Peace on Terror: Master-Plan Earth.

December 8, 2015

Peace on Terror: Master-Plan Earth.

The current war on terror will not end peacefully ever; only efficient non-violent means will bring satisfactory results.

We all have ideas about how our world should be like, what it should look like for us to be happy. But, because such our ideas are usually different from each other, and because of that we all pursue different goals, we never end up with what we truly want, because we try to reconcile our ideas in real life, usually without much success, creating–in real life–real damage.

We have the means whereby we can start designing and a world in which today’s enemies would live in true peace with each other. What needs to be done is to reconcile our ideas before we start doing so (as we normally do) in real life, causing real damages. It would not be necessary to have individuals to present their ideas and those ideas to be judged not by the quality of the ideas about what our peaceful coexistence should be, but, rather, by who the contributers of those ideas are; all that would be needed is to present the ideas themselves, and evaluate those ideas on their own viability.

To reconcile our ideas before we start doing so in real life (causing real damages), in order to come up with a vision of an ideal world that would be agreeable to everyone (not just the majority) , we can use any and all means available– round-table talks, models (ala SL and any such similar), etc.

Once we know what it would be like for all of us to live in peace, we could start finding ways of achieving a world that we all would like to live in, we would start implementing those ways, and, eventually, we would stop fighting against what we do not want to have in our lives, and focus on what we would like to have in our world.

“You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” (R. Buckminster Fuller – http://bfi.org/about-bfi/updates/2014/03/countdown-begins/ )

“One can–and eventually must–decide that a fate is an inadequate substitute for a future.” (Umair Haque – https://twitter.com/umairh/status/168374310837305344 )

Related:

This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice: http://www.modelearth.org/paradise.html

Grass Roots Government–by All for All: http://www.modelearth.org/grassgov.html

If we, the people, were really sincere about having real Peace in the world, we would pursue creating Peace by effective peaceful means more actively, rather than relying on our military might!

Happiness is a shadow of harmony; it follows harmony. There is no other way to be happy. – Osho http://tinyurl.com/npdk897

This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice.

August 22, 2015

In this Paradise, that we call the planet Earth, all life exists in a state of dynamic harmony that is being consciously created and maintained continuously.

Whenever there are any differences, controversies, conflicts, and any complaints among any beings in this world, those are resolved, without any residue, by using what-so-ever expedient, skillful, appropriate, wholesome, and above all effective means. More-over, better yet–all those differences, controversies, conflicts, and any complaints are resolved preventively, before those ever have a chance to arise!

The process of creating and maintaining harmony starts with formulating the ideal–what should the ideal Earth, where all life lives in harmony with itself and its home, actually look like? What should the ideal home of every being be like? … The input for this process is being perpetually gathered (by what-so-ever direct and indirect appropriate means) from all who share the Earth, vetted against all there is known about the Earth and the inter-relations of all life on Earth, and the ideal is being constantly ameliorated by direct feedback from all.

Without there being a discernible, by all inhabitants of the Earth commonly shared vision of what the ideal state of the Earth ought to be, it would be impossible to have a Paradise on Earth! A decline in all beings’ overall well-being should, rather, be expected, because of disunity of the many views on what the ideal conditions for Life on Earth should be like.

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .

Why Prayers, Meditations, Wishes, and Any Such Don’t Help to Establish a Lasting Peace in the World.

February 28, 2014

It is a safe assumption that ever since humans started experiencing the horrors of warfare, they also started to wish to live in peace that would not end with a war again.

Humans in great numbers have been wishing, praying, meditating for peace since time immemorial, but, so far, with no lasting results. Why should this be so?

The answer might be that the very reason that wars always come back is precisely because we do want to live in peace!–we don’t experience a lasting peace, because our ideas of what peace should be differ from each other so greatly, that we go to war to settle our differences again and over again.

A lasting world peace is possible, of course–it is within human capabilities to effect this–but since our ideas of what such a peace should look like are so diverse, we have to learn how to resolve our differences peacefully, instead of ultimately choosing war every time we feel the desire for peace.

