A Way to Save The World: 

Good, i.e. 

the Global Final Paradise 

of the Completely Healthy World

Will Win,

I have lots of experience in scientifical objective thinking and I have an interest in oriental philosophy about masterful skill.
My intelligence quotient in the official non-verbal Mensa test was 170 which is better than that of 99.8% of others. It is said that a difference in intelligence equal to 20 points creates great communication difficulties already in itself and in addition come the differencies in culture, gender, experience of life, values etc. So since the average of humans is an intelligence quotient of 100 points, my thoughts are over three such impossible gaps away from the level of understanding of the average person. I have chosen the simplest truths that I know and tried to say everything as simply as possible, yet correctly so that those things that you manage to grasp could lead you as far as possible, in as benefical ways as possible. But it still may be that these thoughts sound too impossible to you - please give them a chance anyway! I really am that intelligent!

A thought that reaches higher than dreams?

Since I was a child I have been building an ideal in my mind about
what would be a good healthy way to live and a good, healthy world to
live in. Now as an adult I notice to my surprise that the model that I
have thus built about human life and about the world at large, is very
near the scientifical biological view of the world and at the same time
more beautiful than any tales that I have heard. It is a model of a
paradise on Earth and at the same time a road to it, a road that is
possible also in the modern technologized world: healthy ways of
living.
Please get to know my view at www.youtube.com/khtervola (videos) and
at www.paradisewillwin.info (text).
Being quite talented in objective thinking, I wonder what would happen
if my view really were true. The reliability of my thoughts ought to be good: I have
build on simple everyday truths that all agree about, backed it up by
all my surest scientifical thinking and my (quite small) experience in
Western philosophy.

Yours sincerely, Hannele Tervola, Finland, EU

P.S. Look also at:
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/paradisewins/success.html and maybe
https://www.angelfire.com/planet/paradisewins/believinginideals.html
even though the latter isn't so well written.


There is nothing special to these thoughts of mine. They are just unusually straightforward. Because I am extremely skilled in holistic objective thinking, I do not stumble to the practical diffficulties that stop most from thinking by themselves along these lines. For example I find the concept of health easy to generalize to include also artificial things. I am also very holistic in my thinking, so I know how to generalize everyday concepts like health so that one can handle huge interconnected systems with them. It goes exactly the same way as in thinking by common sense, so it is very easy once the difficult parts have been made sure.


* Would You like to live in a paradise on Earth? Not necessarily the most paradise like of all paradises right away, but as time passes... Yes! That too!
* Are You interested in success in any area of life: economical, military, small scale, large scale, intellectual, artistical, personal, society level or religious....?
All this could my theory - the concept of health (when compared to brokenness) - offer, IF it just is put to practice! By YOU!
How can I be sure of this? Well, of course I cannot be absolutely sure of it, but this is how I have always seen the world, this is what has given me strenght and wisdom, kept up my moral and my strong belief in good - so strong that it has made me depressed when others have not right away bothered to change their habits and change to this new way of living - such great rewards I have seen in it that I have never been able to understand any other choise in life. One part of the advantages are the things that I mentioned above. Another part is the fact that this road is our nature and the most rational choise that we can make in life, thehighest achievement that we can ever wish for!
My theory offers a direction of development which ought to be so correct - our nature - that You can continue to that direction forever without it ceasing to be valid. But of course as time passes You would learn new things about the paradise like way of life and add them to Your old wisdom.

In evolution's competition, every time that there is a new feature, which gives competition advantage and replaces some old feature(s?), it does not remove the usefulness of the old good features. So the winning arrangement is the new good side together with the old good sides.
The use of technology is a new winning strategy. It together with the old winning strategies, i.e. togetrher with thoroughly healthy and natural ways of living, is the winning strategy.
As evolution proceeds, the new winning strategies get developed. One example of that is the development of technology.
In the best end result there are the fully developed new strategy/feature and the old good strategies/features in harmony and cooperation forming one whole. So the best end result in what comes to competition ability in the today's world situation would be fully developed technology together with the healthy biosphere.


This page is colourful in order to make the task of reading this very unfamiliar subject easier and lighter.
The colours are symbolic:

green: naturality & the healthy biosphere, biological view
blue: think this through
red: paradise
pink: universal love
black: overcoming evil & wars
purple(?): belief in God
orange: happy life

(Personally I think that the coulour of thinking ought not be blue but the colours of clear observation with the senses open: green and reddish colours.)
The colours of most of the links are due to technical problems of any colour that they happened to be.

Think, if you would meet someone from the future, from an age when all or at least most of the present day problems were already solved. Maybe then you could understand what hese thoughts are about. 
The UFO example goes too far: that is not the level of generality of these thoughts here: these are human thoughts which apply also to the possible UFOs but that is different from UFO thoughts about humans. These thoughts here are based on my experience of life and on the ordinary things that are taught to all in schools all over the world: that humans too are animals and that we originally lived in a much closer contact with the nature and that we too are products of the evolution. 

(But I have thought these thoughts silently on my own, since no-one in my social environment has ever been interested in them at all. I have discussed intellectually about other subjects that have interested my environment, so my thoughts here reflect some academical education too. But in a sense they come from nowhere, they come from living in a culture which values holistic objectivity almost more than anything else.)

"AN UFO STORY"

I was just playing with this idea of meeting an UFO, don't know why. Maybe I am frustrated: there is a paradise in this world maybe possible and no-one is interested! No-one has ever asked me a single questions about it, no-one answers any of my e-mail except maybe to say that they are on a holiday... 

(My own sex theory has had over three thousand watchers and about one thousand readers but my own Gaia paradise theory only a little bit over a thousand watchers.. WHY???!!! Paradise includes sex too but of course you have to be "smart" enough to get to think about that! People do not seem to be all that smart... Paradise like sex in a paradise is better than ordinary sex without a paradise.)



Meet an UFO

In the astrophysics laboratory of X there are the collected results of interviews of an UFO. This probram has been made based on those intellectual discussions, so that you too could feel what it feels like to meet an UFO.

Is there life on Earth?
- Not in its ordinary form, but it is true that certain charachteristics of the organisms on Earth interest the inquiring mind.

Is there life on other planets?
- Certainly yes, even though not at all in every place and not always of the same kind.

How would you define life?
- An organism which is intengrately part of a bigger planetary organism system which has the task of protecting those organisms and which brings the meaningfulness in their lives in addition to the living requirements of the organisms.

How would you describe the organisms found on Earth? Us?
- Your species used to be a form of life. Now it is broken. It will not survive long. And the catastrophes causing its disappearance will have disastrous consequences for much of the rest of what there is now left of the life on Earth. It will propably take a long time for it to recover.

What is the primary charachteristic of life?
- It is the securing of the future for its kind via allegiancies with others. In other words: universal love.

What is your reaction to the present situation on Earth?
- The human overpopulation and the development of technology before the means to guide it have been fully developed are both dangerous to the organisms on Earth and to the broken whole that they form. Such lack in planning skills must be seen as a serious defect which should be dropped away. At earlier stages of the evolution those who went solely with growing teeth were dropped away by pay their lack of paying attention to the other sides of life. Now the whole is in danger. Those who started going ashtray should have been killed right away. Love does not mean losing compassion to those who are not present here or to the future generations to come. So life on Earth is broken since it did not prevent this and it did not repair the planning skills of those who lacked foresight.

Shouldn't You the healthy ones the cure us?
- Yes. That is what I am here for.

You alone? Is one enough?
- If you do not listen to one, your reason listens to no-one and so you all deserve to die away, leaving a healthier and happier world.

How are you going to cure us?
- I talk to you about the basics of life, about the need to secure the future, about the interdependence of all life, of your dependence of the nature environment and not on tools,... About the need to think holistically and to feel: to be a fully functioning individual and a fully functioning group.

A TRUTH WHICH IS SO VERY OLD
THAT IT IS IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS AND OF THE WORLD

A HUMAN BEING FORMS AN UNIFIED WHOLE WITH ONE'S LIVING ENVIRONMENT.
"All things are bound together. All things connect. What happens to the Earth, happens to the children of the Earth. Man has not woven the web of life. He is but one thread of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." said the indian chief Seattle.
Whatever we do, want to do, feel motivated toward, is meaningful in just the larger picture of life, of the lives of us all, of the world at large.

The healthier the pieces of our natural living environment (including the society) are and the better they are at their right places, the better we function, the happier we are.

The amount in which we have reached the Gaia paradise, determines what life is like to us and in what kind of shape we are and so what life feels like to us.

We are by our nature parts of the whole world. So we are healthy just when we are interconnected healthily and naturally with the rest of the world. If we are treated as separate, that connection gets broken and consequently we are broken in what comes those our interconnected sides and so our functioning suffers a lot. This can be seen in how the state of the world and the state of the society etc. affect our own chances in life and our feelings and our motivation, our picture of the future. It can also affect in more subtle ways of which we are not necessarily aware of - see my example at increasing intelligence. 

Gaia is All Your Dreams Come True

Gaia pages

One problem is that when you think of the past of the human race, you think only up to the stone age and not about the even earlier times when humans were not grasping tools.

GAIA IS THE MOST PARADISE LIKE PARADISE 

OF ALL POSSIBLE PARADISES

(To the religious ones: it may be that if God created the world, he created it to be such that healthy kind of religious life is a part of full health and so the healthy world is also a religious world but otherwise just like I have described here on my pages.)

The healthy biosphere which I call Gaia paradise is the most paradise like paradise of all possible paradises. Any imaginable paradise is a paradise just the amount that it is like the Gaia paradise. Since Gaia is the state of complete naturality and health, the whole world in peace and happiness, which fulfils all our natural needs in natural healthy ways - also the need for peace and security and our needs in how each of the needs should be answered.

And each kind of imaginable world will do well in competition the amount that it is like Gaia, especially in the biggest matters. Since Gaia likeness is what gives power and well functioning, Gaia is the ready-made solution to everything - by God or by evolution's competition.

Gaia is the whole biosphere in a state of complete naturality and health: an interconnected whole whose parts carry responsibility about the whole, like is natural for beings with an understanding about their life and living environment, about the beneficiality of allegiances. Gaia is something like superbly moral co-operation in all scales.

How can moral win? Isn't moral a thing of the past, of the age before technology, military competition and trade? No! Moral brings the force of cooperation. To be moral means to act for the common good and that happens to be the most beneficial arrangement.

And feelings tell about the importance of things to life, so they tell information which is essential whatever one does, whether in competition or otherwise.

Technology is just an addition. It does not change the nature of things in what comes to living beings' functioning. Technology's effect to competition ability must be counted as a sum, as an addition, separately from how to treat the living beings. As technology is developed, it gets adabted to the requirements of living beings. Technology is capable of adabting, living beings are not. Evolution happens only upon time, upon many generations and it isn't jumb like, it is gradual and that is not the case in adabting to the technology since the technology is a new factor, a factor of a completely new kind. We must survive through technology based on our old functioning. Our most efficient ways of handling the technology, the enermous amounts of information in the modern world rely on our natural ways of functioning, for example on our capacity to handle sensory information of seen nature landscapes - much of the most efficient thinking is like watching imagined landscapes of structures, such is also engineering work. And the best training for such is to lead a natural healthy kind of life.


What then is the ideal way of life like? It is something like the traditional ways of Americal indians and of the other so called primitive cultures of the world with their close contact with the nature and with their healthy ways of living � with their enermous amount of sensory stimulus and other factors which keep us healthy and fully functioning. But that way of life has to be combined with having the technology: a portable computer, a phone, etc and importantly: modern kind of work to do. It may be that as the time passes, we will find more efficicenct natural way s to handle the modern work too, but for the time being we just have to combine two different types of building blocks: academically or at least school educated with the technology and natural healthy life with the nature. The latter gives us the capacity and endurancy, the former is what matters a lot in the modern world. Still, the piece of understanding that I am offering about the value of natural way s of living and natural living environment, may make it possible to change many things in how the cities and modern sociewties are run, at least on the level of looks and feelings & atmospheres, and that ought to cure a lot of the nasty feelings that people have: we matter after all!

What is this kind of intelligence then? Why and especially how expliciptly does it offer advantages in the moderns world?
Based on the natural healthy life in a healthy natural living environment you ought to have all your capacity in use. So you would be naturally intelligent, strong and wise also socially.
But this presupposes that you do value the life in the nature, all the natural aspects of your life, placing them close to your heart. Since if you wander in the woods and say to yourself that this is only the woods, nothing special that is, you weill pay no attention to the complexity of the view around yourself. A huge tree will be just one piece of something to you and you will bypass it in a fraction of a second. So you will get no training from anything. At large I consider it important to never say "just/only" but to trust one's emotional understanding of the worth of things instead! So if you wander in the forest and are touched in your heart by what you see, hear, sense and smell around yourself and in you while walking there, you will use all your natural capacity to conceive the things in the forest and get so much practise that there is no other way than other forms of healthy natural life to get such.


EVERYTHING IS BUILD UPON THE HEALTHY

All functioning is build upon the healthy and a healthy part is by its very nature a part of the paradise in the beginning of time. So everything is build upon pieces of the paradise in the beginning of time.

This is at the same time completely free and non-destructive, very constructive for happy life in the world at large, a movement for EXCELLENT MORAL IN HARMONY WITH THE DEMANDS OF THE MODERN WORKING LIFE AND THE PERSONAL QUEST FOR HAPPINESS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL OR SOCIETY. And since it SHOULD BE EASY TO LEARN, it could spread, maybe even all over the world in some sense, to some extend at least.

Could this work efficiency (or what ever) perspective of mine make you happy for the rest of your life?


CHRISTIAN RELIGION AND GAIA: EDEN WINS

Gaia is the paradise at the beginning of time: Eden. Gaia is the world the way that God created it: a nature paradise, Eden, the whole biosphere, i.e. all the created living beings and their environment, in the state of complete health and naturality.

GOD CREATED A PERFECT WORLD
God in his great wisdom created a perfect world: whatever you do, it is wisest to do it the way that God intentioned human animals to function, that brings the best result. Anything else leads ashtray, is a much less efficient and much less pleasant way to do things and brings much less understanding than the natural ways to do things and to live.

EDEN EQUALS GAIA
At the beginning of time, there was Eden. It is the same as Gaia, except that Gaia mentions the interconnectedness of things and love while Eden mentions God and belief in God. So Gaia goes well with the perspective of these pages and my two books: just these scientifical kind of facts I want to describe. But what I say about Gaia, applies to Eden too. So Eden is the victorious arrangement. Our true nature is still connected to Eden. Eden is the way to understand us.

GOD'S PARADISE
God in his great wisdom created a perfect world. It is the best possible also at these times of modern competition when there is in the world an element that God didn't create: the man-made artificialities which confuse our nature and make us more stupid than what we would otherwise be. Understanding this is our road to the paradise in the end of time: by a free competition of all the options we could be led back to healthy natural ways of living in a healthy natural living environment: the world and our way of living just like God intended them to be like. This is a realistical possibility: that is why I seek to use all the possible points of view, so as to enable people to add this piece of wisdom to their own view too. This could also be a way to prove God's infinite wisdom which was inherent in her (God being above our concepts of manly and womanly, I take God capable of both and since these modern times need especially the upkeeping and nurturing aspects of God, I use the feminine here) creation work.

