About the content
The first part considers the factors creating our specificities, namely:
Nature, Nurture and maybe soul.
It asks if individuals are able to choose any of the above factors and consequently choose their specificities, meaning who they are, and concludes that they cannot.
Nature, Nurture and "maybe soul" are factors independent of personal choice which produce all differences and similarities:
"The other" and/or "The like".
These factors that determine the individual at any period of his existence, also determine his choices.
Conflicts are with "the other" only.
You cannot have a conflict with "a like".
If a conflict (not necessarily violent or fatal) needs to be created with "a like", then "the like" has/have already become "the other"(s) in some consequent perspective.
If we do not choose our birth, our environment and our soul, then we do not choose to be "the other" or "the like", in any perspective.
We neither choose our side, nor to be on any side, and consequently do not choose to be in any conflict, even the most mild, and we do not choose to engage a conflict, even the most violent.
What/who chooses for us?
- Chance, or
- The supposed all controlling force/forces (God/gods/design).
This makes one of these two responsible for all our differences and consequently all conflicts.
People and their descendants who are ultimately destined to be our and our children's partners and closest collaborators in our planetary scientific endeavor, people who will eventually toil and sweat with us to transform humanity's desires into reality, have always been considered as "the others" and dealt with in a conflicting manner.
This part makes a case of showing that our differences hence our conflicts are never chosen by us, but are caused by one of two factors, chance or design, both out of our control.
This part tries to present the fact that the purposes of all our conflicts are either supposedly determined by some "design" having diverging, conflicting, or "non - understandable" purposes, or chance, which being random, defines the absence of purpose...
So giving in to conflicts "reveals" our deep understanding of our conditions of existence, doesn't it...
This part concludes that the best action to diminish the role of this uncontrollable factor "chance or supposed design) which is creating our differences/conflicts and imposing itself as the agent of our collective fate or destiny, is:
- To define ourselves our "sameness", instead of letting the uncontrollable factor define it for us, as it has defined our "differences" without our choice or consent,
- To define and work only for our human consensus, which is our "sameness" in shared desires and aspirations.
Consensus leading to inevitable collaboration will only destroy the characteristics of "rivalry" and "hostility" among enemies, and create allies against scarcity. Untill now, destroying the "other" has always been the admitted "best way" to get rid of rivalry and hostility...
Consensus leading to inevitable collaboration will destroy all the negative consequences of individual determinism, by making the "other" our most capable and trustworthy ally against scarcity.
Then, finally we will be able to see the "other" as we should have seen him all along, as another human fighting alongside us, against the same enemy, which will render any conflict with him utterly stupid.
With time, we will eventually decide to replace our military armies (that destroy the rarest scarcity and the most powerful tool in the universe for "trivial" scarcities) by scientific armies (that use abstract minds to create abundance and preserve life and youth to limits yet unknown), rendering the destruction of the much needed abstract minds totally counterproductive, even insane.
Naturally armies of scientists are incomparably harder to produce, but the outcome is "uncomparably" incomparable.
The second part is about the factors distracting, discouraging or sometimes blocking the implementation of the human scientific project:
- Fear of science
- Monotheism that creates "clan Gods"
- Representative Democracy
- Actual economic and financial systems.
The first chapter dealing with the fear of science states that science is merely a tool, which is senseless to fear.
This chapter rather presents the irresponsability of certain scientists and their employers that against all reason somehow feel confident in what they don't know.
This irrational confidence of scientists is presented as being extremely dangerous and stemming fron their ego, or caused by belief systems that have installed the subconscious or unconscious conviction that everything is under control by a superior being, who will not let anything bad happen.
Of course scientists can also be pushed by their profit or result oriented employers to cut corners or take risks.
It stresses that man is not yet mature to engage all the branches of science, and for the moment should only engage in medicine and prolonging life, along with the abundant production of necessities, which might turn out to be the essential part of the human consensus.
Only after acquiring the needed qualities of extreme prudence and extreme sense of responsibility, man should gradually generalize the scientific engagement to other domains, if there is consensus.