This is what I feel should be done:
All of us who pray, meditate, wish, and etc., for a lasting peace in the world have to get together one way or another, and come up with one unified design of a world we would like to live in. A design in which it would be possible to see how we all are to live together in one world in as small detail as possible. Differences that normally would get resolved in real life with often damaging results would be resolved harmlessly in a model during the process of hammering out of a design in which all of us would find an optimal place in.
More on how this could be done is presented at ModelEarthhttp://www.ModelEarth.Org .

The idea on how to create a lasting Peace in the world is also presented in a different form at: Designing a Lasting Peacehttp://www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html .

Thank you, Hearthstone.

“Four Horsemen”–a “survival guide”/”manual”?

February 27, 2014

( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fbvquHSPJU )

The “Four Horsemen” is similar to a plenty of other “against” notions, movements, etc., in that it defines problems plaguing us, but it offers no *clear* vision of what to strive for. One can imagine many people to want to do something about our plight after seeing the movie, but, since every one of them might have a different idea of what to strive for (if they, indeed, have any such ideas at all), in the end we never achieve much more than all our efforts past achieved–a situation that is full of things to be against again.
What is needed is a movement that would be “for” a realization of a world that would be the optimal home to all Life it contains. Without being united by sharing a vision of what the optimal conditions for all life on Earth ought to be, we, nor any of our descendents will ever see this Earth a Paradise.

Thank you, Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .

Ecologically and Socially Sustainable Education: Creating a Sustainable World.

February 27, 2014

Ecologically and Socially Sustainable Education: Creating a Sustainable World.
(online as .pdf, .odt, .doc, .rtf)
Published at http://ssrn.com/author=1845981
Author:
Mr. Jan Hearthstone

Abstract.
The purpose of ecologically and socially sustainable education is to teach the skills and to impart knowledge necessary for the establishment and perpetuation of ecologically and socially sustainable society. The first step is to determine what an “ecologically and socially sustainable society” is. This is achieved by reconciling and unifying of all individual ideas that there ever might exist of what should constitute an “ecologically and socially sustainable society” into a unified model–a model acceptable to all because it is based on all knowledge of Earth and societal processes pertinent to the subject, and because everyone can participate in the modeling process. This unification in a model is necessary in order to avoid costly resolving (“costly” in terms of time, energy, resources, and, not infrequently, lives) of differences among those ideas in real life. This ongoing process of “reconciling and unifying of all individual ideas” into a unified model in itself would be the “ecologically and socially sustainable education” to the participants, because this unification process of all the diverse ideas would show what ideas would be more sustainable than others (or not), and why this should be so; in order to design a world that they would like to live in the participants would learn everything necessary for this while participating in the designing process. They would have an active interest in doing so–they would be designing a life for themselves that they would like to have. This, in itself, would constitute the best possible form of a government.

Keywords.
“ecologically and socially sustainable education”, “ecological and social sustainability”, sustainable, sustainability, education, “The Path of Least Resistance”, “Robert Fritz”, “Mahayana philosophy”, Mahayana, philosophy

Introduction.
It could be argued that for humans to live sustainably is the optimal way to exist, a way that would generate the least amount of suffering for humans and many other beings who share this world with them. The principal idea expressed in this paper–the purposeful and conscious designing of our collective sustainable future collaboratively, with the participation of all who have an interest in achieving a satisfactory future–is based on the philosophy of Mahayana (please see bellow and/or http://www.academia.edu/206337 /Mahayana_Philosophy_for_Sustainability ) and the practical approach to creating of desired results as it is formulated in The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz (Fritz 1984).

At present there are many people who know what they do not want in their lives, but a very few who have formed a definite image of what their ideal life should be. There are much fewer people who would like have their future to be sustainable, and there exist a myriad definitions of “sustainability”, many of which are not even compatible with each other. A lot of time, resources, and energy are being wasted on trying to reconcile the differences among those definitions in real time and space. All this waste could be avoided by reconciling these differences in a model, i. e. by deciding the viability of any idea by modeling in virtuality “concrete” applications of any ideas in consideration pertaining to our future.