CREATIONISM
The deductions on these pages and in my two books are based on the theory of evolution. What is God created the living beings without evolution?
It makes sense to guess that God created well functioning thoroughly thought of beings whose parts fit well together and support each other, like makes sense from the practical point of view. For such beings all of these results apply.

Making good win

GOOD OUGHT TO WIN OVER EVIL

Good ought to win over evil in a strongest one wins competition, like the evolution was. To see this clearly, let�s go through the good tough sides of moral step by step:

Human values bring a stronger force than no or too little human values.
Objective thinking with a holistic view brings a better arranged group than lesser quality thinking or no objectivity at all.
Honesty makes it possible to see how things are and so it is more benefical than lies as a practise in a society.
Justice gets the society arranged for the common good and is so useful while unjustices fail to support good things and support harmful things instead. So unjustice is a much less benefical practise in a society or group than justice.
Carrying responsibility helps to get at least the main things well, so it is more benefical than irresponsibility.
So good moral would win in a strongest one wins competition.

MORAL IS THE MOST BENEFICAL OPTION!
Lots of allies -> the force of masses
No conflicts in the large scale -> no forces spent needlessly to war etc.
Doing things according to their nature = according to how they really function
Correct feedback optimizes and corrects errors and weak points away

Use all of your understanding in the largest scale! Remember the value of cooperation, in other words of peace and prosperity and safety forever.

Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.

Since all do not see this themselves, there may still be some doubt left, So I will go through the problems and classify them according to the above principles and other cost-benefit analysis factors that they break against:


Here are the dangers feared and after each of them explanations why moral is a better choise than them.

Robbery, criminals, unjustice of every kind (= a fractured whole):
* give feedback to those who cause each thing (health), so you can optimize toward better (health)
* breaking (= a fractured whole) versus cultivating (health)

Slavery and other kinds of forcing (= a fractured whole):
* the human goals in life and the human needs are connected (health) + answering the human needs and the working condition of the human are connected (health)
* too much forcing (= a fractured whole) forces one to a rebellion, to extreme means, so keeping the people under control is the harder and the more unprofitable, the more artifical, unhuman and unfair the arrangements of the rulers are (= a fractured whole)

Drugs, hypnozis, torture etc. (= a fractured whole):
* less individual guidance (= a fractured whole)
* typically such means would be used against the reasoning of the individual (= a fractured whole), against the individual�1⁄2s needs (= a fractured whole) and so against work efficiency and work endurance �1⁄2 such doesn't make sense
* also if such means are used to put a wrong class of persons into power (= a fractured whole), against justice (= a fractured whole), that means against reasoning (= a fractured whole) and is harmful to the whole and to the parts;
it also centeres the lives into wrong questions (= a fractured whole) compared to the efficiency, guidability and work endurancy point of view (health)

Fakes, lies, false propaganda, ignorancy, mistaken beliefs (= a fractured whole):
* such cause that one's actions do not correlate (= a fractured whole) well enough with the reality (health), such creates malfunctioning (= a fractured whole) in those respects
* the natural goals of human life make sense and fit together with the happiness of others too (health), so one should be able to live with the whole group in a good functioning order (health), that would give the strongest group (health)

Manipulation by the social instincts, by religion etc. (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation by the strongest instincts of humans is like manipulation by hunger,
it causes a situation where the manipulated person is in a wrong role (= a fractured whole) in the society, the benefit of their work and ways going to different hand than which created the benefit and so the system supports some malfunction (= a fractured whole) instead of the healthy life, prosperity and good of the nation (health)

Other kinds of manipulation (= a fractured whole):
* manipulation means often that things are used to wrong purposes,
some shortsighted technically thinking parasite like persons benefiting instead of those building the society, like farmers for example producing food (health)

Mutations (= a fractured whole):
* mutations usually create non-functioning (= a fractured whole) individuals which die very young (= a fractured whole)
* somehow benefical mutations or gene manipulation would bring new qualities which are not fitted well together to the whole (= a fractured whole), so they do not support the life of the organism and the organism isn�1⁄2t strong enough to support them (= a fractured whole), much less of being adabted to the larger environment (health)

Cool calculating behaviour (= a fractured whole):
* it is important to measure sizes correctly (health)
* humans have feelings in order to help in understanding things (health),
not using feelings as a way to guide one�1⁄2s behaviour (= a fractured whole) makes one dangerous to one�1⁄2s social environment (= a fractured whole):
a person who even alone destrous much of the society (= a fractured whole)

Selfishness (= a fractured whole):
* humans are pack animals (health), the group supports the functioning of the individual and social life is emotionally rewarding (health)
* cooperation (health) creates the force of masses, so moral is benefical: moral means cooperating for the good of all (health)

Commercial things:
* meeting human needs sells best (health)

Supercomputers, computer networks etc.:
* rationality (health) and optimizing
* the value of human ways (health) from the efficiency point of view
* feelings of humans connect to their needs (health) which in turn connect to their actions and well-functioning (health)
* differencies in the type of understanding of humans and computers: the natural understanding of humans about human functioning (health)

Technology at large, control devices etc.:
* control to only a few persons (= a fractured whole) of a certain kind versus
a correctable system (health) with the thinking ability of all used thoroughly (health) in making the arrangements of the society (health)
* real support (health) leads to safety (health), guidability (health), cooperation (health), higher intelligence of the system (health), better endurance (health), more optimized toward efficiency

Artifical living conditions and malfunctions created by them (= a fractured whole):
* the human nature s still the same, one created by the natural evolution: human needs and ways of functioning (health)
* the human being is an optimized whole: the different parts support the functioning of each other and the whole (health) �1⁄2 if one tries new combinations (= a fractured whole), they typically don�1⁄2t produce good functioning since humans are very complicatedly structured (= a fractured whole)

War, armies, militaristic ways (= a fractured whole):
* the enermous harm caused by war versus the benefits of peace and cooperation
* human values (health) are connected to well-functioning of the soldiers and civilians
* upbringing of the next generation needs peaceful circumstances and human values (healthy whole)
* a home to defend (health)
* making sense correlates with profitability, moral and cooperation
* guiding of actions (health) and correctability (health)
* alternative means (health) and optimizing
* ground for future life: fair enough, peace (health)

Short term view at the expanse (= a fractured whole) of a long term view (health):
* our thinking and our instincts demand us to take care of the future, so they do not support our actions if we do not care for the long term success. Such a deficiency in planning and motivation is a serious short term drawback.

A partial view at the expanse (= a fractured whole) of a holistic view (health):
* the first point in thinking is to get at least the main points right. That is possible only via using a holsitic view. So one using a partial view lacks the guidance of true objectivity.


I hope that You understand that these results aren't presupposing that you work for the good of some group. They are all right also if your are purely selfish, care purely for yourself alone, since then also it matters to you in which kind of environment you live and what kind of relationship you have to your environment. You are a part of the world and the world's influence on your life is a part of your fate. So it matters to optimise these things towards your greatest survival & well-being, instead of having arbitrary goals like "I want to be nasty toward my big sister". This optimising is what leads to choosing the strongest allegiancy together with healthy ways of living, i.e. good moral and natural ways of living. The allegiancies are wisest to form according to the society agreement type of thinking: you will get the results of society agreenmet like thinking: you get the results of what you cultivate, likewise do the others. Remember that you are special only to yourself, not to the others who similarly care mostly about their own benefit. And remember that moral in the sense that I mean it is different from what your mother maybe taught to you.

(Repeating:
Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health -> able workers,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;)
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise in how to arrange one's own group and consequently also one's own behaviour - also for the purely selfish individual!


MORAL
Human values take care that the parts of the biological systems stay in good health, so it is an important thing in evolution�s competition and in God�s plan. Like I mentioned already, our feelings are connected to keeping us healthy. So human values help to give room to our feelings.

Objective thinking, honesty and justice take care that each thing is treated acoording to what it is like which is very important to the functioning of the system. They make it possible to put each part to its best place in the system. Those with good sides from which others cab kearn, get a good position for the benefit of all. And those with bad sides, especially irresponsibility, get punished to a poor position so that their harmful qualities get discouraged. This means having very many partial hierargies: one for each subject, skill, thing to decide, piece of knowledge,� Always the ones who understand best and carry responsibility about the consequences are in a deciding role.

In doing things intentionally the main point is to get the main things right. That means that the biggest matters of the largest scale and of the long run are especially important. Likewise are all questions of life and death important. Here one must remember that 100 000 lives is much much more importat than just one life and that the number of people in the human kind is 6 000 000 000 lives which is about 10 000 000 000 lives which is another 100 000 times the 100 000 lives and so even an much much bigger question than the huge question of 100 000 lives. So the large scale things affect enermously more than the small scale things. Thew large scale consists of the small scale, of its added effect. Our feelings should go with the large scale!



PUNISHMENTS AND MORAL

In my opinion the world is full of evil people. Trying to punish them creates a so big counterforce that it is imposiible in practise. So trying to punish all evil just makes no sense at all. Instead one should find other methods of guiding the world toward better.

Usually it is evil people who have a negative idea of moral: their moral is impossibly and uncomfortable to follow in practise. So people in their social environment tend to get angry at moral people, as if the moral ones were the ones forcing them and not the evil ones. But the moral people know how to live happily and be easily moral, their moral is pleasant and enrichens life instead of robbing anything - it is like a gift given to them and to others. So they have surely not deserved the attacks of the evil ones. It is the way of evil ones to rely on brute force in guiding people in their environment, regardless of its consequences, so just they are the ones whose demands make people so angry that they feel forced to attack.


A REBELLION IN HELL

Suppose that you were in hell and wanted to get out of there but there is no way: just the hell everywhere. The only way to get out of the hell would be to change the hell to a livable place but that seems quite impossible, things being as they are.

In hell there is fighting all over the place. So you can easily find people eager for power since power gives you protection, wealth and might over the others. Suppose that you knew about optimising the basics of what I know.
Then you could start with a group eager for power and success and optimise it toward best success:

Those of the group who damage the group would be strictly punished. Those who benefit the group would be rewarded.
The relationships of the group to others would be decided by the leaders only. Those who do not follow orders and cause unneeded conflicts would be strictly punished, since the group loses its strength in conflicts while at peacetime it can develop in strength via a better health.
It is beneficial for the group to ally with large powers, so it will do so - maybe even with God too. Wjatever it is that brings the most force, must be used fully.

Optimising this way one gets a group which is used to justice and peace and which one can optimise further toward a better survival. Respecting human values keeps the persons in the group healthy and makes so the group stronger. Holistic objective thinking, honesty in communication and demanding responsibility about all the consequences of one's actions create a system, group, which can guide its actions in the most intelligent and wise way according to each situation.

Optimising this way you will get the most optimised group, in other words: the strongest possible one: which is a moral paradise movement! since the above guidelines add to a perfect moral of the kind that evolution or God planned us for, and which so is the road to which our feelings and instincts guide us: the paradise like direction.
One could of course start with a paradise movement, moral people etc. if such are available - or with a combination of all these kinds of beings.

A STORY
The teacher took his decorated shaman drum and told them that they were to take a dream journey to a past life. Lying on their backs they listened to the steady slow voice of the drum as it took them to the journey. She imagined that she was in a town sheltered by a stony wall, and the enemy was attacking the walls. There was fighting all over on the walls. She wondered how had things come to this point. Hadn't they communicated with the enemy? Told them how peace and moral were better for even selfish people than war and evil running free? How could she live in a village of people who lacked social skills that badly, lacked rationally grounded moral? Hadn't she herself been talking about these things? It seemed unlikely. No, she would not find herslef in such a situation! The dream was impossible, like had been the previous dreams about past lives when she had died a violent death: with her social style and her social skills such negligience was impossible! (It is the friendly good willing fair playing persons who can avoid the violence of others against themselves, not the opposite type!)

In her eyes all the others looked needlessly, destructively malicious. Being a thorough character that made her ponder about her own decisions, her own courses of action. Could it be that the others, careless though they were, had somehow managed to hit the point, that they were somehow correct after all, because there were so many of them? A time after time she checked and rechecked and rerechecked her own estimates, taking everything into account – checked the thinking types that the others had used, what they led to, what where their good and bad sides and how one ought to correct them toward better. And a time after time she again and again arrived at the same end result: that she herself had been correct to begin with, that the others were not thinking almost at all, even though they guided their lives by this pretended selfisahness which in fact was mostly malicousness harmful to them too.
Each day of her life, all the years through, she checked in every way that she could think of, in every way that true objectivity and realism demanded, that she truly was right. And as far as she could estimate, and that was much mcuh better than what the others were capable of, she was right, had the correct main course of action, correct main guidelines in how to arrange the world at large to her best benefit. The others were just stupid, bypassing even their own wisdom – because the TV serie films did bypass it, because they were not skilled in making beneficiality estimates, because they could not make the difference between irritation and an enemy, or the difference between a harmful act and an enemy: they grouped all things as harmful to them, oblivious to the fact that humans are pack animals by character, that the force of masses exist at all.
They were the masses and they thought that someone up above was deciding all the things for them, when it was in fact their maliciousness which decided their lives for them – not their healthy selfishness, like they claimed even to themselves.
They referred to the theory of evolution, to the survival of the fittest, thinking that life was a game like a civil war, all against all, only the evil ones prospering. So they searched to be as evil as possible, as if that would make them as mighty as possible. They thought that there were evil rulers in the world and deduced from that that any kind of evil would benefit them. They did not understand that it was health, wisdom and the efficient use of tools which bought success.
Sometimes the common ideas of moral did not agree with what was healthy, so that things like self-defence and sex got labelled as evil, this leading to evil ruling. And as the people equated their mothers with moral, they typically equated moral with subordinance toward evil, which is just completely irrational, crazy, but explained by the dominant position that their mothers still had in their lives. They knew no other ground for moral. And since their mothers had commanded them to live in healthy ways, their disobedience turned against themselves, against the health of their ways of living. They could not make out the difference between artificial ways of living, unsuited for humans, and the usefulness of tools and hard rationality in handling tools. They thought that they could benefit from treating humans as if humans, including themselves were as simple as machines, as ununderstanding about the human nature and best ways of functioning. So they ended up destroying most things of value that they could have based their lives on, destroying all the understanding human sides of their lives: feelings, instincts, compassion, moral, healthy ways of living – everything of worth! They were the stupid ones.
She was wise, she had still aglimpse of the original human nature, of healthy ways of living and of emotional kind of wisdom of life, her soul was still intact, the core of her being partly unharmed. When they were stuck with inspecting single blocks, she was glancing at a whole landscape understanding also its each detail and of course their roles in the whole – much better than what they could even imagine possible.

Huge Systems, 

Pure Power Play and

the Fate of the Human Kind:

THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF A HEALTHY WORLD WINS!