Mankind is already up to his neck in irresponsible, dangerous science. We have been for quite a while now.
The military and companies pursuing unlimited profit in vital sectors like food and pharmaceuticals are the ones hiring the bulk of scientists.
We SHOULD be terrified if we consider their priorities.
These institutions/organisms and their manners of practicing science are what we should fear.
Can my fear be a symptom of paranoia?
The common scientific purpose evolving under direct democracy and in total transparency is in fact the only option of rendering science safe and useful for everybody, even if it ambitions to attribute all possible planetary resources to science.
Safety will be achieved by:
- Working only for the domains defined by the desires having consensus,
- Making the public draw all the safety limits, even if it ambitions to eventually multiply the number of scientists working strictly in the fields designated by the consensus by a factor of maybe a thousand, offering them all the resources they might need.
This safe and useful way of practicing science will calm our legitimate fear, once we make humanity decide on the domains of the scientific engagement, and closely monitor the manner by which the research is done.
This book which promotes science, finds that the branches and the extent of scientific inquiry should be decided by humanity after the instauration of direct democracy, and after detailed analysis of the opinions of all the scientists who want to express an opinion in their particular fields.
For example, it might be extremely early and unsafe to engage in experiments at the CERN collider, since by REPEATEDLY unleashing those levels of energy always on the same spot or at least always in such a confined space, we may be drilling holes or tearing the fabric of space without knowing.
Probably nothing will happen, but we need to know more before experimenting. Our actual science may be interacting with a branch of science we have not yet discovered.
All it takes is a single ignorance...
Or a single arrogance...
These kinds of early experiments involving antimatter, exotic particles or micro black holes should be done far away from our only home, preferably in the intergalactic void between... Galaxies... no cabs to those destinations yet...
So people who are afraid of science, should know that they have a chance to control and eventually render science responsible, even stop the use of science for destruction or for non-declarable purposes, by promoting the human scientific endeavor.
- The second chapter is about monotheism.
This chapter became extensive (and intensive) even if the initial plan was to keep it very short and mild.
In this chapter, monotheism is presented as being the greatest distraction from the human scientific project, by substituting it with promised "alternatives" presented as "grace" or "holiness" or "God's will" or "covenant" or "new covenant" be it in this world or the " next", while being (past, present and surely future) the most commonly used pretext for senseless, reckless, arrogant, and "existential", violent conflict.
I have to say something very clearly: this is NOT a chapter about a creator(s) or creation and can never be; it is a chapter about the impossible minimization of the idea of creation or a creator by monotheism.
In this book, whenever you meet the word God, the word should never be taken as a designation for the eventual creator in case He exists, but only as a designation for the God presented by monotheism, namely the LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of jacob.
In the actual state of knowledge, thinking about, or expressing ideas concerning creation and/or an eventual creator outside the realm of religious "revelation" is a counterproductive speculation.
I will never engage in such a speculation; not in this book, not ever.
Even believers who talk about God as being above religions, and think that they have "outgrown" the presented LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob and now apprehend the real creator supposed to exist, should think again, this time with as much lucidity as they can muster;
This "outgrowing" is simply treating the "auto-revelation" of the one God (monotheism) as irrelevant, trivial, or wishing God's "revelation" out of existance, and exchanging it with our own, personal revelation or personal "ideas" about Him...
Some may see this as a small act of falsification... Thousands have been burned at the stake for much less...
Can monotheists act according to their own, personal revelation?
Imagine everybody with his own revelation of God, creation, purpose, laws...
I consider monotheism in the actual context of human existence as being the greatest danger to mankind, because it seeps in man's consciousness in the name of "divine truth" and/or "divine righteousness", and once in, destroys his basic humanity from within by making him see "others" everywhere (even among family members), while simultaneously sedating and confusing his mental analytical processes to blind him to the fact that his humanity is being destroyed... by making him think that his "spirituality" of "serving God's revelation" is being created...
Monotheism does that by sending man's mental algorithms in a loop where the finite is made to interact with the infinite... which will automatically create real contradictions, and/or impossible "revelations", since for every issue the mind is forced to pointlessly deal simultaneously with both the finite and the infinite (read the heading "the absolute").