Even people who do not “believe” in sustainability could use the modeling process to see how their ideas of what an ideal world should be like in a model. I contend that by using the modeling process continually, even using input of people who do not “believe” in sustainability, eventually the result would have to, inevitably, be a portrayal of a sustainable world, because no other way other than sustainable could ever be as justifiable, nor any other results could ever be as elegant and parsimonious as sustainable ones.

The modeling of the ideal, would never be in any way influenced by any ideologies, creeds, or personalities of the in-putters. Only the realization that we all have to share the Earth together with as little conflict as possible would matter. Only the relevance of ideas to creating of the ideal would matter.

The modeling of an ideal future could be used even in small scale situations in conflict resolutions and also in deciding the future of smaller social units.

What is “ecologically and socially sustainable education”?
Ecologically and socially sustainable education helps to establish and maintain an ecologically and socially sustainable society. It is a part of designing of an ecologically and socially sustainable world. Participants learn what they have to learn about what “ecological and social sustainability” is, while designing their own ideal lives themselves as they go–learning what they need to learn.

What is an “ecological and social sustainability”?
There are many definitions of what constitutes “sustainability”, let alone “ecological and social sustainability”. Some are less abstruse than others, but there is not a single one definition of “sustainability” that would satisfy everybody.

Therefore, in order to be able to define “ecological and social sustainability”, the best definition of the term would be actually showing in a model what an ideal sustainable state of any geopolitical entity ought to be by collectively inputting individual definitions into models and reconciling the differences among them by representing “concrete” portrayals of the optimal sustainable states of those entities.
(All the above is further elaborated upon bellow).

The need for a model that would show what an “ecologically and socially sustainable” world should look like.
The unification of all ideas about what our collective future should be like in a model is necessary in order to avoid costly resolving (costly in terms of time, energy, resources, and–not infrequently–lives) of differences among those ideas in real life.

It is necessary to have a good definition of “sustainable” for working purposes. Only by modeling of this definition we can get definitions of “sustainable” that actually would be “visible”–made “visible”–by “concrete” applications of what might be considered “sustainable” in a model.

To reconcile all the various definitions of “ecological and social sustainability” (and to unify all ideas about what our collective future should be like generally) I propose that all of these are used to construct a model that would portray what an “ecologically and socially sustainable” (henceforth “sustainable” in this paper, for brevity sake) society, or any social entity of any size–from a local community to the whole Earth encompassing humanity. In such a model it would be possible to “see” what the each definition of “ecological and social sustainability” (“sustainability” from now on, but let us not forget that “sustainability” should be a holistic concept, that demands all of its components to be thoroughly “sustainable” themselves) would look like when translated from the abstract to a “visible” representation of “sustainability”, if in virtuality only. In this way each of the definitions’ viability could be “seen” and evaluated against all other definitions and against all knowledge that is important in deciding what is “sustainable” and what is not so (e. g.–availability and distribution of resources, form of the society, and such).

It is important to stress that this modeling should not be about “problem solving”! According to Robert Fritz in The Path of Least Resistance (Fritz 1984) the process of creating the results that we want to have in our lives cannot depend on “problem solving”, because we never, really, run out of problems ever, and even, very unlikely, when we solve all of our problems, we still might not be even close to having what we really want to have, especially, if we don’t know what that might be. The modeling has to focus on the results that we do want to have in our common reality.

The resultant emerging portrayal of an ideal state of things would not depend on the personalities of people inputting the model–only ideas would compete with each other. The process would not be hampered by the prestige, or the lack thereof, of people inputting the modeling process. Nor could anyone personally profit from taking a part in the process. The “profit” would lie in making it possible for all to design and to strive for the optimal home ever for all involved possibly obtainable with no one excluded from the process of doing so.

In essence the shaping of human society on any level, from a local community government to global concerns, driven by the desire to approach the ideal, would supersede, eventually, any form of government in existence currently, because once a justified, unified objective would be identified, the actions to achieve it would always be defensible, and because no one ever would be excluded from the political action.