Survival strategy:
Either: Be the winners
Or: Get the winners to be on your own side
If you choose a winning strategy, you are likely to achieve the latter if not even the former!

In short:
Biggest allegiancy gives you the strongest force, so ally world wide, in a way that is safe to you.
And health is the strongest arrangement produced by the evolution's competition, so choose the cultivation and safeguarding of good health as your competition strategy. (The concept of health can be generalised to situations including the artificialities in the world. It gives you the optimised arrangement of the whole.)

With the existence of technology

the word "healthy" gets a new 

generalised meaning: 

a well arranged
and fully functioning system. 

In what comes to the living beings this is the same as the old definition of health as natural fully functioning, as a product of evolution. In what comes to the technology, it means that the same principles that the nature found useful are useful also in optimising the technology and the large systems consisting of both technology and of humans - it means that there is no better option. But if there would be a some still better arrangement, we would adobt it of course... 

Selfishness means wanting things well for oneself and not caring much about other things.

It fits well together with my view here.

Wanting things poorly for others I term maliciousness. It is different from selfishness and even in contradiction with selfishness, like one can see if one uses a holistic view of the world. 

So maliciousness doesn't fit together with my view: you have to give up maliciousness if you want to live in a paradise. The reclutancy of people to this I see as the major obstacle on our way to the final paradise.

Self-defence is arranged in other ways than by maliciousness, for example by fair play.

A GLOBAL PARADISE IS MILITARILY THE BEST OPTION

First of all I would like to remark that my idea of what moral is includes healthy self-defence. So if someone hits you you have the right to hit them back but not any worse than what their crime is. So moral this way isn't as naive and defenceless as non-violence. Even though I have heard one version of Gandhi's nonviolence principle (it was in a book that I was reading a while ago) being the noviolence, the positivity of love. That means nonviolence, love when watched from the holistic point of view and not the bearing of all wrong just in order to follow the rule of nonviolence untill everything is conquered by others by the force of arms. Holistic nonviolence means trying to achieve the best possible state for the whole, i.e. it means good moral. So it is not the tools that amtter, it is the end result, which should be good.
So if you get hit by others, try to cure the situation, whether you do it by the force of arms or by talking or by any other means, work sincerely for the goods of the whole. One side of that is having the good ones in power. So if you behave morally, you should take care that you get the dominant role. That is self-defence with a good moral and it is good for the future too, good for you and good for others since it is good to have the moral ones in power since they arrange things for the common good.


In fact my main goal in writing has been to prove the following, so I will add the text here even if it does not fit well or is too cynical:

Starting from Sunzi's The Art Of War I can prove that a global paradise is the best option:
Sunzi says in the point about rolling stones that it is the nature of stones that "on a level ground they remain still but on a slope they move". Similarly the wise commander uses his men: it is the nature of the men that when they are truly motivated they act with force and when they are not motivated they do not act at all. The profoundnes of this principle is illustrated by the use of it in the major (i.e. its dimension is huge) point in the beginning of the Sunzi's book: "The people must agree with the goals of the government."
If we now take a look at the nature of the men in the light of our present day scientifical understanding of the world, we notice that the charachteristics of the men stem from the time when humans were still a part of the nature, of the healthy natural world. (You can compare this to the Tao.) It is the nature of healthy wholes that they try to cure themselves when wounded, so the men as parts of the world have as their motivational ground the making of the group as strong and flourishing as possible without it costing overly much to them. All the natural motivational factors of the men together with the aim for strenght and safety guide them toward best health and that means living as a healthy whole as a part of the healthy world. That is the safest and strongest choise which is also supported by our nature, it is a paradise upon Earth and the best ultimate goal for a military commander to choose. What kind of choises in what comes to the course of action and values to take that entails and why, I have discussed in my free book Power Politics Leads To Excellent Moral which is available at stores.lulu.com/khtervola but which might demand a some kind of registering first.

Natural rationality in the major goals in life, in the workings of the society and the world at large:
the optimised arrangement produced by the evolution:
* compassion -> human values -> health,
* justice -> each thing treated according to what it produces -> health of practises in this respect,
* carrying responsibility of the things that one affects -> guidability,
* sincerety in communication -> a correct picture of how things are -> guidability,
* holistic objectivity -> things treated according to their role in the world;
in other words: excellent moral is the optimised choise.

So let us take a young happy and healthy naturally beautiful (beauty tells of well functioning - see my other book or my pages about feelings) young maiden on a flowery meadow as an example of a paradise. You may ask: how is this a militartily strong way to arrange things? I must refer to my usual example of a wooden leg working less well than a real alive leg. Also stiff unreactive parts of the body and mind, of whatever alive thing, work less well than those parts as healthily working and reactive. So the young maiden is an example of healthy well functioning and since she has a rewarding social life too, she is a good social example to others about those healthy ways to live. The world being huge and complex, it does not matter whether you were given a strong manly structure or a "weak" female structure if you just can serve as a model of the best kind of way to live to others, since there are so very many of the others anyway. And the maiden isn't stiff like the men - she is alive and has an excellent understanding about life and about the world - see my page www.paradisewins.net/atmospheresthink.html. Well, this is a feministic perspective but should be militarily correct.
A remark: a fine instrument seldom looks sturdy but can be extremely valuable in practise.

What you ought to do if you were a beautiful young butterfly on a meadow and knew that the world was conquered by giants who build ever larger works of their own, making the world so uninhabitable to a large part? You ought to cure the situation but being small and wise you could not build any competitive structures. Instead you would have to rely on other means: on social communication, on being a healthy example of a good healthy way to live. But if even the social skills of the giants were damaged, you would have to rely on being beautiful, a part of the nature that they would remember and treasure close to their heart and so learn from you. So you would have to fly beautifully, nearing a flower completely thrown to the flow of your deepest heart-felt emotions, the letting go, flying freely, nearing the next temptation etc. So beautiful, so healthy, so universal, such an enermous cure: just follow your own nature fully, it tells you what to do and what to not to do in the wolrd! And sure: butterflies are like that! What an enermous emotional kind of beauty they are: what a wisdom of life they have!

In social relationships she valued friendship instead of military practise like the other kids did. She knew that the healthiest soldier was the most capable and that the biggest healthy group the strongest, so she valued everything that could give her full health in every respect and was prepared to commit herself to achieve the best kind of allegiancies: real friendship. Toward the healthy we feel love, love is what gives us strenght, so it is also militarily the best option. There is no difference between the search for happiness and the fight for survival, as long as one does not resort to artificial means like drugs and negligience, lying so to oneself in one’s search for happiness. And moral and happiness connected via the need to do meaningful things in one’s life, to gain social position, to protect the things that give us good life, to protect the future too. Living in social contact with the rest of the living world you can best form allegiancies and in other words care for their well-being via compassion and they will in turn protect you since you are useful to them, to their happiness and well-being, to the state of the large things in the world that affect their lives enermously.

Maybe you could understand this better if you thought about each human relationship as a fighting team on life's sea. That is what it really is!

The unequality in human relationships ought to be taken into account in the following way: you get what you buy for a certain price only - this is the healthiest way to arrange things, giving the strongest allegiancy. If you want to buy loyalty, a quarantee that the other one will not hurt you without a really good reason, you have to pay the price by being loyal yourself that amount - or by being safe enough for the other one and exchanging the rest, upon the agreement of the other one, to some other good side of yours that the other one lacks, like teaching the other one some great skill that is useful in living and that the other one really wants to learn. The other one needs to know your lack of loyalty, if the human relationship is one-sided. Otherwise it is just like an attack against the human nature, against the natural society agreement, which says that you cooperate for the goals that you have in common and are in a clearly seen way on different islands otherwise. Emphaty together with other social skills ought to make this natural society agreement work naturally and with least danger, producing the very strongest allegiancy for all parties without endangering the ground for life, like less instinctual arrangements may do.

Follow your heart's voice in the tough world!
Your nature was created by the evolution to guide you toward the best survival. Your feelings and instincts guide you toward that best fitness by helping to answer your needs which in turn safeguards your health: your overal fitness needed for any task at hand. So the demands of modern work efficiency agree with your wish to live your life fully according to feelings.
Living fully according to feelings does not mean lying to yourself. Thinking must form a holistic view of what the situation is like. Only after that will you be guided correctly by your feelings!
This explains for example how good (=allying as much as possible, as wisely as possible) can be better in a fight than evil (=having the additional goal of causing needless damage): realism demands that the good too have to fight, otherwise they lose all power to the evil ones who bother to fight. It is used to be a part of the generally accepted moral that one ought to fight to defend good and oppose evil, but wrong kind of pacifism has removed thsi part of moral, making so the power dynamics of the world go all wrong. All the usual kind of motivational factors are for a happy kind of allowing non-religious moral, nothing for evil, IF healthy self-defence is allowed and encouraged as a part of moral. Realism says that we have to defend ourselves. One should not group moral wioth pacifism, not with the refusal to defend oneself, not with the giving of power away to the (evil) ones who do not care! The destructuveness of modern weapons means just that they should be used with great care since they cause great losses. All the available means should be used in guiding the use of weapons rationally TO the defence of good! There isn't any new factor in the world because of the existence of nuclear bombs etc.: just the dimensions have changed. Even at earlier times countries were afraid of too large destruction and figured out treaties to solve problems before arriving at such. So there is no need for changed policies: taking all the factors and their dimensions into account the old rules, like aiming at justice, should be all right! No need to replace them, for example true justice and carrying responsibility about one's actions, by pacifism by any means.
Universal love, as I see it, does not mean pacifism by any means, without any limit i.e. without regard for its costs to human (& other) lives. It simply means that you care for all and try to affect things toward better via your greatest ability, for example while understanding that you just have to carry responsibility about all your actions: you cannot help devil like people out of kindness - that would be torture-orientedness in practise when watched from the point of view of their victims AND of the world at large, of the fates of us all!

There is a big difference between whether you reach for money or for what you can get by that money. The latter sets your goals straight, toward good life. It is the same in having an army: the wars and military precautions are just tools: you have to aim at the end result being as healthy as possible, only that having health in the central role sets your goals straight, gives you the best motivation and ffits together the pacifist and militaristic viewpoints.

What is the use for an army from:
∑ An increased ability of its members?
∑ A better organisation of the whole?
∑ A better motivation?
∑ A better acceptability of its actions in the world at large?
∑ A real apprexiation of the rationality of its decisions from both the outsiders and insiders?
∑ An increased understanding and responsible action of its members?
This is what my thoughts: the health, excellent moral, the so called soft values and women can give to the army.

A question: What to do when hard reality (the existence of all kinds of evil, wars, lack of moral, cool calculating behaviour with a complete disregard for feelings and the good of others, etc.) meets the soft values (moral, feelings, religion, the values needed in upbringing children, etc.) ?
Then it is a matter of who is the strongest. That means that one must increase one's own strength via health and the strength of one's group(s) via their health and the number of one's allies via as many allegiancies as possible. So the answers given by the soft values apply, but one must be keen on noticing who is on one's own side and who not, so social skills matter a lot. Between the groups there is a "war" of some kind, it depends on the groups how much figting there will be. A society agreement like picture of the situation would help one to see how much one can trust each party and how one so can form the maximum, best amount of allegiancies. For example one can form rules of behaviour inside the allegiancies that take care that people behave all right even if they are not themselves moral. But defence orientedness is needed. Inside a big group tha often happens via specialization while individual evil ones try to fight on all fronts at the same time. The same happens when the level of moral in a group is low: the individuals get forced to a fight against each other and so the remaining part of their forces is smaller, producing less strenght and a lower standard of living.
How to go about this fight in practise then? You might agree with Sunzi who says that "The victory giving battle is like a stone smashing to an egg." But just take care that you are not so the egg and the stone the enemy, i.e. generalise enough in order to see the true consequences of your actions: if you attack women and children thus making the war more disastrous than what it used to be like, the others will do the same to you and so you have lost safety instead of gaining. The point is to not to break any rules of the society agreement but to fight with excellent moral, opposing only evil things and things which lead to evil if they are allowed (like pacifism to the extreme of allowing all evil), thus you see the targets of aggression and the things to defend and the motivation behind your actions and those of others. What is needed after that is strenght, intelligence, knowledge and skill. That you do not gain by attacking the innocent, you gani it by fighting with your true enemies. A good way to understand the ground for things is to use the islands of the society agreement like picture of the world: all things being created and supported by certain factors, persons and/or groups: just oppose or support each kind of island's supporters. Thus you can build anything and safeguard things valuable to you, while seeing in which way to prevent the disastrous things.

In theory it goes like this: suppose that you meet a mean guy or a group of mean guys and find yourself threatened by them, then you should look for someone higher in the hierargy than what they are or for some more intelligent mean guy who is interested in one's own benefit. Then you could use these efficiency grounds of mine to speak for justice, human values and responsible behaviour. If you find someone who really trusts objective estimates of things, that MIGHT solve your problem...

How to fight a war and be moral? You ought to ally with the (good of the) enemy people too, in a fair way, opposing only evil customs etc., articulating well your grounds for opposing them and your grounds for supporting the people so that you would name customs, values and leaders with whom you ally - not just puppets or reflections of your own culture or your own cultural influence in the neighbouring country, but real values close to the soul of the "enemy" people, phraced in their traditional ways, values that they really care about (happiness, safe future, traditional wisdom,...), explaining your own piece of wisdom thoroughly by mouths that are valued on both sides of the border, explaining how far you agree and why and where you want to take into account also other truths,...

One can optimise wholes in practise a charachteristic by charachteristic: if they are very different, they are independent, and if they are very similar, one can optimise them the same way. So choose from the following what health is (always the first option in the list):
strong or weak,
sensitive and intelligent or unsensitive and idiotic,
allies witha huge group or in conflict with a huge group,
follows one's feelings i.e. follows one's own instructions of usage or does not follow feelings i.e. does not follow one's own instructions of usage,
allies to build the strongest group possible to the extend that is prepared to sacrifice one's own life to protect it or does not care to invest in the strenght of the group,
social and so able to take the most out of encounters or unsocial and not able to get anything much from encounters,
follows rationality or does not follow rationality,
thinks of the whole or not.
You may ask: how can one then ally if one is a predator. For this see the answer in my own Gaia theory in my Gaia pages. One way to ally is to ally with the group instead of with its individuals: to eat away only the ill ones in order to increase the health of the population and to live healthily so as to by one's example support healthy ways of living in the society. One can also ally on the parts that one is not in conflict with anyone, like for example a murderer who is against rape does...

So if soft values really are a wiser choise, how do they exactly win over the hard values? In my opinion one needs the hard values too: the safeguarding of good. But the point is that the soft values, especially good moral, are the rules in how to arrange the whole and not the hard values, especially not evil as a rule. Moral used to be a matter of defending good. In that sense moral is still the correct choise. But moral which is almost equated with pacifism suits inside a group of allies, not among all.

