two about the thinking type to use in these thoughts of mine:
Use a holistic
picture of the world like at my page /thinking.html Use
school like /scientifical holistic picture of the world connected to
your ordinary experienced picture of the world. So that when I refer to
something, you look at it in your picture of the whole, seeing it, its
role, its relationship to other things etc. For example "Human values
-> health -> working ability" translates to: " When we
care for
people, answering their needs (= following human values), they stay
healthy. Healthy people work well: they are fit - and also motivated if
we allow them room to live freely according to their nature like human
values allow for them and for others."
Why does a
holistic view create simplicity to important
matters while a partial view leads to an enermous complexity and
confusion? This is the same point as in navigation: if you first look
at the landscape, then observe where your path goes in thgat landscape
and what it is like to travel, you already know just about everything
that you need to know. But if you first look at your feet and then
every now and then glance at the nearest environment, you do a lot more
work but gather much less knowledge of where you are and where are you
going. Consequently you get lost much more easily. A single good
holistic view can do the same work for you as tens or hundreds of
glances around yourself, so a holistic view is much easier to use and
to form than a bunch of partial views.
ONE ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE:
FOLLOWING NAMES IN A NATURAL WAY
Name oriented action
All names should be interpreted in the most natural way, taking into
account fully what each name naturally means to humans to human life.
Positive things are something to achieve for, negative things are
something to avoid. Tool like things one uses naturally as helping aids
in reaching for those natural goals of achieving and avoiding. So each
name should be interpreted as commanding to reach for all positive
things and to avoid all negative things. This is a generalisation of
what the name especially specifically mentions of the human nature.
This way each name finds it place in the whole which is structured
according to the same principles as the healthy natural biosphere, Gaia
or Eden, i.e. according to perfect non-religious moral. Religious
things can be seen as referring to the nature of humans as either
products of the evolution or as creations of God.
SUMMARY
Divide the world to two components: how
humans and other living beings will be treated, and what are the NEEDS
of using the existing technology. Technology develops as time passes,
so there is no fixed answer to what the combination of these two
components will be. So there will be TWO DIRECTIONS to aim at: the
global paradise of a healthy natural world, and the demands of the
efficient use of technology. In what comes to the working ability of
humans, these two directions are the same. But in what comes to the
need for roads, factories, computer networks etc., these two differ.
Some tens of years ago computers were of the size of houses, now
portable versions are common. So maybe the demands of technology get
somewhat smaller as the time passes: technology is adabtable, humans
are not. Still, the end result propably isn't as ideal for humans as
the world wide paradise without any technology. It will be something in
between: propably the buildings and technology get adabted to the
natural needs of humans, since as the time passes, many more options
are possible than at the beginning of the era of technology.
I do not think of this paradise as a fixed kind of end result. Instead
I think of it as a direction to develop into, starting from our present
day situation. Both the adabtation of machines via their development to
the requirements of humans and the development of technology to smaller
and more efficient lead to smaller requirements for the use of
technology. But how small will they become as the time passes, that I
do not know!
But at first I think that the ways of living can be changed toward more
healthy and natural just by changing our view on what is a good way to
arrange things because that too determines a lot.
SOURCES
Referencies and
sources: none. These are
thoughts that I have thought on my own, mainly as a child when I had
read nothing except the compulsory school books and dozens of
children's story books. But of course I had academical parents which
bought me a scientifical picture of the world, which like the teaching
in the school included the basics of the theory of the evolution. And
then there is the Finnish speaking Finnish culture which includes a
rational moral which is always presupposed. My own thinking is
characterised by its thorough quest for objectivity in everything, but
not with any great insight into anything. I kind of apply all that I
know to the extreme: all the time to everthing, thinking all things as
far as I can with my thinking ability and as sure as I can,
startingfrom an ordinary school like or academical picture of the world
with a knowledge of the scientifical method: make experiments or
observations, deduct from them and test the thus formed hypothesies by
further independent observations. This results in very wide areas of
application for some trustworthy basic truths, continual holistic point
of view to everything and the questioning of the meaningfulness of each
thing done. Last but not least: I am a woman, so I get well along with
feelings without being confused about them.