People will eventually see what's happening around them with the economic and financial systems, but they will have difficulty in "de-sedating" or "de-confusing" their brilliant mental processes to see what's happening within their own mind.
This chapter is not a crusade against monotheisms, but may have the same effect. I will only refer to the central pillars on which the whole edifice of monotheism stands, and a few fundamental events.
Like:
- The notion "monotheism" itself: which as you will see is genuine polytheism with the two-way "contract" or "alliance" or "covenant" of the "most powerful" God and a part of our ancestors. This two-way "covenant" makes it a monotheism of CONSIDERATION, or else the creator of the universe is made to take on the ridiculous task of challenging and then fighting statues, idols, priests, ...
- Inconsistencies: like the basic commandment about not killing which all "monotheisms" have inherited from Moses; but Moses himself, still holding the freshly delivered commandment that forbids killing, killed all the golden calf worshippers among his own people, sparing only Aaron his brother, the actual maker of the golden calf...
- Logical errors: Like God punishing and cursing Adam and Eve for their original innocence and not original sin, since having no notion of good or bad, they could not choose between good and bad using their hypothetical "free will" before and while committing the "original sin". They knew about good and bad after eating the fruit... They could not be punished for what they did before, that is, the act of eating the fruit...
- Humane problems: like accepting and acting on the arrogant and selfish premise that just a single human community alone is "His people", or accepting the arrogant and selfish mechanism of salvation that saves just the believer alone, leaving loved ones and humanity behind... etc.
An extensive section tries to find definitions for "righteousness" and "wickedness" (or "unrighteousness"), but fails.
This section deals with the issue that all monotheisms and all their purposes are defined by the non-defined characteristics of "unrighteousness" and "wickedness".
These non-defined characteristics only mirroring good and bad, themselves only consequences of scarcity which God supposedly cursed us into..., are "revealed" as being the central issue for the LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob, His ONLY reason for creation, and the reason for ALL His interventions... but their definitions are left to the imagination of the reader or the "interpretations" of the religious authorities...
Other titles deal with:
- The absolute/infinite (God), and its impossible interface with the finite (everything else),
- Miracles being even not enough to convince the people that witnessed them first hand at the time, since they still worshipped calves after supposedly passing through two watery walls of the red sea,
- The miracles performed by the revealers of the later monotheisms not showing any aspect or characteristic of the next life which should have been their primary objective, since they are all about recompense in the next life,
- Etc.
This chapter shows that there is a problem with the transmitted information. The problem might either be in the "revealed" information itself, or its "recording" by the human "prophet". In both cases, the transmitted information becomes unreliable, hence dangerous.
- Chapter three is about "Democracy" which is in reality short for "representative democracy" since it is hinged on electing representatives.
This chapter shows that since direct involvement of all the nation in all public affairs was materially impossible at the time when democracy was being elaborated (impossibility of gathering everyone in a single space, problems of hearing each other, great distances to travel, etc.), "representative democracy" was "invented" enabling the people to participate to public affairs via an elected representative.
Even if many thinkers found the idea of representation totally self-defeating in a democracy, there was materially no alternative.
This chapter shows that we no longer need "representative democracy" since we can have the real democracy, known today by "direct democracy" in this age of unlimited communication by creating national and international platforms of discussions and gradually placing ourselves in perspectice with the practice of responsibility and self-governance.
Getting the public to this perspective should have been the first priority of any democratic system deserving the name...
The only manner to learn about responsibility, is to practice responsibility. Only then will the perspective of "responsibility" become clear, be adopted and emulated by a great majority. Once the citizens adopt the perspective of responsibility, they will make better decisions in all domains, by considering the various opinions of the numerous specialists in their midst, and away from political environments and manipulation.
The final goal of direct democracy should logically be the replacement of the elected legislative by the national platform, or both sharing representation.