There is a qualitative difference between the way the society would be governed by using the modeling process and the way politics is being conducted currently. Today our future is being shaped by a very small portion of humanity, excluding a huge proportion of people who cannot influence their future significantly. Much discontent thus generated will create problems in the future, problems that will be resolved to the satisfaction of only a few again–the number of problems will be increasing till they will be “solved”, for a while, by some major societal catastrophe.

In contrast, no one ever could be excluded from modeling the ideal state of the world–all who would care to live in a better world would always be able to improve on the ideal. No one’s effort in modeling of the ideal and in contributing to achieving of the ideal would be wasted–actions small and actions big will all flow coherently into the realization of the ideal–both in the model and in reality. Differences that there are among people and cause so much unhappiness in real life could be dealt with, could be resolved in the model preemptively.

Sustainable education springs from the need of bridging the current reality with the desired state of affairs.

With a visible, collaboratively being created, and generally upon agreed model of what our ideal common reality should actually be, it would always be possible to see what the discrepancy between what is desired and what actually exists currently, in relation to the ideal, is. This discrepancy between the desired goal and what there is in reality (in respects to the desired goal) alone would be the driving force of sustainable education (I am alluding to Fritz’s description in The Path of Least Resistance –Fritz 1984–of how “structural tension” between the desired objective and its “current reality” drives the creation of desired results).

Sustainable education would always makes sense, because at each point the whichever particular knowledge that is being acquired is clearly “seen” (by comparing the modeled desired reality with the current reality) as being necessary to know in order to achieve that which is desired.
The start of the modeling process itself would be the start of sustainable education.

Conclusion.
Most problems that humanity experiences are human made, and this fact implies a hope–it might well be within human powers to effect the healing of our world.

The “old” way of doing things will never do; obviously the “old” way got us to where we are now. We cannot look back trying to find solutions to our present problems, because any “solutions” from the past helped to get us exactly to where we are now. Any solutions based on humanity’s experience from the past that have been tried have been proven ineffective, so far; ineffective in trying to deal with issues that really matter–fulfilling the basic life on Earth needs satisfactorily–QED.

We have to look, as if, into the future for solutions, more precisely–we have to design our future to our collective satisfaction, and then we can work to make this designed future our reality. It is very important to know what it actually is that we desire to have.

Alone the existence of a constantly updated, evolving model of an ideal state of the Earth would greatly improve even our current political process by “seeing” to what degree each political decision would, or would not, help to achieve the ideal state.

References.

Mahayana:
Mahayana and Ecological and Social Sustainability.
(The following reflects author’s own personal understanding of the terms “Mahayana” and “Bodhisattva”).

Mahayana is a view that acknowledges the interconnectedness of all phenomena across all time and space (no phenomenon is an isolated “island”), and that any one being’s well-being depends on the well-being of every other being across all time and all space.

A Bodhisattva is one who strives to realize the ideal of Mahayana, and therefore regards the well-being of all other beings as important as one’s own.

To live ecologically and socially sustainably means to acknowledge the need of all other beings to live well also.

The need for living ecologically and socially sustainably is implicit in Mahayana.

An aspiring Bodhisattva would help all beings to be mentally and physically optimally well, and therefore an aspiring Bodhisattva would promote the way of living ecologically and socially sustainably in all places and in all times.

A traditional Mahayana dedication–affirming, focusing on what the actual ultimate goal of life should be:
“May all beings benefit optimally everywhere and always”. (A philosophy quite suitable for achieving an ecologically and socially sustainable world.)

Mahayana’s noble goal is to cause all beings to become ultimately happy, with no beings left behind in suffering. Thus Mahayana philosophy might be best suitable as an ideology for creating and maintaining of ecologically and socially sustainable society, because Mahayana’s concern is the ultimate happiness of all beings, transcending all differences–be those differences in species, ideologies, creeds, classes, and any such differences–that divide all beings. All beings’ welfare is important in Mahayana’s view, as it is in true sustainability, where all members of a system are important.