So maybe you believe that health of all the wholes that you belong to, is the best alternative to you. But what about having enemies? Make their moral a condition for their health, i.e. demand health of their relationship to the whole world as a prequisite for their own health. Then they cannot use the fact that they are to a large extend healthy themselves unhealthily in what comes to the rest of the world. In other words: do not give the evil ones too much room to live and to ruin your life, the lives of us all. A happy moral way to live builds a better world for all of us, so it is good to let it rule, even if you are not all that moral yourself - yet!

Then why is the paradise here a global one and not for your own group only? You are a part of the world, so your relationship to the rest of the world matters a lot. If you are for a paradise for all, you obviously ally with the motivation of the enemies too, even if their own side isn't able to ally that much... But what matters especially, is that you should follow the most beneficial guidelines in the world at large in order to benefit from them, in order to win as much as possible in the future and to lose as little as possible in the future. If you do not follow justice in the world at large, your own side may degenerate since you do not always support the best alternatives. If you do not allow human values for those who aim at the global paradise, you lose allies. But of course you must demand that the enemies must be moral enough before you can support them. Anyway, the level of the whole is important and just in that ( and in other things too) it is important to follow the best choise, the moral paradise movement. Otherwise people would copy the strategy that they considert the most intelligent and the leader's too "selfish looking" choises would be repeated in their own group which would weaken the group, see the page /justice.html (?).

SELF-RELIANCE IS A NEEDED SAFETY PRECAUTION FOR THE FUNCTIONING OF THE SYSTEM
In order to arrange the whole well, each part has to be treated according to what it is like. This is a fact well understood in market economy, justice, honesty and holistic objectivity. But what it demands in practise is that all the parts of the system are enough self-reliant in answerig their basic needs, so that they cannot be pushed about and robbed arbitrarily because someone else controls the answering of their basic needs. Instead each part has to gain its place in the system by its own virtues only (and lose position fairly because of its faults).

HONESTY AND HAVING ENEMIES

Moral demands honesty toward the healthy parts of the natural world. Those healthy parts form a whole whose functioning is beneficial to you and to your group.
If your enemy is just malicious and overaggressive compared to what is fair, refuse to communicate with that enemy at all. Keep your mouth shut. Since if you would lie, that would be like pretending to be a part of the same group. It either is of no use or then works only for the part that you are taken as a group member when you in fact are an enemy. Not recognising who allies with whom and who supports what, sets the whole ashtray, everything to more or less wrong role in the whole, so it is one of the crimes that OUGHT to be most opposed, since it takes the ground away from the system: supporing parasites instead of farmers etc. But of course lying is widely spread and kind of accepted as a major part of human to human interactions. One cannot remove it just like that. One still could avoid lying in the major matters of the world, say in questions of life and death and in more important matters. That means among other things that one should value honesty in leaders. I guess that that works only after people have learned to see their enemies as partly healthy and as partly "the shadows that one oneself casts" like the chinese classic Tao-Te-Ching says and only partly as things/deeds to fully resist because of being evil/harmful in essence.

DARKER MOTIVATION:

WHAT IF THERE IS DEVIL IN POWER?
Suppose that the worst happened: that the big devil did exist and got to rule the world. Why would we still have hope?
Devil worships evil or then he is power oriented. In the latter case he listens to the optimising of wholes.
In the former case we can conquer the world from him by the force of arms and by the force of optimising.
In any case the healthy world: a global paradise i.e. good would win.


A BAD DREAM
She awoke with a start. Someone had been taking to her, repeating something again and again.She did not know whether it was a dream or something else. She barely remembered what they had said but the basic idea was clear: she was inside a finely build artificial world and the world was broken. It had been finely build for the purpose of living in it, but people had not understood the need to live in such a world, so they had tried to escape, or to oppose the rulers. In any case they had done everything imaginable to oppose and to break the whole system. They ahd opposed every single thing of worth in it and opposed even their own natures to break it. And they had succeeded. Now she was inside a giant torture machine. Since that is what a giant life sustaning system becomes like when one intentionally breaks it. Her only hope was to repair it. There wqas no special method of repairing. She had to trust in her ordinary everyday communication skills to convince the countless others inside the machine that one ought to stop sabotaging things and repair them instead. It was an ages old problem of creating good moral to where there were nothing to begin with... There was no on-off switch. It was a long road to travel, and her fate depended on her travelling that road all of her life!

Is this our future? If it is one of the possibilities, the we had better prepare ourselves for it!


THE EXTREME POSSIBILITY OF ALL BEING SPIRITS OR ALL LIVING IN A VIRTUAL WORLD ("NO MATERIAL WORLD"):
THINGS STAY THE SAME IN WHAT COMES TO THE BEST OPTION IN HOW TO ARRANGE THINGS.
THE SAME APPLIES IF THERE ARE LOTS OF ARTIFICIALITIES IN THE WORLD.

What if we are spirits or virtual, what if the world doesn't consist of atoms, molecules, we not of cells, what if everything such is just faked, how are things then, what happens to all our deductions about the usefulness of Gaia? Things stay the same since we are still some kind of entities, which have the same characteristics as wholes, so the theory about wholes and fractures in wholes stays still valid, and Gaia is the most beneficial option.
(If everything were of spirit and the world at least partly created by our beliefs about it, that could appear to us modern people as a virtual world.)


Also, if whoever would rule a virtual or spirit world, the ruler would need guidability - that means honesty, objectivity with a holistic view and true justice - and well-functioning of the parts and of the systems and subsystems - that means health (since healthy parts function well while broken parts do not function at all) and naturality (since our functioning is based on the natural ways of functioning and on nothing else) which mean at the level of individuals human values.
Putting each part of a system to its correct place and correct role in the whole, so as to get the whole to function as well as possible, means health and naturality of the whole and its parts and structures since that's what their functioning is based on.


It is quite easy to figure out what is the best way to arrange a virtual world for just about any purpose: respecting health of the individuals (human values) and of the systems (including naturality and moral) while having natural hierargy in who can affect what. This should be easy for all to learn and to understand:

For how to program a world governing computer to be completely moral, see my page:

World Computer Main Program.

NATURAL HIERARGIES
There is a natural hierargy in human societies: the way that is according to real justice, for the good of all. If we get apprexiated for our good sides, they get supported for the good of all, and others can take us as an example for themselves without losing position at all. If we lose position when we do not according to justice deserve a good position, our bad sides, especially irresponsibility, get discouraged. When the one who understands better and carries responsibility is in a deciding position things get done well for the good of all. This is possible by using many many partial hierargies at the same time: one for each subject, skill, thing to decide, piece of knowledge,... Correcting one's own errors is a thing to value and to be demanded from all, especially from those in a deciding position. This creates a natural repair mechanism for the society and is an ideal way to arrange things.
CARRYING RESPONSIBILITY of the whole and using a good picture of the whole with all emphazies and roles of things right, guide the whole toward the good of all. One is not allowed to affect things which one does not carry responsibility over.
There is a saying in Finland: "Honour those who truly deserve respect." (Meaning: even when it is an unorthodox choise, and do not give honour according to custom to those who do not according to justice deserve it).
This is the way that we organize things in my homecountry Finland in North Europe.


Let us suppose that we are all virtual, all the humans, all the animals etc., maybe even theUFO:s adding a flavor of their own to that mixture. Each human is virtualised to one's own virtual world with its own rules, everything run by huge superhypercomputers or however. How does that enrmous huge complex whole work? What would make sense for the individuals to do in such a world? What are the dynamics of that system? Each human being is different, so we have to take a look at what we all have in common, take a look at the human nature. All dynamics 9in connection with the living beings is born out of what the living beings are like. So if someone wants power or workers or whatever, they have to count on the human nature. That's what gives the functioning needed for reaching any kind of goals. In that one must remember the value of human values: a healthy one works better than a broken one. Also justice and true objectivity are musts for the buidlders of such systems and for those who want to benefit from their dynamics: treat each part according to what it is like, so you can best benefit from it. Read the texts about rational moral! … So it stays valid that Gaia is the best option, the answer to the question of hgow to arrange one's forces best and how to best arrange the rules in the virtuyal worlds. And Gaia for Gaia is the answer to how the individuals and groups could best benefit themselves and their goals in such an enermously complex and seemingly arbitrarily arrangeable world.

Paradise is the best Let's take the hypothetical situation where people are just a computer figure colonny living inside a computer so that everything is possible. Then you might think that if someone has something good, one ought to take it and spread it as widely as possible, via artificial arrangements. But that does not work since that makes people copy from all those lower quality people when they want that good thing for themselves too. So the whole deteriorates all the time. That is contrary to the situation of fair play where all get their own good sides and nothing else. Then everybody knows from whom one can learn things that one wants to one's life. This is a better way to reach good life and even a paradise upon the "Earth(?)".


SELFISH TO THE EXTREME

In the end, what matters, is what life is like to you yourself, since that affects you the most. What happens to the others is of little significance in itself, but is of course important in giving you the environment that you live in. So it matters enormously to be selfish, in a sense that is the only possible rational choise for the individual. But that does not mean carelessness in what comes to treating all the others, more likely it means well planned strategic action in social contacts: sometimes careful and sometimes when there is no need to be careful, even completely careless. A well planned strategic attitude toward others is different from pure maliciousness which is more like a thing based on social feelings than any cool calculating behaviour that would be determined by its beneficiality to yourself. Rather than to act based on maliciousness, anger, agitation, the wish to neglect others or any other negative or positive feeling, one ought to start by examining feelings: what is their role in your life, what are they caused by, why, what do they lead to and is that end result beneficial or unbeneficial to you?

Whether God created living beings or they were purely results of the natural evolution, life goes on. The very weak die and the very fit prosper. As the time passes that produces a situation like the evolution, which God and the genetic wisdom in living beings born from the unnumerable many generations of natural evolution must know well. So what we are like has been chosen by the previous circumstances so that it brings us the best fitness for the life in our living environment.
What we are means our whole being, including instincts, feelings and social life as well as thinking and knowledge. All those things in our nature are beneficial for our survival if we just know how to use them right.

One of the strengths that is good to have, is the ability to estimate situations right, in other words good observational skills and real objective intelligence to make the deductions about what one has observed right.
The first point in objectivity is getting the main points right. That is impossible if you have no idea of what the main points are like. You can get that idea only by having a proper view of the whole thing and of its major relationships to other things in the world & of its role in the world. So only holistic thinking is objective thinking. Other more partial forms of objectivity are just fakes and no use to you if you want to find out how things are and what would be best for you.

You are just a one single person and the world is enermous. You can affect you fate by doing different things in the world, which will then have (positive or negative) consequences on you yourself. The wise affects one’s own fate toward the positive, but what that positive is, depends on the individual: someone would like to be happy, for the others security and survival in the long term are often the only possible goals. But the evolution or God was wise: it is often possible to use the search for happiness as a tool for survival, that is how God or the evolution meant things to be. So before you drop all feelings away as a needless stuff, let’s examine more closely their usefulness to you. At big catastrophes to your wishes & needs in life, you feel down. When something great happens to you, you are glad. This far fine: feelings guide you in a way that makes lots of sense. But what if you have many contradictory causes of feelings? Use a holistic view of the situation, with proportions right and causes and consequences taken into account, and let the feelings find their balance. Typically if things still do not work out all right (do you feel happy and secure?!), you have neglected some causes and consequences in your thinking. Typically such happens when someone that is more intelligent than you are fails to understand the importance of a holistic view and uses a partial view instead, taking so only a part of the facts into account and neglecting all the rest regardless of how important they are in practise. One can do this big errors only at a great cost to oneself. Well, this thing about understanding how to live with feelings without giving up selfishness is a thing to be handled by making honest observations about the end results of following feelings – and remember that looking less fortunate is equal to failing, not equal to being manlier than you! Others trying to save face when they are in fact stupid is usually of no use to you. Please read my book Work Efficiency and Likings about the rational grounds for trusting feelings!

I care about myself but why would I care for the people of the whole world, much less for the animals? A holistic view means thinking about the whole world, it does not necessarily mean caring for all the people, even though it easily leads to it as we see how caring is really beneficial for ourselves. We are not alone, the world affects us enermously. But where many go wrong is the thought that since the world is so enermous we cannot ourselves affect our living conditions, since after all we do affect enermously our nearest social contacts – whether they are near because of living constantly with us side by side or because their identity is like ours – for example selfish. If you choose a certain strategy in a certain kind of situation, all those near you, all those like you and all those like thiose near you, reflect on how well you did succeed by that strategy, and if you succeed really well, the rumour spreads and all of them start to invest in that same strategy in life, making different versions of it. So if you think that you have a good strategy in life, ti is not yours alone: it affects an enermous number of people, so you know one thing for sure: your environment does NOT stay constant regardsless of what you do. So you just have to take a look at how you affect your environment in the likely case that others copy from you. That is done by assuming that all or a big part of the humans in your environment rely on the same type of tactics, with individual variations and inventions of course. This is easiest if you think that as some fraction of the effect of all following the same course of action: for example do people get supported for doing beneficial things (= justice, market economy) or do they guide their actions in a way that makes most sense (= holistic objectivity, carrying responsibility of the consequences of one’s actions). Because it is a questions of masses of people – your environment + its environment etc. – working together for the things that benefit them all, it is the same things which has traditionally been called moral: the optimisation of the whole, wisely!, toward the greatest benefit for all fairly. Fair play allows feedback for the chosen strategies, so that the masses of people ca guide the whole huge group toward the greatest benefit: safety, prosperity, happiness,… whatever goals the people have.
Kind of gold rush connecting your strategy to the behaviour of many many others, making your own behaviour so echo in the behaviour of the masses of people, changing os your whole environment and making it thus important for you to think of the consequences of that change instead of estimatig everything as if others did not notice anything of your strategy. So you have to use a holistic view and think what would happen if everyybody would do like you! That brings your attention tio the laws governing the whole and makes so you work for the common good instyead of bering a parasite - IF you want to advance your own good. You can count the optimised result for the whole: that is best for you since the effecvt of your environment to your life is so enermous. And that optimised option is perfect moral, like you will see if you count the best allegiancy for you: it is to ally with an as strong group as possible. In the strongest group all work for the strenght of the group all that they can and are fairly rewarded for that. Another word for that is moral. 

SELFISH TO THE EXTREME

In the end, what matters, is what life is like to you yourself, since that affects you the most. What happens to the others is of little significance in itself, but is of course important in giving you the environment that you live in. So it matters enormously to be selfish, in a sense that is the only possible rational choise for the individual. But that does not mean carelessness in what comes to treating all the others, more likely it means well planned strategic action in social contacts: sometimes careful and sometimes when there is no need to be careful, even completely careless. A well planned strategic attitude toward others is different from pure maliciousness which is more like a thing based on social feelings than any cool calculating behaviour that would be determined by its beneficiality to yourself. Rather than to act based on maliciousness, anger, agitation, the wish to neglect others or any other negative or positive feeling, one ought to start by examining feelings: what is their role in your life, what are they caused by, why, what do they lead to and is that end result beneficial or unbeneficial to you?