The freedom of speech which is considered to be the first freedom in any democracy, is of course always officially valid but has become almost useless in our system of representative democracy, since the expression of "free" ideas, meaning ideas which we "should not have", is being actively "drowned" in the domineering presence of the privately owned, locked mass media, including the publishing houses that "review" any manuscript and demand removal of "free" ideas they "should" not like.
- Chapter four is about economic and financial systems.
The actual economic and financial system will certainly become the major hindrance to the scientific endeavor, because this system will always try to concentrate all resources and profits in fewer and fewer hands that want to own everything, leaving nothing for the human scientific endeavor.
What is the finality of current economic and financial systems in which survival means growing incessantly?
Everything belonging to a single company?
A group of individuals?
A single individual?
Freedom cannot be seen as a licence to take the basic freedoms or the basic needs of others. Civilization hinges on this awareness, something we are made to forget.
To deal with these systems and set some ground rules to plan, launch and protect the human scientific endeavor and its eventual discoveries, we need to make direct democracy our system of lawmaking and control, which will be the toughest challenge that faces the endeavor.
The third part presents some thoughts about independent issues, like indoctrination, and by using the definitions of indoctrination, shows that we all are indoctrinated, only thinking that it is always the others who are...
The fourth and last part presents some ideas about how to prepare the terrain by operating the necessary upgrades in all the relevant domains to launch the human scientific endeavor peacefully and without any legal or moral conflict.
This book was written for easy lecture.
Any convoluted idea or argument was to stay out of this book.
But certain ideas or presented arguments stubbornly refused to follow my intention of keeping everything simple.
Despite my best efforts, I could not present them in a manner that would be easy lecture for everybody.
These few lines are my way of apologizing for being unable to defeat their stubbornness myself...
Occasionally, you may have to insist on some "yet undefeated" difficulty...
If only my mind and language were as devestating as my looks...
The manuscript was never read by anybody else, the language was never corrected, my ignorance and eventual errors of my logic and thought were never pointed out to me. I did the best I could.
Maybe you could help...
I was always stupidly "stupidified" by a stupid dream;
Humanity writing a book of humanity, by humanity, for humanity...
Nature, Nurture and maybe soul.
It asks if individuals are able to choose any of the above factors and consequently choose their specificities, meaning who they are, and concludes that they cannot.
Nature, Nurture and "maybe soul" are factors independent of personal choice which produce all differences and similarities:
"The other" and/or "The like".
These factors that determine the individual at any period of his existence, also determine his choices.
Conflicts are with "the other" only.
You cannot have a conflict with "a like".
If a conflict (not necessarily violent or fatal) needs to be created with "a like", then "the like" has/have already become "the other"(s) in some consequent perspective.
If we do not choose our birth, our environment and our soul, then we do not choose to be "the other" or "the like", in any perspective.
We neither choose our side, nor to be on any side, and consequently do not choose to be in any conflict, even the most mild, and we do not choose to engage a conflict, even the most violent.
What/who chooses for us?
- Chance, or
- The supposed all controlling force/forces (God/gods/design).
This makes one of these two responsible for all our differences and consequently all conflicts.
People and their descendants who are ultimately destined to be our and our children's partners and closest collaborators in our planetary scientific endeavor, people who will eventually toil and sweat with us to transform humanity's desires into reality, have always been considered as "the others" and dealt with in a conflicting manner.
This part makes a case of showing that our differences hence our conflicts are never chosen by us, but are caused by one of two factors, chance or design, both out of our control.
This part tries to present the fact that the purposes of all our conflicts are either supposedly determined by some "design" having diverging, conflicting, or "non - understandable" purposes, or chance, which being random, defines the absence of purpose...
So giving in to conflicts "reveals" our deep understanding of our conditions of existence, doesn't it...
This part concludes that the best action to diminish the role of this uncontrollable factor "chance or supposed design) which is creating our differences/conflicts and imposing itself as the agent of our collective fate or destiny, is:
- To define ourselves our "sameness", instead of letting the uncontrollable factor define it for us, as it has defined our "differences" without our choice or consent,
- To define and work only for our human consensus, which is our "sameness" in shared desires and aspirations.