To live ecologically and socially sustainably does not imply a complete abolition of all beings’ suffering which is the goal of Mahayana–that would be impossible to achieve with our mere “earthly” means–, but to live sustainably would prevent most of unnecessary suffering from happening, at least.

Fritz, Robert
        The Path of Least Resistance, Salem, MA, DMA, Inc., 1984, ISBN: 0-930641-00-0

The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz (Fritz 1984) teaches how to create results that one desires in one’s life; it is based on the common sense observation that it is impossible to achieve something that one doesn’t know what it actually is. In order to achieve a result one first has to know what it is that one wants to achieve in as small a detail as possible, or, at least, to know what one wants to achieve so well that when one would encounter this goal realized, one would recognize it without a fail. This is very important in achieving sustainability–as it is today, we are professing that sustainability is what we want to achieve, with a little or no consensus among ourselves as to what this “sustainability” should actually be! It is my conviction that it will be impossible for us to ever become sustainable, unless we agree on what “sustainable”/”sustainability” is.

The process is described in The Path of Least Resistance as “creating”, because it concerns bringing into reality results that might not have existed ever before, bringing into being results as if out of nothing (the foregoing is loosely paraphrased from the book– The Path of Least Resistance by Robert Fritz–Fritz 1984).

Petri Dish Called Earth.

February 25, 2014

Petri Dish Called Earth.

It happens, now and then, that when microscopic organisms grow in a petri dish that a species starts suddenly taking over all the available “lebensraum”, crowding all the other cultures out, and suddenly disappears after having killed most of its fellow organisms, not having any more room to expand in. It is wholly natural happening, observable also during the stages of developing ecosystems before they reach a state of a relative stability. A species suddenly flourishes, seemingly triumphing over other species, to disappear in a blink of an eye, as if. This phenomenon might happen a few times during ecological successions that ensue when an ecological system gets disturbed from the outside of that system, and that continues till the ecosystem reaches a state of a dynamic balance in which ecological processes cycle around their mean values.

Analogically, one could see the entire earth system as being a vast petri dish that got disturbed from the outside by an asteroid some sixty million years ago, whose impact caused the demise of a vast number of faunal and floral species. Ever since then the earth ecological system has been recovering from the disturbance, going through successional stages that eventually will result in a relatively stable climax, unless another asteroid, or other unusual catastrophe would cause a process of re-stabilization anew. And, as in any other isolated system that is undergoing a process of stabilization, we might be able to discern the evidence of species coming and going in ongoing successions. One of those species in our giant petri dish earth is a hairless ape that is coming to a prominence currently, one that started over-crowding the earth, crowding out many other fellow “petri dish” species. Most likely this species will also suddenly disappear after its bloom and will be replaced by some, till now insignificant, contender. These goings-on will continue till the earth system reaches a relative stability again, eventually (unless disturbed from the outside of this relative system again, etc.).

This currently on earth dominant species is us, humans, of course, and we are not the only species that happens to ever have been dominant (from time to time) in our giant petri dish. Our behavior is nothing unnatural, we behave as a myriad other species in a myriad of ecosystems would – we are fully natural, and so is everything we do. We are an indelible part of the nature. We might even expedite our own (and most of other species around us) extinction, but that would be also fully natural, judging by what we know about ecological developments. Looking at our earth petri dish from a macroscopic point of view, business is always as usual. So – why should anyone care about what humans are doing?

