Feedback for my theory
K.H.Tervola
- please!
stumper
> I would like to get objective feedback for my theory at www.paradisewins.net
> - please!
>
I cannot read it
because your busy background image.
It appears to be short enough.
Why don't you just post it here?
One paragraph at a time;
or at most one page at a time, please.
--
~Stumper
stumper
> I would like to get objective feedback for my theory at www.paradisewins.net
> - please!
>
I can hardly read it
because of your busy background image.
jusholm
So has it always been and so will it forever be...
Outrageous but true:
Healthy is happy.
And a healthy one works much much better than a broken one.
Applying this to the whole world, one gets the result that a healthy natural
world is a paradise and that in a strongest one wins competition the healthy
natural world is the winning option over any other kind of world.
In other words, IT IS 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.
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.
(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... For a religious answer too see
/Godstory.html If you cannot find an even bigger thought (and anyway) please
share this thought with me!)
Since the time begun, has our true nature placed a call upon us. A call to
live a full happy life which gives the best survival for us and for our
offspring. What makes us strong are the things which keep us fit, which give
us a full life and happiness. What makes us weak, are catastrophes, the
reasons why we become weak and suffering. We suffer in order to avoid those
things. We feel love in order to reach for what is best for us, for our
survival. The message of our feelings is the same as the message of our
understanding. Like the love for life is in the very nature of living
beings, it is in their structure that just such life that their feelings
guide them toward gives the best functioning, best survival, keeps them most
fit for work and is the most rational choise. So if there is a strongest one
wins competition, just natural life according to feelings and understanding
is the winning solution of how to arrange things.
What is at the heart of each human being, is a wish for a better life. What
is at the heart of each human society, is a wish for a better life. What we
all long for, what we dream about, what scares us, all comes to the one and
same thing: what life is like, i.e. how our all kinds of needs are met. If
we could have a better idea of what a paradise is like, we would have a map
to a better life, and if paradise really is the winning option in the modern
competition, all the others would be willing to choose a paradise too. These
texts aim to give more room for life, to lead to better ways of living, to a
life according to feelings, a full life, a way of life, which is a paradise
in fact.
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.
GAIA IS THE MOST PARADISE LIKE PARADISE OF ALL IMAGINABLE 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.
Technoilogy 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.
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?
Please, if you find these thoughts interesting, advertise my pages or the
ideas in them, so that others too will get to know them.
Gibran: " 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."
Kaisa Hannele Tervola, Finland, Europe
Links (in no special order)
Paradise
My homepage and LINKS to my pages
Life is all that matters
The great song of life
Different perspectives to the thought i.e. how much the paradise wins?
Gaia is All Your Dreams Come True
Broad way to Heaven
Gaia pages
The World Is Of Love, love is the basic nature of living beings
Social suceess, why I write
Members of the paradise
Sex
Likings and work
Living morally is easy and makes one happier than anything
The traditional RATIONAL MORAL of Finland: OVERCOMING THE OPPOSITE VIEWS
Everything is based on good
Rationality of feelings (also for those who do not trust feelings to begin
with)
The fitting together of all good
A letter from the United Nations, another from the Dalai Lama(?) and an
e-mail from the White House
The artificialities do not change things at all
Buy my book in the internet
Enlightenment
Nothing much to do with the subject but you can watch my rabbits here
Some more links
jusholm
"K.H.Tervola" <KaisaHann...@webinfo.fi> wrote in message
news:1176228218.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
'Outrageous but true:
Healthy is happy.
And a healthy one works much much better than a broken one.'
'A healthy one'? One what? I guess you are not a native English speaker?
Publius
news:1176228218.2...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> I would like to get objective feedback for my theory at
> www.paradisewins.net - please!
Well, I think you have succumbed to the "organic fallacy" --- the notion that
a system of interrelated parts constitutes a "whole" in anything but a
nominal sense:
"Gaia is the whole biosphere in a state of complete naturality and health: an
interconnected whole whose parts carry responsibility about the whole . . . "
There is no "whole" of the kind to which one can have responsibilities. The
"whole" is just a word for a large number of distinct elements. It is like a
"herd of cattle." Once you have described each cow and the relationships
among them, you have described the herd. The herd is not something over and
above its member cows.