Consensus leading to inevitable collaboration will only destroy the characteristics of "rivalry" and "hostility" among enemies, and create allies against scarcity. Untill now, destroying the "other" has always been the admitted "best way" to get rid of rivalry and hostility...
Consensus leading to inevitable collaboration will destroy all the negative consequences of individual determinism, by making the "other" our most capable and trustworthy ally against scarcity.
Then, finally we will be able to see the "other" as we should have seen him all along, as another human fighting alongside us, against the same enemy, which will render any conflict with him utterly stupid.
With time, we will eventually decide to replace our military armies (that destroy the rarest scarcity and the most powerful tool in the universe for "trivial" scarcities) by scientific armies (that use abstract minds to create abundance and preserve life and youth to limits yet unknown), rendering the destruction of the much needed abstract minds totally counterproductive, even insane.
Naturally armies of scientists are incomparably harder to produce, but the outcome is "uncomparably" incomparable.
The second part is about the factors distracting, discouraging or sometimes blocking the implementation of the human scientific project:
- Fear of science
- Monotheism that creates "clan Gods"
- Representative Democracy
- Actual economic and financial systems.
The first chapter dealing with the fear of science states that science is merely a tool, which is senseless to fear.
This chapter rather presents the irresponsability of certain scientists and their employers that against all reason somehow feel confident in what they don't know.
This irrational confidence of scientists is presented as being extremely dangerous and stemming fron their ego, or caused by belief systems that have installed the subconscious or unconscious conviction that everything is under control by a superior being, who will not let anything bad happen.
Of course scientists can also be pushed by their profit or result oriented employers to cut corners or take risks.
It stresses that man is not yet mature to engage all the branches of science, and for the moment should only engage in medicine and prolonging life, along with the abundant production of necessities, which might turn out to be the essential part of the human consensus.
Only after acquiring the needed qualities of extreme prudence and extreme sense of responsibility, man should gradually generalize the scientific engagement to other domains, if there is consensus.
Mankind is already up to his neck in irresponsible, dangerous science. We have been for quite a while now.
The military and companies pursuing unlimited profit in vital sectors like food and pharmaceuticals are the ones hiring the bulk of scientists.
We SHOULD be terrified if we consider their priorities.
These institutions/organisms and their manners of practicing science are what we should fear.
Can my fear be a symptom of paranoia?
The common scientific purpose evolving under direct democracy and in total transparency is in fact the only option of rendering science safe and useful for everybody, even if it ambitions to attribute all possible planetary resources to science.
Safety will be achieved by:
- Working only for the domains defined by the desires having consensus,
- Making the public draw all the safety limits, even if it ambitions to eventually multiply the number of scientists working strictly in the fields designated by the consensus by a factor of maybe a thousand, offering them all the resources they might need.
This safe and useful way of practicing science will calm our legitimate fear, once we make humanity decide on the domains of the scientific engagement, and closely monitor the manner by which the research is done.
This book which promotes science, finds that the branches and the extent of scientific inquiry should be decided by humanity after the instauration of direct democracy, and after detailed analysis of the opinions of all the scientists who want to express an opinion in their particular fields.
For example, it might be extremely early and unsafe to engage in experiments at the CERN collider, since by REPEATEDLY unleashing those levels of energy always on the same spot or at least always in such a confined space, we may be drilling holes or tearing the fabric of space without knowing.
Probably nothing will happen, but we need to know more before experimenting. Our actual science may be interacting with a branch of science we have not yet discovered.
All it takes is a single ignorance...
Or a single arrogance...
These kinds of early experiments involving antimatter, exotic particles or micro black holes should be done far away from our only home, preferably in the intergalactic void between... Galaxies... no cabs to those destinations yet...
So people who are afraid of science, should know that they have a chance to control and eventually render science responsible, even stop the use of science for destruction or for non-declarable purposes, by promoting the human scientific endeavor.
- The second chapter is about monotheism.
This chapter became extensive (and intensive) even if the initial plan was to keep it very short and mild.