THE POLITICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THESE THOUGHTS
These
thoughts should of course be classified according to what they suggest
that one should support, i.e. according to their end results which are
LEFTIST (SOCIALISTS and DEMOCRATS, not communist) or GREEN
(ENVIRONMENTALIST). And not by their starting points which seem to be
at least partly from the extreme right wing.
For the very
religious these could be religious thoughts, emphasising the role of
God's creation work and of good universal moral and healthy ways of
living.
If you have any questions or comments about any of my thoughts,
please write to me!
My e-mail address is at the bottom of the page, under the links. Please understand that I am extremely good at explaining my point of view from different kinds of starting points and at answering all kinds of questions - IF you just bother to send me an e-mail asking me the things that you do not understand or would like to know more about. No-one has yet bothered to do so. I have to know the question before I can answer. But I can speak a different kind of language to different kinds of people and use several different points of view, all ending nicely. So, if you have any questions, please do write to me: ihmejuttu@suomi24.fi
or by post: Hannele Tervola, Lähderanta 11 B
25, 02720 Espoo, Finland, European Union.
No question is so big as to not to be worth thinking over by yourself.
On the contrary: just the biggest questions should be thought over by
all, all by themselves, so as to find lots of new answers.
What is this style that I write about like in looks, in my
estimate: Serach from the internet the song Jambalaya sung by Brenda
Lee (the sound of it, not her looks) and the video (in YouTube.com?) of
Jhonny Cash singing a Ring of Fire - something of the kind, I suppose:
both strong and feeling, and at the same time perfectly moral. Well,
but I do not know for sure...
Well, I tried singing the style myself since after all it is my theory
and my way fo living but the end result aren't so beautiful - just shut
your ears?! But here it is:
Communicating this perspective to others is easy via gesture language:
I love life, happiness and things positive for happy life - like most
of the others, like You too.
That means that I support from my heart the arrangements in the society
& in the whole world which support good life, moral in this
sense
that is.
This is all that is needed for a better world.
A better attempt of mine about communicating by my singing style how
all people are by their nature moral is here:
Vladimir Vysotski's song about galloping horses tells abot the
necessity of following feelings:
Indian chief Seattle (according to whom the town of Seattle was named):
"All things are bound together, all things connect. Man has not woven
the web of life, he is just one thread of it. Whatever he does to the
web, he does to himself!"
My
MAIN THEORY supporting the claim of a paradise being the winning option
My
homepage and
LINKS to my pages and to my
two books
Life
is all that matters
An
e-mail answer from the White House
More
life to school children??
Sexuality
and learning - just an objective text, You can read it! It applies also
to friendship.
Work
completely according to your feelings
Living
morally is easy and makes one happier than anything
Everything
is based on good
Rationality
of feelings (also for those who do not trust feelings to begin with)
All
good things fit together well
About
masterful skill, my explanations of Tao-Te-Ching
The
artificialities do not change things at all
You can watch my
very intelligent pets and many
thoughts of mine on video at www.youtube.com/khtervola
IF
YOU DOUBT THESE THOUGHTS - READ THIS: going through these thoughts in a
critical way
Some
more links
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 reached
the most beautiful
things that I know of,
made them real possibilities
and this 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 win. I have succeeded in this. I can even prove it for computers governing instead of living beings and for the case that no material world exists and we are just spirits or some kind of intelligent constructions run inside a huge computer brain (The beneficality of the optimised solution to the whole does not demand that you would have been planned and especially fitted to that kind of whole by the evolution or by intelligent planning.).
I do not know what more I could do,
the rest isAt least spread the view that these objective grounds for a global final paradise exist
here at www.ParadiseWillWin.info !
(Inform
others also that my two books contain more
grounds for supporting good in the tough world.)
A PARADISE
MOVEMENT
I
LOVE LIFE, HAPPINESS AND THINGS POSITIVE FOR HAPPY LIFE
-
LIKE MOST OF THE OTHERS, LIKE YOU TOO.
THAT
MEANS THAT I SUPPORT FROM MY HEART
THE
ARRANGEMENTS IN THE WORLD WHICH SUPPORT GOOD LIFE,
MORAL
IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD.
THIS
IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR A BETTER WORLD!
Speaking
out this view is also a good way to win new friends.
It
works well also wordlessly, on gesture language.