Whether God created living beings or they were purely results of the natural evolution, life goes on. The very weak die and the very fit prosper. As the time passes that produces a situation like the evolution, which God and the genetic wisdom in living beings born from the unnumerable many generations of natural evolution must know well. So what we are like has been chosen by the previous circumstances so that it brings us the best fitness for the life in our living environment.
What we are means our whole being, including instincts, feelings and social life as well as thinking and knowledge. All those things in our nature are beneficial for our survival if we just know how to use them right.

One of the strengths that is good to have, is the ability to estimate situations right, in other words good observational skills and real objective intelligence to make the deductions about what one has observed right.
The first point in objectivity is getting the main points right. That is impossible if you have no idea of what the main points are like. You can get that idea only by having a proper view of the whole thing and of its major relationships to other things in the world & of its role in the world. So only holistic thinking is objective thinking. Other more partial forms of objectivity are just fakes and no use to you if you want to find out how things are and what would be best for you.

You are just a one single person and the world is enermous. You can affect you fate by doing different things in the world, which will then have (positive or negative) consequences on you yourself. The wise affects one’s own fate toward the positive, but what that positive is, depends on the individual: someone would like to be happy, for the others security and survival in the long term are often the only possible goals. But the evolution or God was wise: it is often possible to use the search for happiness as a tool for survival, that is how God or the evolution meant things to be. So before you drop all feelings away as a needless stuff, let’s examine more closely their usefulness to you. At big catastrophes to your wishes & needs in life, you feel down. When something great happens to you, you are glad. This far fine: feelings guide you in a way that makes lots of sense. But what if you have many contradictory causes of feelings? Use a holistic view of the situation, with proportions right and causes and consequences taken into account, and let the feelings find their balance. Typically if things still do not work out all right (do you feel happy and secure?!), you have neglected some causes and consequences in your thinking. Typically such happens when someone that is more intelligent than you are fails to understand the importance of a holistic view and uses a partial view instead, taking so only a part of the facts into account and neglecting all the rest regardless of how important they are in practise. One can do this big errors only at a great cost to oneself. Well, this thing about understanding how to live with feelings without giving up selfishness is a thing to be handled by making honest observations about the end results of following feelings – and remember that looking less fortunate is equal to failing, not equal to being manlier than you! Others trying to save face when they are in fact stupid is usually of no use to you. Please read my book Work Efficiency and Likings about the rational grounds for trusting feelings!

I care about myself but why would I care for the people of the whole world, much less for the animals? A holistic view means thinking about the whole world, it does not necessarily mean caring for all the people, even though it easily leads to it as we see how caring is really beneficial for ourselves. We are not alone, the world affects us enermously. But where many go wrong is the thought that since the world is so enermous we cannot ourselves affect our living conditions, since after all we do affect enermously our nearest social contacts – whether they are near because of living constantly with us side by side or because their identity is like ours – for example selfish. If you choose a certain strategy in a certain kind of situation, all those near you, all those like you and all those like thiose near you, reflect on how well you did succeed by that strategy, and if you succeed really well, the rumour spreads and all of them start to invest in that same strategy in life, making different versions of it. So if you think that you have a good strategy in life, ti is not yours alone: it affects an enermous number of people, so you know one thing for sure: your environment does NOT stay constant regardsless of what you do. So you just have to take a look at how you affect your environment in the likely case that others copy from you. That is done by assuming that all or a big part of the humans in your environment rely on the same type of tactics, with individual variations and inventions of course. This is easiest if you think that as some fraction of the effect of all following the same course of action: for example do people get supported for doing beneficial things (= justice, market economy) or do they guide their actions in a way that makes most sense (= holistic objectivity, carrying responsibility of the consequences of one’s actions). Because it is a questions of masses of people – your environment + its environment etc. – working together for the things that benefit them all, it is the same things which has traditionally been called moral: the optimisation of the whole, wisely!, toward the greatest benefit for all fairly. Fair play allows feedback for the chosen strategies, so that the masses of people ca guide the whole huge group toward the greatest benefit: safety, prosperity, happiness,… whatever goals the people have.
Kind of gold rush connecting your strategy to the behaviour of many many others, making your own behaviour so echo in the behaviour of the masses of people, changing os your whole environment and making it thus important for you to think of the consequences of that change instead of estimatig everything as if others did not notice anything of your strategy. So you have to use a holistic view and think what would happen if everyybody would do like you! That brings your attention tio the laws governing the whole and makes so you work for the common good instyead of bering a parasite - IF you want to advance your own good. You can count the optimised result for the whole: that is best for you since the effecvt of your environment to your life is so enermous. And that optimised option is perfect moral, like you will see if you count the best allegiancy for you: it is to ally with an as strong group as possible. In the strongest group all work for the strenght of the group all that they can and are fairly rewarded for that. Another word for that is moral.

To advance one's own good, at any cost, is what pure selfishness means in the ears of most. This is what is generally agreed about selfishness. What is not agreed about, is what course of action is best for each individual. The individuals with different types of understanding and other strenghts prefer different roads to their goals, may even choose different types of goals and lie about their ultimate aims.


What do the bosses think?
The bosses are typically theoretically more intelligent than the majority of their subordinates. So the bosses high up in the hierargy may understand well many things of whose existence the others are only vaguely aware of. If they too are purely selfish, it is still good for the others to understand that typically their own good is tied to the success of the enterprise more tightly than thge good of the subordinates. So what matters to the boss, is the optimisation of the whole, in other words good moral.


A GUIDE FOR THE PURELY SELFISH INDIVIDUAL

PURE SELFISHNESS

SELFISH AND STRONG INDIVIDUAL

PURE SELFISHNESS INSTEAD OF MALICIOUSNESS
IS OR COULD BE THE WINNING OPTION

A COURSE IN SELFISHNESS

THE TRADITIONAL EXTREMELY RATIONAL MORAL OF THE FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND

The traditional moral of Finland in northern Europe is on strong rational grounds which can be put to the form of optimising wholes. These grounds are largely based on two simple advices which all children are given: "It is good to cultivate good health (of the individuals, of the ways of living, of the social relationships, of the society, of the environment and of the world at large)." and "It is stupid to break."


The easy principle "A HEALTHY WHOLE WORKS MUCH BETTER THAN A BROKEN WHOLE" helps you to find answers to seemingly impossible questions, like the value of peace, justice, human values, honesty, democracy, freedom, Gaia, love, beauty, sex etc. from the beneficality or efficiency optimising (military or economical) point of view. These are all charachteristics of the healthy world and thus beneficial.

HOW TO MAKE GOOD WIN OVER EVIL
Build in your mind a good picture of what a healthy whole is like: healthy society, healthy human kind and healthy living king, a healthy world. That is what to term good.
Now, compare the evil option to that picture: what is lacking, you should see as a fracture, brokedness in the whole, also malformations should be seen as brokedness of the whole.
And healthy works better than a broken one. So good is stronger than evil.



Also on the following kind of ground it is possible to find that moral is the most benefical, winning option.
WHICH ONE WINS (MORAL DOES WIN)
What means totally value-free optimizing of benefit without preconditions:
It means interest in
what gives most force, power,
what gives protection and how,
what is the best strategy,
what must one take into account about the future,
how to arrange one�1⁄2s relationships to other powers,
which solutions win and why,
what is the most benefical thing,
what must be most feared and
how to protect oneself,
who are the benefical allies etc.
In this analyzis one needs
Extremely good objective thinking with a good holistic view
And openeyedness toward all options, both the dangerous and also the non-dangerous ones is needed in this because it is the creation of force which is important in this analyzis, so if soft means give any advantage that too must be used FULLY.


HEALTHY VERSUS BROKEN

All functioning is build upon the healthy. Healthy versus broken is the pair of opposites to use in order to understand the world. I will apply this pair of opposites again and again, all through this book. With it you can understand a lot about the functioning of biological beings and societies and about the value of moral.

What about the old pair of opposites then: healthy versus ill? Ilness is a healthy function of a broken biological being, a way of it to try to cure itself. In other words, ilnesses are combinatrions of brokedness and of a curing reaction which seeks to make sure that the living being survives better in the long run by resting, having a fever etc.
In my opinion the word �ilness� isn�t as useful in understanding things as the new pair of oppoisites that I use.

So. A healthy individual works better than a broken one. And a healthy society works better than a broken one. But what are the healthy individuals and healthy societies like. What to aim at?

A healthy individual is by one�s nature a part of a healthy society. As a part of the healthy society one works best, is the happiest, has a most rewarding life. Healthy functioning at large gives the most rewarding life. That�s what the evolution � or God � quarantees about feelings.
But if the society is broken, it is the same as if in individual is broken: the healthy parts try to cure it back to full health. Each healthy individual is a center of recovery for the whole society, even for the whole human kind as a part of the biosphere. Health in this sense means healthy ways of living. Having found the true chord about the art of living, understanding deeply about life, the healthy individual is naturally a center figure in the social environment having a healthy curing kind of effect on all. This is a moral thing to do since it is for the good of all. So a healthy individual is by one�s very nature completely moral in a healthy happy natural way!

The health of a society means that it is completely morally arranged. A society is a cooperation attempt and cooperation is something which has turned out to be useful during the evolution � or in God�s eyes. Objective thinking says that cooperation is useful because it brings the force of masses. That can be seen as a vector sum: harmonical or contradictory vectors. Those with like interests can ally for the common good.


WHAT I SUPPORT

To the readers of these pages: please do observe conscientously what are the starting points of my thoughts (= all the points of view that I have heard of) which I use ONLY because you others use them, and what are the end results of my thoughts, the thus supported values (= paradise, excellent moral ad a life completely according to feelings) that I support from my heart. Here observe that the starting points are not logical premises for me but premises only for the other parties that I do oppose and to whom I try to prove my point in a discussion. I do support only the end results and not the starting points, even though I value realism but to me these end results ARE realistical values!

SELFISHNESS

Technology is typically build to a certain purpose only, with a complete disregard for its relationship with the rest of the world. That is contrary to the nature where the health of the whole (incl. pack & liv. environment) helps the survival of its parts. And since animals can understand the value of their own health, can they via compassion and an analogy of the whole to their own life UNDERSTAND also THE VALUE OF THE HEALTH OF THE WHOLE, WHICH understanding HELPS THEIR OWN SURVIVAL. -> GAIA!

What is already ready made, complex but well fitted to form a well working whole, well suited to its purpose,like the nature is, is in character very different from things in their building phace where product development is still lacking, like is with tools and technology.
We have natural ways of looking at the nature, understanding it in its complexity and intentionality: emphaty and feelings at large. The ways of looking at the much less complex technology and the build world are different.

PROTECTION

To live happily and to wish well for others sounds nice but how to protect oneself? The need for protection isn�t in contradiction with the wishing well to others. I didn�t say that you should sacrifice yourself for others, I said that you could live happily! And if you are moral yourself you deserve to be protected because you thus work for the common good. You can yourself be one of those who protect you. You must protect yourself from those who might harm you, that means from the evil actions of others and of yourself i.e. you must demand moral from yourslerf and from others. If you yourself err from good moral, from the wish for good life for all fairly, you are thus not allying with the health of the world and so you are harming yourself compared to how things would be if you allied with the health of the world. Better than unjustice is to build on things of real worth. That�s why you can sometimes benefit from punishments which guide you toward more moral action. It is better to see the power dynamics of the world: of how people like to be treated, what they answer with good, and how they do not like to be treated, what they answer by attacking. Wish well and protect yourself � that�s morally fully OK, even demanded by moral since as a moral person you are a person of worth� Protection of good is an important part of moral, and what would be good if not happy life with no suffering and a good future ahead? This is exactly so when watched from the holistic point of view!
If you have difficulties with just this point, please read my page www.paradisewins.net/societyagreement.html . Friends can coperate and benefit from that, enemies cannot and must defend themselves against each other, not trusting the untrustworthy. But one can be fair and moral in this. One should divide all rights on the condition that they are not abused in any way. So all rights are conditional. This leads to very unequal division of rights since the individuals are very different indeed, but that is only fair and not against the equality of individuals since all are entitled to the same rights IF they only satisfy the same comditions demanded by true justice and responsibility.

IDEA SOCIAL GROUP = the best arrangement created by the evolution

Loving feelings tie each part to its best place in the whole.
Imagine two parts (berings) loving some good sides of each other. They get tied together by that love, forming so a subwhole = friendship. While they are independent where they do not like some charachteristic of the other one.

Hate (which, like love, MUST always be directed toward /against JUST the thing that caused the feeling - otherwise things go badly ashtray!!) gets rid of parasites and of other harmful things.

In the perfect group all beings and all parts of beings get their place according to what is best for the group: high if skilled and responsible, low if unskilled or unresponsible. One hierargy for each thing to decide.
Justice keeps things so.
Honesty helps in keeping up justice, so that one can form the strongest possible allegaincy and aren't fooled to accepting a much much weaker one instead.
These calculations about the effect of practises to the whole concern so huge things to the individual that they overrun in importance the position of the single individual in the group - it is better to have the whole on a good ground: also rewarding social life where you can trust people and not jsut some money - so very few have enermously much money, it aren't beneficial to support parasites benefitting that much, since money counts only when there are big differenciesd in the money available for a certain use.


THE HEALTH OF A SYSTEM, OF THE MODERN SOCIETY

There are some basic truths about the functioning of complex wholes. This include the importance of putting each part to its correct place in the system. This is connected to the value of objective thinking, honesty and justice and to the success of market economy: in each of them one gives things feedback according to what the things are like and that enables one to put each thing to its correct, best place in the system.

Having each part at its correct place in the whole means that the system isn't broken. This is connected to the value of unifiedness, fracturelessness in well "planned" systems.
The value of fracturelessness is in turn connected to the value of harmony:
Imagine a system broken into pieces, starting to repair the system you put some parts to their correct places: you get small unified, harmonical islands, the better repaired the system becomes, the more harmonical its functioning, the more unified the whole. A well planned system functions without contradictions and fractures, harmonically. The next step from harmonival is unified well functioning. Such are the systems of nature.


The value of harmony as a vector sum

Several harmonious forces sum up to much a bigger force than a group of contradictory, unharmonical forces or a separate one of the forces in question.

< > v ^ contradictory
versus
> > > > noncontradictory, harmonical

Harmonical solution creates more benefit and loses none to opposition
- unlike the contradictory solution attempt.

Thus, cooperation gives strength while strength is lost in conflicts.
So one who values cooperation is stronger than a like one who values conflicts.
And so "soft" harmonical means prove to be valuable. Like this one can see how peace is more beneficial than war and count the difference. One must just add the huge effect of the enormous destruction caused by the enemy. Also there is a loss in war to the safety of the future, like the society agreement with other countries tells.

Applying this result thoroughly gives the efficiency-optimised result:
the most harmonical arrangement:
the natural and healthy (in harmony with the natural ways of functioning of the living beings)
loose (according to the way that things are)
global (all parties in harmony and cooperation)
cooperation.

Ally as much as you can. That brings you success in life. Ally with the society in order to produce good living conditions, ally with the moral ones for the same common cause and with friends to defend the things, which you value. Ally with the living kind to achieve the paradise, Gaia.