In this chapter, monotheism is presented as being the greatest distraction from the human scientific project, by substituting it with promised "alternatives" presented as "grace" or "holiness" or "God's will" or "covenant" or "new covenant" be it in this world or the " next", while being (past, present and surely future) the most commonly used pretext for senseless, reckless, arrogant, and "existential", violent conflict.
I have to say something very clearly: this is NOT a chapter about a creator(s) or creation and can never be; it is a chapter about the impossible minimization of the idea of creation or a creator by monotheism.
In this book, whenever you meet the word God, the word should never be taken as a designation for the eventual creator in case He exists, but only as a designation for the God presented by monotheism, namely the LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of jacob.
In the actual state of knowledge, thinking about, or expressing ideas concerning creation and/or an eventual creator outside the realm of religious "revelation" is a counterproductive speculation.
I will never engage in such a speculation; not in this book, not ever.
Even believers who talk about God as being above religions, and think that they have "outgrown" the presented LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob and now apprehend the real creator supposed to exist, should think again, this time with as much lucidity as they can muster;
This "outgrowing" is simply treating the "auto-revelation" of the one God (monotheism) as irrelevant, trivial, or wishing God's "revelation" out of existance, and exchanging it with our own, personal revelation or personal "ideas" about Him...
Some may see this as a small act of falsification... Thousands have been burned at the stake for much less...
Can monotheists act according to their own, personal revelation?
Imagine everybody with his own revelation of God, creation, purpose, laws...
I consider monotheism in the actual context of human existence as being the greatest danger to mankind, because it seeps in man's consciousness in the name of "divine truth" and/or "divine righteousness", and once in, destroys his basic humanity from within by making him see "others" everywhere (even among family members), while simultaneously sedating and confusing his mental analytical processes to blind him to the fact that his humanity is being destroyed... by making him think that his "spirituality" of "serving God's revelation" is being created...
Monotheism does that by sending man's mental algorithms in a loop where the finite is made to interact with the infinite... which will automatically create real contradictions, and/or impossible "revelations", since for every issue the mind is forced to pointlessly deal simultaneously with both the finite and the infinite (read the heading "the absolute").
People will eventually see what's happening around them with the economic and financial systems, but they will have difficulty in "de-sedating" or "de-confusing" their brilliant mental processes to see what's happening within their own mind.
This chapter is not a crusade against monotheisms, but may have the same effect. I will only refer to the central pillars on which the whole edifice of monotheism stands, and a few fundamental events.
Like:
- The notion "monotheism" itself: which as you will see is genuine polytheism with the two-way "contract" or "alliance" or "covenant" of the "most powerful" God and a part of our ancestors. This two-way "covenant" makes it a monotheism of CONSIDERATION, or else the creator of the universe is made to take on the ridiculous task of challenging and then fighting statues, idols, priests, ...
- Inconsistencies: like the basic commandment about not killing which all "monotheisms" have inherited from Moses; but Moses himself, still holding the freshly delivered commandment that forbids killing, killed all the golden calf worshippers among his own people, sparing only Aaron his brother, the actual maker of the golden calf...
- Logical errors: Like God punishing and cursing Adam and Eve for their original innocence and not original sin, since having no notion of good or bad, they could not choose between good and bad using their hypothetical "free will" before and while committing the "original sin". They knew about good and bad after eating the fruit... They could not be punished for what they did before, that is, the act of eating the fruit...
- Humane problems: like accepting and acting on the arrogant and selfish premise that just a single human community alone is "His people", or accepting the arrogant and selfish mechanism of salvation that saves just the believer alone, leaving loved ones and humanity behind... etc.
An extensive section tries to find definitions for "righteousness" and "wickedness" (or "unrighteousness"), but fails.
This section deals with the issue that all monotheisms and all their purposes are defined by the non-defined characteristics of "unrighteousness" and "wickedness".
These non-defined characteristics only mirroring good and bad, themselves only consequences of scarcity which God supposedly cursed us into..., are "revealed" as being the central issue for the LORD God of Abraham of Isaac and of Jacob, His ONLY reason for creation, and the reason for ALL His interventions... but their definitions are left to the imagination of the reader or the "interpretations" of the religious authorities...