Also, you should research the Chief Seattle quote. It is bogus.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
wrote:
Commie cunt, get a life. Survival requires problem solving not this
crap
K.H.Tervola
Publius wrote:
> Well, I think you have succumbed to the "organic fallacy" --- the notion that
> a system of interrelated parts constitutes a "whole" in anything but a
> nominal sense:
>
> "Gaia is the whole biosphere in a state of complete naturality and health: an
> interconnected whole whose parts carry responsibility about the whole . . . "
>
> There is no "whole" of the kind to which one can have responsibilities. The
> "whole" is just a word for a large number of distinct elements. It is like a
> "herd of cattle." Once you have described each cow and the relationships
> among them, you have described the herd. The herd is not something over and
> above its member cows.
At some point at the beginning of evolution the parts did not form a
whole and did not carry responsibility of the whole. But allegiancies
are useful, so those who allied survived better than like ones who
didn't. So the evolution left only the ones who allied as well as
possible. That means that as the time passed the parts came to form a
whole which was beneficial to their survival. So they also cared for
the whole, carried responsibility about the whole.
Well, I might agree about your reductionist view of cows and of the
world but still, it is useful to describe the interrelatedness of cows
etc. via easy concepts well suited to describing those sides of the
whole, i.e. to speak of cows forming an interrelated whole and
carrying responsibility about their friends and about the health of
the whole herd.
chazwin
wrote:
Sounds like gibberish. What are you trying to sell?
chazwin
wrote:
You are talking rubbish: "the parts" of what? What do you mean
"responsibility"?
WHat do you mean by "allegiances"? What makes you think that
allegiances are "better" for survival? Who are "those" in this
context? The "whole" what?
If you are suggesting that co-operative species are more successful, I
will have to disagree. Bacteria show no co-operative behaviour but are
the most successful group of living things on the planet. Plant life
does not co-operate in any sense but is also highly successful too.
K.H.Tervola
The parts of biological wholes, be the wholes individuals, packs or
even the whole biosphere.
Responsibility means that the parts try to act for the benefit os the
whole, since that is good for their own survival too.
An allegiancy means habitual cooperation. Cooperation is often useful.
There are ecological nitches where there isn't any cooperation but if
a like one can cooperate for a better survival, it will benefirt from
it in the competition.
Those sides of the whole are here the level of the whole as separate
from the level of the individuals.
The rest relies on my own observations about human functioning and
deductions about similar animal functioning. I have noticed that the
sensory environment offers a ground for our thinking and for our
memory. We use in our thinking analogs to what we have seen. So a
plant may offer us a sensory input which affects our sense of healthy
wholes and so our behaviour, but this may sound too far fetched, so I
remind you that this is my observation and not a guess. I have also
managed to teach others, to both humans and animals, intelligence
based on these observations of mine, so my "theory" about the human
thinking might be true, and consequently all the living beings
cooperate via giving sensed models of health to each other.
K.H.Tervola
chazwin wrote:
> Sounds like gibberish. What are you trying to sell?
Nothing, except these ideas which I like and which should be for the
common good.
K.H.Tervola
I thought that I solved lots of problems by this theory - IF it is
correct and that's why I dearly need your feedback! Saving the human
kind and the living kind, making workers happy and increasing work
efficiency and intelligence easily and pleasantly.
About how this theory of a paradise winning could aid in survival: the
healthy ones work best, survive best and our feelings connect to what
things look like from the point of view of health. That's why the
evolution created feelings: to help us to reach for the best survival.
With healthy ways of living we can feel happy but not otherwise. The
healthy ones are also the most intelligent ones - see
www.paradisewins.net/increasingintelligence.html
Everything is build upon the healthy, nothing upon the completely
broken. This is the pair of opposites with which to understand the
world in order to understand the "mechanics" of human functioning in
connection with work - i.e. what happens in new situations, with new
combinations of brokedness and health. The health of the whole
supports the health of its parts, so we survive better when all the
wholes are healthy. (With this pair of opposites there should be no
need for experiments on humans like the ones during the holocaust, I
hope.)
ZerkonX
> I would like to get objective feedback for my theory at www.paradisewins.net
> - please!
FROM YOUR PAGE: "Can you think a bigger thought than this one?"
If space is infinite, all finite things in space must be infinite also.
K.H.Tervola
ZerkonX wrote:
> If space is infinite, all finite things in space must be infinite also.
The finite things are parts of the infinity and the infinity is a part
of their nature, their existence being meaningful just in the context
of the infinity.