Compare the value of harmony to the value of unifiedness and fracturelessness.

HARMONIC FOREST ISLANDS
Harmonic forest islands is the best way that I can think of to think of people living peacefully together. Each person alone is an island with harmonic forest growing on it. Each cooperating group is a harmonic forest island. One can think through the whole society agreement this way: the structure of the whole world in a way, which is constructive for happy life and good moral. This natural division of the world also teaches one healthy independence at the same time as harmonical cooperation.

This way of cooperating can be described also by marking each thing done a vector and by grouping the vectors according to their direction, so that one gets an optimised use of forces.



THE SOCIETY AGREEMENT


The island principle
A way to arrange cooperation:
either cooperation or independence. (Use separate islands for different conflicting parties.)

People who CULTIVATE the same thing belong to the same ISLAND.
Share results of cultivation on the island according to justice, which takes into, account the basic living requirements of each. ("Live and let others live." is a good rule to follow.)
Check who belongs to your own island: those who do not follow some set of rules, do not deserve the benefits created by them.
One can create islands for the exchange of benefits.

Like this one can count what are one's responsibilities and rights toward the society: which islands one is on, what are the rules needed for cultivating those things: that's what benefits one has gained and that's what one must follow. This is called the society agreement.


By taking into account also other kinds of islands, i.e. all things that one causes (cultivates), one can see how we together make the world what it is.

One of the most important islands is that �in emergencies one is fairly helped by those who are capable of helping�. It includes an obligation to help but one gains the protection in emergencies which is dearly needed.

Forming groups by being in a same situation or by caring for the same thing:
* all mothers
* all those who care for children (including children them selves)
* all those who support good moral, obliged when they find themselves in a situation like this, needing moral guarding behaviour working for the good of all
* all who care for the future of us all
* all living beings
The society agreement says: all those of the group agree to work for the common cause according to real justice which takes into account human values, carrying responsibility of the whole, with the help of common sense with a holistic view.
The freely organized citizen democracy in Finland in Europe is of this type.
Compassion helps us to see the similarities between our lives and so to form this kind of cooperating groups.

As a helping aid in forming this kind of groups, an objective holistic picture of the world formed by objective thinking, which doesn't take sides, and which recognizes things as phenomena with feelings connected to them, feelings that tell about the importance of such things in life and in the world generally and about what to do with such things: which things to support and which to prevent for the good of all: children, free time, catastrophes,...

Feelings of this kind are typical to the Finnish speaking Finns:
what is the role of each thing in life and in the society,
how do things form our fate - is it good to have such things in life or not?

It is typical for us Finns to use a holistic view of the world at large all the time.

Remember this also at the times of war: do not break against justice even then. There is a society agreement with the enemy too, preventing the wars from getting longer and more cruel. Check how much is lost when you do not follow some rules. That much you have to lose yourself, even if you are a man and soldier and think that what you are doing is for the common good. Those who keep the society agreement, are still entitled to their share of good, even if they are female and civilian. Read my text about healthy aggressivity. More than that isn't allowed. Being for the good health of the world and of the societies is moral, so it is supporting some islands of the society agreement, not destroying them. The army of Finland is strictly for defence only plus for some peace keeping operations of the United Nations.
The society agreement like picture of the world allows one to make cost benefit analyses also at the times of war. The costs of a war are huge, peace is a much much more beneficial option.



NATURAL PATCHES AND SOCIETY AGREEMENT

NATURAL PATCHES
* individual
* social group
* group working together
for some goal
following some set of rules
(not hurting each other,
co-operating for the goal,
nice behaviour
and so on):
1. Things that one needs to run one's life:
* home
* food
* means to get such for oneself (work and the possibility to work)
* safety
2. Things that one likes:
* hobbies
* delicious food
* and so on
And arranging these together:
* hobby group
* ordering food from shop
* And the possibility for such

Large groups
agreeing not to hurt
each other badly
or at all
(no need to, if the places are separate
or far away from each other)


Justice
&
A Harmonic Forest Islands type of society agreement
(like the one above)

Rights and priviledges are conditional:
shared only according to justice!



DEFENCE AGAINST DECEPTION IN ALLEGIANCIES

Think of the world as a huge society agreement: who is really on your own island in each question, you can trust. Who is not but appears to be, who is disguised as one of your own, you cannot trust. So you need an island against the dangers created by those pretenders, especially if they are enemies. One way to guard against such attacks is to use separate islands in deciding about things: you decide on your island on objective grounds which support common good and then check if it agrees with the decisions of others and communicate about the decisions so that you and the others can learn from each other. This is the reason why we are individuals and not solely social beings: so we can make defences against betrayals. If your decisions agree, you are parts of the same group in that question. If not, then you are somewhat on different islands - either as a result of differences in understanding and experience - like usual: that's why the communication and social instincts are needed. Or because the others try to deceive you to an action which is harmful to you or to your group or serves some other goal which you do not agree about - that's why you need to trust your own understanding too.

HANDLING UNSURENESS ABOUT TRUSTWORTHINESS

If you are in a situation where you do not know how things truly are, for example whether you can trust some person or not, you should act in a way that is O.K. from the point of view of the both possibilities. Take yourself care of the important things in your life, so that they get well even if the other person is not trustworthy. On the other hand, give yourself and the other person a possibility to living in harmony, in a constructive way: do not break anything that you do not need to - especially not those things that the other person needs if she/he truly is trustworthy. Try to do things according to justice, and work for common good, without harming good persons and without letting the evil ones to benefit in any way more than they deserve when they are judged according to their moral. Like making an ordinary deal with safety precautions. These safety precautions mean in practise moral guidelines and making the morality of action in practise the condition for any rights. (Rights can be refused also afterwards and deals devalidiated if the other one breaks against the moral guidelines.)

HOW TO AVOID CONFLICTS
One simple advice on how to avoid conflicts, is to get more independence when one feels the need to aggressively influence things, so that one can peacefully influence them instead. Read my texts about the healthy aggressivity.

INDEPENDENCY AND COOPERATION WITH UNIFICATION
How to fit together the needs of independency (defence, justice) and the benefits of unification and cooperation? One needs different degrees of freedom and safety precautions in addition to unification. One can have separate islands for each party, or them in harmony and cooperation, or such with a promise to stay so, or such for a long time or one single area. Safety precautions make it possible to sift to a more independent arrangement if one gets abused. The ideal is to be free and cooperate at the same time, such is the healthiest kind of system, I think. In other words the arrangements should be so ideal that a new participant would on one's own choose the same ones as are already in use. This is the way that the culture and the society of the Finnish speaking Finland work. That is: if they try to choose the best ones and not sabotage the systems. Separate islands and independence are needed just as a defence against sabotage and other attacks. Those who cooperate survive better.

Between island there can be exchanges: what one has a lot it will give to others and get something that they have a lot in return. If someone has lots of strength, it can help the weak ones, who in turn make the promise to help in return.

DEFENCE: SAFETY PRECAUTIONS

Always make carefully sure that the most important things get right! Make several checkings instead of just one: use all the weight of the importance of the thing in question.


If you go to the right direction, you might get something done. If you go to a wrong direction, you surely do not get anything done. So it is worth trying.

I never take an evil person as a model for myself.
Instead I trust my own sense of health and happiness.


NOT TAKING SIDES
Not taking sides is a prequisite for justice and for true objectivity.


HONESTY

X% honesty in a system gives (X%)^n effectiveness to the system where n is the dimension of the system and X% the amount of hitting the truth, what ever the reason for it. So systems are build on honesty.

Speak the truth when you say something. The deeper you touch the truth, the better you will be listened to. Your soul is like that of others.

Honest looks
If the looks of people are not correct, honest and sincere, people get wrong roles in the society and the functioning of the communities suffers a lot. One should not allow the disguising of evil as good. That is against honesty and justice, against the functioning of a system and against correctability. The Swedish speaking Finns do not understand this, the Finnish speaking Finns do understandf it.

NO social roles
Social roles are partly lies: they try to build on a ground that does not exist or deceive others into supporting unjustices. These are both serious faults, which should be avoided.

Lies and unjustice decrease the effectiveness of arrangements.
There is a Finnish saying: "What the big before, the little ones after." If the leaders of a country steal by lying or doing unjustice - either from other countries or fron their own subordinates - others typically copy the amount of lies in order to trust in the most intelligent ones' understanding. So if the leaders gain X% extra by lying or doing unjustice, all the others try to do the same. That means at least X% of everything lost to lies, so the effectiveness of the system decreases X% per every dimension of the system. So the leaders gain (100+X)% * ((100-X)%)^n = ((100%)^2 - (X%)^2 )((100-X)%)^(n-1)< (100%)^2 - (X%)^2 < 1. So since the dimension of the system, n, is at least one, the leaders lose instead of gaining! For example the dimension of the system n=2 if there is stealing plus laziness because of lack of motivation because of the stealing. That would cause a loss of 2X% in addition to the gain of X% by stealing, so the total effect is a loss of X% to both the leaders and to the citizens. In other words, lying or unjustice as a practise in a country decreases its standard of living noticeably, so much that honesty and justice would be a more benefical option.
A proud nation is a self sustaining nation! Also if it is a big nation capable of mistreating others - It will not mistreat others even if it were strong enough for that.
Remember that if you are in an important place in the market economy so that you could gain a lot by stealing a little or even more, you are one of the leaders of a country and so the above calculations apply to you too. (You are an opinion leader, an example to others, especially in your own branch where your money comes from.) So you will lose by stealing and doing unjustice, not gain.


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo


THE GLOBAL PARADISE WINS
So has it always been and so will it forever be...
Only if the world is guided by what we think and if we think, like many have thought this far, mistakenly that the above is not true, then we will guide the world to a wrong, unbeneficial direction and there will be no paradise. But if there is a free competition of all the answers and true objectivity governing, it will be a paradise which wins!

This should mean that as time passes we will eventually end up in a global paradise much like the one in the beginning of time - now we have the technology tools but it ought not to prevent us from reaching the paradise - if we just trust objective thinking enough. This time the paradise will be WITH the technology but otherwise very much like the paradise in the beginning of time since the instructions of usage of humans have not changed and the natural healthy goals of humans still make sense from the point of view of survival and that's why we need the Gaia paradise from the point of view of modern competition. See for example the page /increasingintelligence.html about the connection of academical or engineering work efficiency and natural&emotional life. Or my book Work Efficiency and Likings which you can download for free at stores.lulu.com/khtervola

THIS IS THE BIGGEST QUESTION IN THE WHOLE WORLD!
A task for the reader: Can you think a bigger thought than this one? Think of an as important thought as you can and then compare to this one: was your thought already a part of this thought, how do these truths connect? The task of thinking is to affect as much toward good as possible in as important questions as possible... If you cannot find an even bigger thought (and anyway) please share this thought with others too!
For a religious answer too see www.paradisewins.net/Godstory.html - it is quite outrageous but in the light of the thoughts on that page it seems that the above thought could be even the reason for God's existence and especially to the purpose of our existence, to the goals of God creating us.
I added the story here:
Once upon a time there was a God, not the highest one of all but an ordinary ruler of one world. The God was worried about the state of the universe since there was too much evil around. Beings didn't seem to understand why to not to be evil. So the God decided � it was the fate of the God � to try to cure all the countless worlds. In order to do so the God created a world, and created us in it, not to be spirits and capable of much like most of the beigs were, but to be of flesh and bone, and with a lesser intelligence, so that everything would be clear for all to see.
Now in this world we manifest how good is stronger than evil, because good means cultivating good health and evil means needlesss breaking, and because we all understand that a healthy one works better than a broken one. From a technology hell with evil around we have found a road back to the paradise which God created: it is the cultivation of good health of all scales. It is what makes us strong and happy and brings us the best intelligence that we can have. It is what saves this world and all the others.
One might add that if God created the world, God created it this way perfect.


A HEALTHY WORLD WORKS BEST

To be clear: Here are two thoughts:
The first thought is about the strenght of healthy ones and about the healthy world being the best functioning arrangement tested by the evolution. (How does evolution which works on the level of the parts bring a tested arrangement of the whole? Those who ally in good ways benefit the most, from getting a healthy group - just like a high standard of living benefits the citizens. The strongest group is one in which all its members cooperate for the common good without any unfair arrangements - see my pages at www.paradisewins.net/rationalmoral.html)

The truth that a healthy one works best is an ages old truth, proven by the evolution, created by the evolution. How well does it apply at these times of modern technology? First there were the requirements of the humans, then the rerquirements of the technology but now the technology has become so far developed that it has become more and more adabted to the requirements of humans which have become to count again in questions of optimising the systems. Answering the needs of humans keeps humans fit to work. That means keeping humans healthy by following human values.

How sure is this thought about a healthy whole working better than a broken whole then? It is among other things a common sense truth, so our everyday experience about everything backs it up - such is an enermous amount of evidence. It also agrees with our scientifical picture of the world - as far as I know: at the very least it is a hypothesis which could be proven to be true. The thought is also a part of the traditional Finnish speaking culture of Finland, so it has been proven by time and by the understanding of some five million unusually rational people. It is also a thought which agrees with our feelings and our natural sense of atmospheres, which should indicate that it is a way to see the world which evolution has proved useful and so true. So it should be an as sure truth as possible for a "new" thought to ever be.

With the existence of technology the word "healthy" gets a new generalised meaning: a well arranged and fully functioning system. It means among other things that each thing is treated according to what it is like - that means true objectivity and something like justice. Also that each part is unbroken so that one can optimise the system - in questions of human beings that means following human values.
Also for solving the problems with the concept of the healthy biosphere which I call Gaia and about Gaia being the winning option, use the above definition for good health and relate that only afterwards to what the nature is like: so you will find the balance points between opposites, like for example the purpose of competition is to keep the populations as healthy as possible and to develop new strategies, not to destroy everything in short-sighted excessive ruthless competition. Some principles which are needed in this are in my texts about the rationally grounded moral and in my Gaia pages.

If it really is, like it seems, beneficial to ally, why people do not always do so? One must ally for the best health of the whole, sometimes that means conflicts too and sometimes it is mistaken to mean conflicts. But often the reason is just that we have become confused and stopped from following our feelings fully. And our understanding is often too little to bring us the whole way toward full cooperation.