Other titles deal with:
- The absolute/infinite (God), and its impossible interface with the finite (everything else),
- Miracles being even not enough to convince the people that witnessed them first hand at the time, since they still worshipped calves after supposedly passing through two watery walls of the red sea,
- The miracles performed by the revealers of the later monotheisms not showing any aspect or characteristic of the next life which should have been their primary objective, since they are all about recompense in the next life,
- Etc.
This chapter shows that there is a problem with the transmitted information. The problem might either be in the "revealed" information itself, or its "recording" by the human "prophet". In both cases, the transmitted information becomes unreliable, hence dangerous.
- Chapter three is about "Democracy" which is in reality short for "representative democracy" since it is hinged on electing representatives.
This chapter shows that since direct involvement of all the nation in all public affairs was materially impossible at the time when democracy was being elaborated (impossibility of gathering everyone in a single space, problems of hearing each other, great distances to travel, etc.), "representative democracy" was "invented" enabling the people to participate to public affairs via an elected representative.
Even if many thinkers found the idea of representation totally self-defeating in a democracy, there was materially no alternative.
This chapter shows that we no longer need "representative democracy" since we can have the real democracy, known today by "direct democracy" in this age of unlimited communication by creating national and international platforms of discussions and gradually placing ourselves in perspectice with the practice of responsibility and self-governance.
Getting the public to this perspective should have been the first priority of any democratic system deserving the name...
The only manner to learn about responsibility, is to practice responsibility. Only then will the perspective of "responsibility" become clear, be adopted and emulated by a great majority. Once the citizens adopt the perspective of responsibility, they will make better decisions in all domains, by considering the various opinions of the numerous specialists in their midst, and away from political environments and manipulation.
The final goal of direct democracy should logically be the replacement of the elected legislative by the national platform, or both sharing representation.
The freedom of speech which is considered to be the first freedom in any democracy, is of course always officially valid but has become almost useless in our system of representative democracy, since the expression of "free" ideas, meaning ideas which we "should not have", is being actively "drowned" in the domineering presence of the privately owned, locked mass media, including the publishing houses that "review" any manuscript and demand removal of "free" ideas they "should" not like.
- Chapter four is about economic and financial systems.
The actual economic and financial system will certainly become the major hindrance to the scientific endeavor, because this system will always try to concentrate all resources and profits in fewer and fewer hands that want to own everything, leaving nothing for the human scientific endeavor.
What is the finality of current economic and financial systems in which survival means growing incessantly?
Everything belonging to a single company?
A group of individuals?
A single individual?
Freedom cannot be seen as a licence to take the basic freedoms or the basic needs of others. Civilization hinges on this awareness, something we are made to forget.
To deal with these systems and set some ground rules to plan, launch and protect the human scientific endeavor and its eventual discoveries, we need to make direct democracy our system of lawmaking and control, which will be the toughest challenge that faces the endeavor.
The third part presents some thoughts about independent issues, like indoctrination, and by using the definitions of indoctrination, shows that we all are indoctrinated, only thinking that it is always the others who are...
The fourth and last part presents some ideas about how to prepare the terrain by operating the necessary upgrades in all the relevant domains to launch the human scientific endeavor peacefully and without any legal or moral conflict.
This book was written for easy lecture.
Any convoluted idea or argument was to stay out of this book.
But certain ideas or presented arguments stubbornly refused to follow my intention of keeping everything simple.
Despite my best efforts, I could not present them in a manner that would be easy lecture for everybody.
These few lines are my way of apologizing for being unable to defeat their stubbornness myself...
Occasionally, you may have to insist on some "yet undefeated" difficulty...
If only my mind and language were as devestating as my looks...
The manuscript was never read by anybody else, the language was never corrected, my ignorance and eventual errors of my logic and thought were never pointed out to me. I did the best I could.
Maybe you could help...
I was always stupidly "stupidified" by a stupid dream;
Humanity writing a book of humanity, by humanity, for humanity...