The answer is that we, humans, should care, for purely selfish reasons, if we ever do care about ourselves and about our offspring. It is very obvious that most calamities and sufferings that humans are subject to are human made. Humans are their own main source of their miseries. They are very much like any microscopic organism (presumably non-intelligent) in a petri dish that by its very own success as a species undermines its own future continuity and well-being. Humans do not seem to be any different from any such species, despite their own self-declared superiority to all other life. We even call our own species “sapient” (“full of knowledge”, “sagacious”, according to Webster’s). This self-denomination, obviously, is not true, judging by the overall human behavior which is not different from the behavior of any “successful” species in any petri dish. It would very much seem from observing life in petri dishes that the real recipe for a real long term success for any truly intelligent species would be to strive for a stability of existence of all the different microorganisms in any petri dish, including the petri dish Earth, and if there is a real intelligence in any petri dish (be it a glass one, the petri dish earth, or the petri dish universe), it would be undetectable, not distinct from any other organisms around, because an intelligent species would have to, for purely selfish reasons, in order to succeed in the long term, care as much about any other species as about itself. This paradoxical recipe for success might not make sense to many humans today, but unless it does, we cannot call ourselves “Homo sapient”. Judging by our “success” we are enjoying now at the expense of other life in our petri dish, we are not enough “full of knowledge” yet.

N.B. This article was inspired by The Sixth Extinction by Richard Leakey and Roger Lewin (Doubleday, 1995; Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1996).

The Sixth Extinction synopsis: www.well.com/user/davidu/sixthextinction.html

MASS EXTINCTION UNDERWAY: http://www.well.com/user/davidu/extinction.html

U.N. report: Eco-systems at ‘tipping point’:
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/05/10/biodiversity.loss.report/

Our Troubled Science: Why We Are Descending into Dark Ages

February 21, 2014

There is a growing sense of unease among the scientists caused by the growing support of the general public for the various forms of fundamentalism, creationism, and the increasing power of religions generally. Why should a religion–something not founded on reason–have any attraction to anyone at all? The answer could, perhaps, be that science is not as useful to humanity as it could and should be.

Why should our science fail us? The main reason could be that for the ordinary people whatever solace a religion can provide is easier obtainable than what science have to offer. What science can offer might be brilliant, but knowledge is increasingly becoming a commodity, and the proceeds of scientific knowledge increasingly inaccessible to ordinary mortals.

While most people in the world live in substandard conditions, scientists, with perhaps some exceptions, spend their energy on projects that, to most humanity, must seem trivial. Should science regain any useful standing in the society, scientists would have to curtail doing whatever it is that they are busy with at the moment and seriously use their knowledge to address the most pressing problems that we, as the whole global society, are experiencing. And not only superficially, but they would have to strive for fundamental cures, such that would do away with the problems that have been with humanity for almost forever, but that don’t have to exist at all–wars, poverty, humans devastating the Earth.

To put it in other words: the more scientific knowledge knowledge there is, the less problems in the world there should be–but this is not the case, clearly.

Unless the scientists start actively cooperating together on solving humankind’s and the Earth’s dire problems soon, there is the danger of science becoming a property of the Earth’s powerful exclusively, with the vast majority of humans not caring whether they live on a flat, or a round Earth, but rather interested more in living a better quality of life, something that science cannot really provide to a majority of them (as science could and should be doing); something that religions seem to be able to, at least, promise to provide.

A related article: An Appeal to Academia.-

http://www.ModelEarth.Org/acappeal.html

O Bodhisattvas!

December 29, 2013

Please help!

One thing in every Bodhisattva’s practice these days stands out: no matter how hard we practice, so that all beings–all beings without an exception–benefit, the conditions for life in this world continue to deteriorate at ever increasing pace.

What can be going wrong? Why isn’t the quality of life for all beings here and now improving?

The reason that things in this world generally are going from bad to worse is that we don’t have a clear idea, a clear thought in our minds of how should all life in this world be accommodated optimally, so that each being exists in harmony with all others.

Or, perhaps, we, individually, do have ideas of what the ideal state of this world should be, but not a single one of our ideas is identical with the ideas of others, and we might not even be aware of this, since there is no proper way to compare our ideas that we might have on the subject with each other, and therefore we all direct our efforts towards sometimes even fundamentally divergent objectives, and, in the end, due to our working towards different objectives (because there is no clearly defined idea of what this world should be like at its optimum), there is no chance for conditions for all life here and now to become optimal ever.