It is easy to optimise any whole: seek to maximise its health: its functioning is based on its health parts and healthy substructures and structures. This means minimising its brokedness since broken parts do not work at all. And already optimised whole, like a biological whole which has been optimised by the evolution, is contradictionless, so leaving some parts unactive does not make the whole function better but instead lessens the functioning of the whole since the parts support each other and the functioning of the whole. (For example the thinking ability of humans is supported by the sense of sight, wandering in nature and sensitivity to atmospheres - see my page www.paradisewins.net/increasingintelligence.html Similarly the parts of a well working society support each other - see my pages about interconnectedness: www.paradisewins.net/interconnectedness.html.) This method of optimising wholes by keeping them non-broken and healthy applies to all wholes of all sizes. Since the biggest things matter the most, one should start by keeping the biggest scale healthy and unbroken - that means peace as a strong value. Such peace means most peace in the world in the long run and not the avoidance of all conflicts untill evil has conquered the world and there is something like a civil war all over the world. Also fair play is typical to a healthy whole. Justice which aims at respecting human values - live and let others live! is a rule to follow. So one can let the different strategies compete about which one is the most beneficial to the whole and support just such strategies while punishing those who damage the system. Defending just one's own good isn't the thing to value but to defend the greatest good of the whole, including peace and large scale cooperation. Via the health of the whole one gets most prosperity since just good srategies are counted on and bad ones dropped away. So it is good also from the selfish point of view to act for the benefit of the whole more than one acts for one's own short-term good. This way one can build friendly relationships to others which will be beneficial in the long run but also in the short term.

What about the human goals in life?How do they connect to the optimising of a system which has both natural and artificial parts? Humans were created by the evolution and have not by their nature been adabted to the existence of the artificialities. So the human goals oin life have been created by the natural human goals in life which seek to keep both humans and their environment in full health. Our thinking takes the artificialities into account, our goals stay unchanged. If it is the goal of the systems get enough working ability and/or to keep humans under control, they need to answer human needs, in other words safeguard good health of humans and their environment. That means respecting the human goals in life.
Also if the rulers, be they some kind of a cool intellect like robots and computers running wild or whatever (This refers to aliens and to technology, not to cool calculating living beings, since even though one could argue this way also about living beings, there are much more common factors between living beings tying us all into one big allegiance for a life according to our nature since that is the only kind of life that we can bear. Our needs are alike.), if the rulers are not interested in humans as a working force or as happiness as a goal in itself, they have their own fate to think about. Maybe they will some day meet someone stronger than they are, so they have to be prepared for that too. Then it might be that they would be treated according to the same principles that they treat others with. Not destroying others needlessly they might not them selves be destroyed. If they killed us, they might be considered without the protection of the "articla" in the society agreement which says that all the likes of them should be protected. The society agreement says that you buy your rights by the obligations that you follow. If you are too dangerous to others because you do not protect or respect any values, you will be killed by the others who want a safer world. So even robots as rulers should respect our right to healthy life. So a healthy way for them to build a system is to treat humans fairly and according to human values, giving them lots of freedom to moral action.

The extend to which we are dependent on our environment makes it understandable how our own well being is dependent on the health of the whole and how consequently selfishness equals moral. We are concretically dependent on our environment if we are, like I claim since it was and still is the most beneficial choise during the evolution, by our nature parts of a bigger whole, of the whole biosphere in good health. But even if we weren't, our well being is affected by the amount of conflicts in our environment: how much we get harmed or benefitted by the environment and how well the environment works together to produce a higher standard of living and how much it consequently can help us toward better life when it decides to do so. So whether or not we are parts of a bigger whole by our nature, we are in practise parts of a bigger whole and our whole life is dependent on the relationship that we have to the whole.



What means totally value-free optimizing without preconditions:
It means interest in what gives most force, power,
what gives protection and how,
what is the best strategy,
what must one take into account about the future,
how to arrange one's relationships to other powers,
which solutions win and why,
what is the most benefical thing,
what must be most feared and how to protect oneself,
who are the benefical allies etc.
In this analyzis one needs extremely good objective thinking and openeyedness toward all options, both the dangerous and also to the non-dangerous ones - it is the creation of force which is important in this power analyzis, so if soft means give any advantage that too must be used fully.

For example even the softest of things: feelings, tell things of importance from the tough point of view: If one takes things that cause very strong feelings, one can see that they connect to things which are important in the hard point of view. For example death has a dark atmosphere and is clearly harmful in that. And a childhood with all one's needs answered has a light reddish atmosphere and is clearly a strong ground to build upon the future. Even feelings which tell of the importance of feelings themselves make sense after this: they are signs that we should take big factors like these fully into account. Following feelings in important questions makes the society strong, since feelings tell of the importance of the major factors of life - they bind the level of our picture of the world to the level of practise makin it possible to act in a way that makes sense.

It turns out that the healthy world is the most beneficial option. It is the species which need to survive in the long run, so there is lots of variation inside each species to ensure the adabtability of that species to different living environments. Consequently there needs to be a healthy amount of competition so as to drop away the strategies that are not suited to the present day situation. The same competition makes adabtation possible whenever it is needed. But too much of competition would result in short-sighted decline of the population, in other words the population would not be fit to live any more or at least not to flourish.
Today there is lots of cultural "competition", some cultures vanishing away, the multitude of cultures changing to a "single species ecosystem". Such reduces the variation to almost zero. It is not a wise strategy in the light of the evolution.
Even the competition between those who trust technology or other sides of life, should not be so harsh as to erase away the good sides of each strategy. The natural strongest option would be to ally: to develop technology while keeping the contact with nature and the wisdom of other areas of life (even where the science is not able to follow).

Apply very thoroughly to everything the truths that you can be sure of. That way you reach much farther with your thoughts than what would be otherwise possible for you. Remember that the level of the whole is especially important.
One basic truth that we all humans and animals, maybe even plants understand with all our being and which should so be very sure indeed, is that a healthy one works better than a broken one. One can reach very far with this simple truth, proving that it is the healthy world which will win in the modern competition too, only with this time all the technology around but without it affecting things in what comes to the living beings.
The health of the world isn't as problematic concept as it might seem at first glance. We are nowadays far away from the full health of the world, that is true. But things haven't been this way for so long. We can argue about wheher the world earlier was healthy either, whether it has ever been completely healthy. Still, that does not remove the point in aiming for full health and I think that that goal is deeply embedded in our genes, in our very nature. Since full health means full functioning. We can think of helath as a direction to aim at instead of as a state that had to dominate over time in order to9 have any effect (what an absurd thought this latter is! Since ths is not a question of habit or social custom but of what is the best way to arrange things, i.e. a question of the objective truth which does not need to have been the practise, especially not for a long time, in order to exist and affect things. The strongest one will win even if there has not been anyone that strong before.). So from the scale of your own life you understand the importance of some principles in building or cultivating anything. Now just apply them to the large scale too.

These thoughts are not as complicated as they seem. You just have to apply thoroughly to everything what you understand for sure: A HEALTHY SYSTEM WORKS BETTER THAN A BROKEN SYSTEM
A healthy system works better than a broken system. And several harmonious forces sum up to a bigger force than a separate one of the forces in question.
As grounds for the comparison use these divisions at least:
* co-operation (brings force while none lost to conflicts) versus lot of conflicts (lost force, lots of damage, nothing gained by allegiancies)
* unified harmonic (the parts supporting each other and the whole which in turn often supports the parts)
versus scattered one that does not work together to form a well-working whole (nothing gained from the presence of the others)
* healthy versus broken (check in your field of experience)
* on a healthy ground (trustworthy), steady versus unsure, unsteady
* long-lasting (usable for a long time) versus easily scattered
* strong (can bear many things) versus weak structure
* according to motivation, feelings and the intellect & the idea in things (according to these forces/guiding factors) versus against them
This is a basic truth and has a very wide area of validity. So apply it very thoroughly to everything!


About what means the health of the whole biosphere, see my Gaia pages at /Gaia.html and at links from there, especially have a look at my own Gaia theory!

Since there are so many perspective which support my view here, my whole social environment tends to go totally ashtray, supporting the only remaining opposing view of evil as a value in itself (and not just as a tool) - instead of even the other major force of the demands of the use of technology (in other things as workers work efficiency) i.e. the force that must be counted as a separate direction with some connections to the goal of a healthy world. How to count this: attach a gummystring to the goals of systems from each part of the world: the more essential the part is, the stronger the string - even if that essentiality comes because of tool value, like the value of human ways for a selfish computer like mind.
So, PLEASE avoid the pitfall that they have fallen into! My thought here is the truth and agrees with your very own goals too, so please let this truth be as it is and SUPPORT it. At least do not oppose solely for the sake of opposing or for not trusting me enough, since so you end up opposing yourself and the things that YOU value. This can be the truth, even if this is new to you and to your environment!

OBS! This is a complex view, a whole picture of the world here. So no wonder that it is new!

THE FINAL PARADISE


I know that this is a whole bunch of new ideas. I have tried to make them as simple as possible, so please do not get too much surprised when from old well known starting points we arrive at something completely new.
Please don't be deceived into thinking that there was an error somewhere along the way: these are thoroughly thought of things and I am an unusually clear headed person. 

What would You be interested in if not this?:

"I love Life, happiness and things positive for happy life - like most of the others, like You too. This is why I support from my heart the things that support good life and oppose the things that ruin it."
It is easy to understand and agree about. Still, I think that there is nothing much more needed in running the society and even the whole world well.

What you need in addition is a proper holistic view of the world with causes and conditions taken fully into account in it, so that you can guide your actions toward your goals well. One such picture you could maybe learn from reading these pages of mine.

My above thought
describes something very essential in human nature: what the driving force is behind all that we do, what is the ground (feelings help us to answer needs which keeps us healthy which in turn helps us to meet our goals) of all achievements, both small and large, and what is the base for economical success (what sells well: the meeting of needs, and what is the base of our working ability: meeting our needs). Since my thought is ok at the level of the biological picture of humans, and says nothing that would depend on the circumstances, it ought to apply fully to the ancient times too. At least it could be our most educated guess of what applies, what is wealth, worth, success and meaningfulness based on in all times, both those of the ancient pharaos and these modern times. It applies everywhere, in all corners of the world, during all ages. Just sometimes it is emphasised differently: those who are not free, yearn for freedom, those in danger for safety, the suffering for a peace of mind, the miserable for happiness etc. What is just one value among others for one, can be a distant dream for another one. But the direction that we aim at, according to our own understanding, in ways that vary according to our personality and our situation, is always the same: toward a better life in better living conditions and toward a safe future for us. All human action is in essence like that. That is what is meant by good and consequently that is what moral, the base of society, handles, that is what moral ultimately means: action according to the ages and ages old human nature. The time of the pyramids was a manifestation of the human nature! We are interested in what life was like then, what life should be like nowadays, what was worth a lot then, what is worth a lot in the world even nowadays, what brings the meaningfulness and content to life, to the lives of us all...

(The base of wealth: the motivational ground, the ground of your working ability and what sells best, what is most needed.)

What is my project? I try to offer a holistic view of the world which would be easy and obvious enough for all: centered on easy rough divisions like natural/artificial, now/long time ago, healthy/broken,... And since our perceptions affect our actions, I have tried to choose the focus of attention so that the end result would lead us to a better world, to an as good world as possible: to a natural healthy paradise upon Earth, to the most paradise like paradise of all which could last forever since it is the strongest and safest option in how to arrange things in the world. This I have tried to do in a way which would not demand one to make big changes to one's habitual ways of thinking: in a way that would agree with most of the already used perspectives! In my opinion I have succeeded quite well in this, even though I know that as people are not good in mechanical kind of thinking, in handling mechanical kind of systems objectively, but still insist on using just that way of thinking, the result may seem very complicated - remember that it is a whole picture of the world though! Via following my advice you could develop in mechanical or technical kind of thinking: take a picture of the thing in question, observe its atmosphere and see how the atmosphere correcponds to the main features of the seen landscape of the things to think about. That way you can conceive objectively an enermous amount of details if you just build the picture objectively.


Some of my other pages also contain thoughts about the beneficality of moral: see the links on the page Rational Moral.


Feelings were created by the evolution or by God to be a force which guides us toward the best survival. That�s why the best option in questions of survival is a paradise to us. But you have to follow all feelings fully for this to work, in other words you need a holistic view of what you feel about things and of what the world is like, of how things interconnect. The positive feelings set goals and the negative feelings mark things to avoid. You have to follow both kind of feelings but just the positive ones mark the goals and the negative onbes tell of things to avoid. Realism and good social eye together with the tendency to support good instead of evil quarantee that this works. One must believe also in punishments in order to get the feedback systems function properly, even though communication is another way to correct things and social skills still another.

The global paradise (movement) is the healthy world and as such the strongest arrangement producerd by the evolution. Love keeps it up, fixing each part to its healthy, best place in the whole - best for each individual, for each group and for the living kind. That's why the healthy world is a paradise: love binds the parts of the biosphere to their correct places.
This answer stays valid despite the existence of technology since the human nature has stayed unchanged and the development of technology makes it possible to adabt technology to the requirements of humans and so one can optimise both technology and the human part separately, each according to its nature. The nature of technology does not set any requirements to humans, so one can optimise the human workers and human groups in the evolution's way: via health!

If this paradise wins idea sounds too outrageous to you, you might try phracing it in a much much milder and surely objective way, like is customary here in Finland, and then just mention that this truth is so objective that in fact one can in theory go very far into this direction without it ceasing to be beneficial direction to go to. "It is always good to cultivate good health in everything!" and "It is stupid to break!", says the Finnish culture...

(I want to remark that there should not be any fault in the objectivity of this thought and of the different grounds for it that I list later on this page!)

I do not know where the possible weak points of my thoughts are. Everything should be surely objective. You should tell me where the possibilities for improvement are. I have tried to reach the most beautiful things that I know of, make them real and world wide, starting from an as cynical point of view as I can imagine i.e. from the completely value-free competition for power and benefit, and from all the nicer points of view that I know of. If things are even worse, i.e. evil ruling without other goals than just destruction, we can use the value-free competition to put the more moral ones, our own side into power, to let the global paradise wins. I have succeeded in this. I can even prove it for computers governing instead of lving beings and for the case that no material world exists and we are just spirits or some kind of intelligent constructions run inside a huge computer brain (The beneficality of the optimised solution to the whole does not demand that you would have been planned and especially fitted to that kind of whole by the evolution or by intelligent planning.). I do not know what more I could do, the rest is up to you.



I just watched a marketting video at http://www.passporttowealth.com/?id=secretcash, it could have been made to sell my work efficiency point of view: the human nature does all the work for you if you just work some time - see my book Work Efficiency and Likings for that: You really could earn lots of money by selling those ideas of mine, i think, and it wouldn't cost you anything, not even to begin with, much unlike of what they are marketing, whoever they are and whatever it really is that they sell. And if you get interested in my ideas, remember that it is a holistoc view of everything that ties your feelings to be a part of the whole in the way that most makes sense.


How to make the calculations in an easier way: count on healthy (=fully functioning) and harmony (you can see it is a vector sum) in everything!



Let us look at the world from the most usual starting points that humans or some kind of groups like big companies use in looking at the world. Let us see how all these fit well together via the goal of completely healthy world, which is so healthy that it is the best functioning arrangement and at the same time a paradise on Earth...

ABOUT 30 MOST COMMON

VIEWPOINTS SUPPORT 

THE GLOBAL PARADISE 

OF A HEALTHY WORLD:

1) The goal of NATURE PROTECTION, for example that of preventing global warming because of co2 emissions etc., is to have the biosphere healthy and natural. If we could smallen the amount in which we disturb the nature, radically smallen it via changes in the ways of living, that would be a very good direction of development for the nature, just what we wish for!