We are parts of the world and the world is a part of us. What we let
happen to the world affects our own life either directly or via
analogies, to similar principles than what we followed in letting that
happen to the world, to how we ourselves are treated, and what we
ourselves see as rational and how we consequently arrange our own
lives. So where there is no instinctual connection, like maybe not
with UFOs, our rationality and theirs creates the connection: similar
principles, fair play, treating each being according to how she or he
or it treats others so that each deed gets feedback according to what
it is like - that is the rule of the evolution, of product
development, of objectivity, and so it must apply for the UFOs too, if
they happen to exist. With a high level of generality in thinking one
can treat UFOs too fairly. Much easier it is with the fellow living
beings. Live and let others live...
Publius
news:1176273851.1...@e65g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> At some point at the beginning of evolution the parts did not form a
> whole and did not carry responsibility of the whole. But allegiancies
> are useful, so those who allied survived better than like ones who
> didn't. So the evolution left only the ones who allied as well as
> possible. That means that as the time passed the parts came to form a
> whole which was beneficial to their survival. So they also cared for
> the whole, carried responsibility about the whole.
Oh? Where has that happened? Evidence?
Publius
news:1176283355.3...@y5g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:
> Those sides of the whole are here the level of the whole as separate
> from the level of the individuals.
In societies there is no whole as separate from its component individuals.
Hence there is no "good for the whole." There are only goods for individuals,
which differ from one individual to the next. You have no means of defining a
"good for the whole," and in fact, no means of defining the "whole," except
by listing its individuals and the relationships among them. Once you have
done that you've described all there is to describe. There is no "whole"
beyond that.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hey dopey, ewe're a fine one to be speaking about fucking gibberish
and rubbish, e.g. the world is still waiting for you to explain why
you cant be absolutely 100% certain as to whether or not you can lick
your fucking elbow.
MG
chazwin
wrote:
Ummm - tend to make the theory rather vague and diffuse!
> Responsibility means that the parts try to act for the benefit os the
> whole, since that is good for their own survival too.
You mean like male lions that eat all the cubs when they take over the
pride from the old male?
> An allegiancy means habitual cooperation. Cooperation is often useful.
> There are ecological nitches where there isn't any cooperation but if
> a like one can cooperate for a better survival, it will benefirt from
> it in the competition.
> Those sides of the whole are here the level of the whole as separate
> from the level of the individuals.
> The rest relies on my own observations about human functioning and
> deductions about similar animal functioning.
You mean like the invasion of Iraq and the daily bombings by religious
groups?
> I have noticed that the
> sensory environment offers a ground for our thinking and for our
> memory. We use in our thinking analogs to what we have seen. So a
> plant may offer us a sensory input which affects our sense of healthy
> wholes and so our behaviour, but this may sound too far fetched,
Far over the hill.
so I
> remind you that this is my observation and not a guess.
You have not observed "our sense of healthy wholes", you have
interpreted something to be that category of observation, ignoring
that which is not.
I have also
> managed to teach others, to both humans and animals, intelligence
> based on these observations of mine, so my "theory" about the human
> thinking might be true, and consequently all the living beings
> cooperate via giving sensed models of health to each other.
You have "taught".. "humans and animals"... "intelligence".. ummm.
Maybe you would like to go away and think about that claim a little?
You have not said what a "sensed model of health" is.
Before you start claiming a new theory, take a look at Dawkins'
"Selfish Gene" and his other works.
chazwin
You are really saying that space is finite.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
wrote:
> The
> healthy ones are also the most intelligent ones ........
Hitler was extremely intelligent, so is Mugabee, that fuckhead from
North Korea, Castro, Helen Klark (the Marxist inspired PM of NZ) so
was Hussein so was Karl Marx so was Stalin all very intelligent
people, sooooo you're really on to a good thing aren't you? NOT
Fact, intelligence is NOT a measure of one's morality, and determing
the how and why of man's standards of his moral values is a far more
important issue to address and problem to solve than wanking on about
how to be kept fucking healthy for the sake of being indoctrinated
with fucking intelligence according to bull shit Marxist standards,
efficency be fucked, fucking retarded fascist.
MG
kevirwin
If that is **not** the intended meaning of; "If space is infinite, all
finite things in space must be infinite also.", then the sentence
becomes incoherent. No three dimensional object consisting of matter
can exist in "infinite quantities". Have to see if the author agrees
with what you "felt" was meant, Chaz (at least your interpretation
makes it viable)..
Forum becoming more diverse,
K e v
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Until you crap in it with your Kantian crap
kevirwin
>
> - Show quoted text -
I have no idea what you meant....I don't suppose it will make any
difference to you, but I never read (or least I don't recall) anything
by Kant.
I only said **No matter with a molecular structure" can exist in
infinite quantities...
Do you disagree, Mikey???
K e v