What needs to be done is that we all agree (by what-so-ever expedient and skillful means) on what actually the optimal conditions for all life on Earth should be. Then, while we work towards the same, by all of us agreed upon goal, not anymore sorting out our differences in real life (which is very costly in time, resources, and lives), we stand a much better chance of seeing the tide turning, and seeing the conditions for all life on Earth starting, actually, improving.

That all beings (with no exception) benefit optimally fully here and now is very important, because here and now is forever in all three times and all directions of space. If all beings don’t benefit by our actions here and now, they never will. Here and now is all we have ever. All beings have to benefit fully here and now!

Bodhisattvas! What kind of a world should the Earth be to accommodate all life optimally? How shall we unify, harmonize all our individual ideas about what this world should be like ideally so that we all work towards one clearly defined objective?

Some ideas how this could be done are presented at http://www.ModelEarth.Org .

May all differences, all controversies, all conflicts, and all complaints that there are in this world among all beings be resolved peacefully without any delays! May all these be prevented from ever arising by using what-so-ever expedient, skillful, effective, appropriate, and wholesome means! May this come to pass by the power of all true Bodhisattvas ever merit!

!OmManiPadmeHum!

May all beings, without an exception, benefit to the utmost by this action in all ways possible, spiritually and materially alike, starting with all beings that there are here and now.

May humans become fully and truly forever transparently sustainable for their own good and for the benefit of all beings!

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone – http://www.ModelEarth.Org .

Relevant:

Creating Lasting Peace- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/peace.html

Mahayana: Philosophy for Sustainability- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/mahaecosoc.html

Why Prayers, Meditations, Wishes, and Any Such Don’t Help to Establish a Lasting Peace in the World- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/praypeace.html

This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice- http://www.ModelEarth.Org/paradise.html

This Paradise Earth: Philosophy in Practice.

August 16, 2013

In this Paradise, that we call the planet Earth, all life exists in a state of dynamic harmony that is being consciously created and maintained continuously.

Whenever there are any differences, controversies, conflicts, and any complaints among any beings in this world, those are resolved, without any residue, by using what-so-ever expedient, skillful, appropriate, wholesome, and above all effective means. More-over, better yet–all those differences, controversies, conflicts, and any complaints are resolved preventively, before those ever have a chance to arise!

The process of creating and maintaining harmony starts with formulating the ideal–what should the ideal Earth, where all life lives in harmony with itself and its home , actually look like? What should the ideal home of every being be like? … The input for this process is being perpetually gathered (by what-so-ever direct and indirect appropriate means) from all who share the Earth, vetted against all there is known about the Earth and the inter-relations of all life on Earth, and the ideal is being constantly ameliorated by direct feedback from all.

Without there being a discernible, by all inhabitants of the Earth commonly shared vision of what the ideal state of the Earth ought to be, it would be impossible to have a Paradise on Earth! A decline in all beings’ overall well-being should, rather, be expected, because of disunity of the many views on what the ideal conditions for Life on Earth should be like.

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone http://www.ModelEarth.Org .

Marx’s XI Thesis on Feuerbach is Not Explicit Enough.

June 13, 2013


“XI
Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways. What is crucial, however, is to change it.”

(Theses on Feuerbach by Karl Marx, translated by Carl Manchester: en.wikisource.org/wiki/Theses_on_Feuerbach )

The world should be changed; but to what should it be changed? If we don’t know what the world should be changed to, we’ll continue to change it in the same way we have been doing since times immemorial, and the world will continue to be changed according to the short-sighted visions of those who happen to be at the helm at the whichever time at what-so-ever place.

I think that Marx’s XI thesis on Feuerbach is not explicit enough–Marx should have explained what he thought the world should be changed to. We try to change the world to our liking with most of our actions, but so far the results have been a transformation of the world from bad to worse, on the whole.

A meaningful change is being desired; Any odd change will not do! In order to change the world in a truly meaningful way, we, all who share this world, have to come to an agreement about what the desired world should look like; We have to re-design the world first–then we can change it meaningfully.

Thank you, Mr. Jan Hearthstone “Designing the Earth Anew Together”http://tinyurl.com/ae5y4tx .


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.