2) The ages old quest for HAPPINESS. Healthy natural ways of living in a close contact with the nature are our best quess in what gives happiness. So please unify these ways of living with the ideal of a healthy natural world where technology disturbs the nature as little as possible. This is the extend into which health and naturality must be followed in order to reach the health of the world as I here mean it. The whole world in a good state gives a safer future for us all.

3) The wish for FREEDOM means freedom to live freely according to the human nature: happy life in a good living environment according to the human nature. It does not mean the freedom to destropy all the others. The rule "Live! and let others Live!" gives the maximum amount of freedom that one can arrange for all in harmony and it fits well together with the goal of a healthy world: happy people living in natural ways.

4) The need to SECURE THE FUTURE obviously brings the same end result: healthy natural happy ways of living and the living environment, the world at large in a good state.

5) MORAL means cultivating what is good and preventing catastrophes. Good is healthy natural ways of living in a healthy natural living environment with the world at large ina good state. Moral is what is needed for upkeeping those.

6) The major goals in UPBRINGING OF CHILDREN agrees typically with these goals of healthy ways of living and good moral which ensures a good future for all fairly.

7) The views of most RELIGIONS: a healthy natural world like God created it, with healthy natural ways of living according to the ages old human nature and according to perfect moral are things to aim at.

8) MOST CULTURES: it is wise to cultivate good health and to take care that the future is in a good state as well as we can it quarantee. Needless breaking and especially the causing of bigger catastrophes is stupid.

9) SCIENCE says that the healhty animal and the healthy group are the strongest and the happiest, especially if the living environment is healthy and natural.

10) Even COMPUTER LOGIC understand the following: healthy = fully functioning = 1, broken = non-functioning = 0.

11) Also COMMON SENSE understands that health is a good thing to aim at in everything, and that brokenness is non-functioning, so the healthy is the wisest choise in what to invest in.

12) THE NATURE OF ANIMALS and other living beings understands the value of health (versus brokenness).

13) The VIEW THAT NO MATERIAL WORLD EXISTS: we are still some kind of wholes and clearly acompletely healthy, fully functioning whole works better than the same whole as broken, as non-functioning.

14) A picture of humans according to which there is NO NEED FOR EXPERIMENTS ON HUMANS like those done during the Holocaust: completely healthy is the fittest for any task, since our functioning is build upon our healthy parts. If also its society and the rest of the environment are healthy, the individual is even fitter!

15) The wish to DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY: the healthy human living a natural healthy life in every respect is the fittest for any task, also for intellectual work: see my pages www.goodwillwin.info/increasingintelligence.html for that.

16) The NEEDS OF EXHAUSTED WORKERS needing rest and variation to their lives agree with the healthy natural ways of living!

17) The DREAMS OF just about all SCHOOL CHILDREN of more life and less dry school like things agree with the goal of healthy natural satisfying life according to feelings and a full understanding.

18) A view capable of HANDLING LARGE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS: the concept of health is a good one for this purpose and easy to handle by the help of our everyday experience.

19) The wish for CONTROL over masses of people: health of the practises makes the people agree with the practises and creates no opposinfg forces.

20) The WISH FOR POWER: helaht of the whole in every respect, for example the health of the practises, gives strenght.

21) GREED/BENEFIT agrees so with these same goals too: health of everything gives a strong well-arranged working force which results in a high standard of living from which to benefit.

22) So also the SOVINIST POINT OF VIEW of wanting everything well grounded ON HARD VALUES agrees with these goals: health gives most strenght (you get added strenght from the health of the practises of the world), benefit and power.

23) HARD WAR LIKE RATIONALITY, like if evil got to rule the world and there would be a fight over who is the strnogest, agrees with the value of health: your health is beneficial to you and the hgealth of the practises of the rest of the world, i.e. good moral, supports your own health.

24) It is also a view which could PREVENT PEOPLE FROM BEING CONTROLLED BY THE FORCE OF TECHNOLOGY, like by some global computer network, because health of the individuals (human values taken to the extreme) and healöth of the practises (high moral and natrurality of the ways of living) are the most beneficial choises for anyone interested in what they can gain from controlling human lives.

25) This direction of healthy ways of living, high moral and health of the whole world also agrees with ONE'S OWN GOOD, so that teh harder one reaches for eny goal or the harder one is pushed toward any direction, the more moral and positive for happiness one becomes since health and allying with the health of the world give the strnongest allegianvcy.

26) This direction agrees with FEELINGS AND INSTINCTS.

27) What would be SEXually more attractive than health and happiness?

28) The points of view of AIMING AT MANLINESS OR WOMANLINESS agree with these goals: healthy natural life according to emotions is what the cahrm of each sex is based on.

29) Also the FEMINIST point of view of wanting respsct for FEELINGS AND MORAL agrees with the same ways of living.

30) The goal of SOLVING THE FIGHT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL as well as possible!

31) Even the point of view of following names and symbols as wisely as possible agrees with thsi view: reach for good health in everything and avoid needless catastrophes, even needless breaking of anything. Toward the positive, away from the negative, sometimes with the help of tools...

32) The wish to get something like the hippies back, this time without drugs and in a lasting way by the help of a theoretical framework which can protect the hippy movement from assaults from those with a tough view on the world. 

33) Greed for money and social position

Say that you are an ordinary African who would like to benefit somehow. By taking these truths to your heart you could serve as a positive example to others in a way that is economically valuable to your employer and so better paid than a less moral coworker. As a boss you could help to spread these thoughts, increasing so economical beneficality of your work and getting better paid for it. In the future you could be remembered as one of the early advocators of this positive way of living and be respected and liked because of that.

Why happens this to be so? Is it just an unlikely coincidence? No: it is a truth which we can well trust since the EVOLUTION has shaped us so that our health and health of the society are what our nature, our feelings, instincts (= directions) and understanding (= a map, directed only because we have the goal of answering our needs which the feelings and instincts too help to answer) together, guide us toward and what gives us, the society and the world at large its best possible functioning.


MANY POINTS OF VIEW
Since there are so many different viewpoints here, the perspectives on this page are very different indeed, so that you may find it convenient to jumb over some and return to them later if you want or need to.
There is a lot in common with many of these viewpoints so that it is possible to handle many of them at a time and then unifie them all to this one single conclusion of the global paradise of the completely healthy world being the best option from each and every of them.


Please spread this view:
THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF A HEALTHY WORLD WILL WIN!

A healthy whole works much much better than the same whole as broken.

And full health and happiness go hand in hand.

Outrageous but true:
Applying this to the whole world, one gets the result that in a strongest one wins competition the healthy natural world is the strongest option,

i.e. the healthy natural world should be the winning option over any other kind of world.

And that the healthy natural world is a paradise.

In other words, IT IS A GLOBAL PARADISE WHICH WINS if there is a competition of all possible arrangements and competition strategies, including the very militaristic and incredibly evil torture-oriented ones, still it is the world wide paradise movement which wins!


THIS IS WHY WE HAVE FEELINGS
This is the evolutionary reason for us having feelings: feelings and instincts guide us toward the best survival - see my two books about that! Also God created us so that we could keep to God's wishes, to the correct way of life, because it really is the best in practise, also in the tough world.


THIS IS A THOROUGHLY THOUGHT OF VIEW
This is a thoroughly thought of view. I have an unusually great capacity to objective thinking and I have thought this through from many sides, from all that I come to think of, like you will see if you bother to read this page through and take a look at my two books.
The above are the general guidelines of what I have ended up - they are not just a mistaken common sense view od what one would think the first time that one comes to think of the question. On the contrary: they are the end result of many long chains of thoughts which just happens to ber understandable by the common sense.


(Examine the motivational factors, the guiding forces of humans and the guiding principles of the other forces in the world and ensure by sharing information (=this theory of mine for example) that they all will lead toward a better world, toward the best possible world, which will also be the winner in the modern competition:)

29 POINTS OF VIEW WHICH SUPPORT THE GLOBAL PARADISE OF THE COMPLKETELY HEALTHY WORLD AS THE BEST OPTION FROM EACH OF THEM

K. Gibran (a famous writer from Lebanon): " I have chosen both the joys of this world and peace in the world to come. Because I feel in my heart that the Upmost Poet wrote just one poem and its structure is perfect."

The concept of health is good for fitting together all the different viewpoints:
1) POWER (health gives strenght),
2) BENEFIT (health gives a strong and well arranged working force and consequently a high standard of living from which to benefit, healthy goals give a strong motivation),
3) FREEDOM (live and let others live is a rule to follow in order to achieve a maximum amount of freedom for everyone and a healthy society in this sense),
4) CONTROL (the health of practises makes people agree with the practises and creates no opposing forces),
5) life according to FEELINGS (healthily according to feelings is a part of the full health),
6) MORAL (moral means guarding the good health of the whole world, evil means needless breaking),
7) SCIENCE (a healthy animal is the fittest),
8) most RELIGIONs (a healthy world / a paradise and good moral are things to aim at),
9) COMPUTER logic (healthy = fully functioning = times 1, broken = non-funtioning = times 0),
10) COMMON SENSE (health is a common sense concept which all know well),
11) the UNBRINGING OF CHILDREN (those who bring up children are typically for healthy ways of living and good moral),
12) the views of the TRADITIONAL Finnish culture and propably of most other CULTURES too (it is good to cultivate good health and stupid to break needlessly),
13) a view capable of HANDLING LARGE INTERCONNECTED SYSTEMS (health is a good concept which can be generalised to all kinds of systems),
14) a SEXuality oriented view (what could be more attractive than health and happiness),
15) the points of view of aiming at MANliness or WOMANliness (healthy natural life according to emotions is what the charm and capacity of each sex is based on),
16) the view that NO MATERIAL WORLD exists (the wholes stay unchanged and the truth about healthy versus broken functioning stays valid),
17) the wish to PROTECT NATURE (health of the world means among other things the protection of nature),
18) the wish to DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY (a healthy life in a nature environment should bring the best ground for theoretical intelligence - see my pages www.paradisewins.net/increasingintelligence.html and www.paradisewins.net/interconnectedness.html) and
19) the need to SECURE THE FUTURE.
20) a picture of humans according to which there is NO need for anyone to do experiments on humans like those during the HOLOCAUST
21) the hopes of exhausted WORKERS NEEDING REST and variation to their lives
22) the dream of just about all SCHOOL CHILDREN of more life and less dry school like things (see my book Work Efficiency and Likings for the rationality of feelings and the role of atmospheres in thinking) (This is my weakest point.)
23) the goal of solving the FIGHT BETWEEN GOOD AND EVIL in a positive way via the concept of health - which should give you what you want or even more...
24) the SOVINIST point of view of wanting everything to be well grounded on hard values too (see my two books!)
25) the FEMINIST point of view of wanting respect for women's values: for feelings and moral (see my two books for the fitting together of these last two!)
26) hard WAR like rationality i.e. pure power play like if evil got to rule the world and there would be a fight over who is the strongest (health gives strength)
27) a view completely according to feelings and even the sense of BEAUTY
28) It is a view that could PREVENT people being CONTROLled BY the force of TECHNOLOGY etc. in a way that is in contradiction with the freedom of individuals or moral. (Health of the whole i.e. high moral is the most beneficial way to arrange things.)
29) ONE'S OWN GOOD, so that the harder one reaches for any goal or the harder one is pushed toward any direction, the more moral and positive for happiness one becomes (Health and allying with the health of the world = excellent moral, gives the strongest allegiancy.)
30) (the most natural way to interprete names)

All these 28-30 viewpoints support the global paradise of a healthy world as the very best option when wacthed from that point of view.

NO PARADISE WITHOUT MORAL

But there will be no paradise without excellent moral. One cannot keep up a paradise without excellent moral and one cannot build a paradise without moral. Moral meand cultivating and safeguarding good (That is just what good menas: things that cultivcate the paradise direction, like the avoidance of catastrophes, the supporting of practises that lead the world toward better, etc.)and resisting evil = things that might prevent or even break the paradise. So the prequisite for all who want to live in a paradise is to cultivate excellent world wide moral in their lives: to cultivate the health of the world, the health of its practises with all their might.

What then is moral in this sense? Moral turns out to be a relatively simple matter. It means absolute justice, objective thinking with a holistic view, honesty and human values while carrying responsibility about the whole and about all big matters.
What is UNUSUAL in this view about moral, global paradise and universal love is that it rejects pacifism as a part of these valuable things and instead recommends healthy self-defence! We cannot support any huge evil just because we stick to some rigid rule of nonviolence. We have to understand that some things just have to be opposed and that there is violence in the human nature for a good reason: for the reason of allowing us to guide our lives in practise - toward better! There are times for being in peace and occasions where fighting is needed. This is just realism, a part of carrying responsibility and so a part of good moral!
Like the need to survive, i.e. the need for healthy self-defence, is the wish to pruduce healthy offspring an enermous driving force in the world. So moral should not include a negative view on sexuality. Instead moral should be open-minded and allowing toward free sexuality in harmony with feelings and understanding. Otherwise one would be supporting other things as moral by these great forces i.e. supporting evil by their force and that does not make any sense! Let all good things, at least moral, happiness, self-defence, sex and healthy selfishness, ally for a better world! Let's call THAT moral - instead of the old views on moral which have been affected by the needs of making religious moments more dedicated, more effective (the most religious moments are not your whole life even though religion can affect your life a lot).
(Also: It was an error to count technology and tools as evil: they are such a great force in the world that they made evil win in our eyes, even though it was just the era of tools coming and not the other forms of evil winning. Technology and tools, all the artificialities, ought to be counted as an outside factor with which to ally instead of as good or evil in itself. Thus the end paradise here is the healthy biosphere together with all the technology - not without either part!)

It is a fact that the existence of technology makes it much more difficult for us to life in natural healthy ways. But there is no intention toward that difficulty in the technology, the difficulty is just a byproduct, and as the technology gets developed further, it gets better adabted to the needs of humans. At the beginning of the era of technology humans were forced to adabt to the needs of using the technology, as if it too had been a part of the nature, in order to be able to benefit from the technology. But with the new techinologised ways of thinking, there came competition which made exploitation a not-so-good tactic and equality + cooperation a better one. So as the time passed, the needs of humans were learned to take into account too. And as the technology develops, it becaomes increasingly much possible to adabt it to the needs of the humans, so that the contradiction between having technology and living healthily lessens. but of course solving the problem demands lots of wisdom. Still, we do not need to consider technology as evil - it is just dangerous, not intentionally evil.
And since technology gives a competition advantage, it can safeguard us against the non-caring. The winning option has both technology and the needs of living beings taken into account! That is the best that we can in practise, with the power dynamics of the world that we happen to have, achieve from these starting points, so let's call it good! It ought to be a some kind of paradise on Earth after all, so it ought to be good enough! And if we end up in that final paradise and notice that it still isn't good enough, that means that our feelings advice that we would feel better in other kind of comditions, in a real nature paradise, then maybe the technology has developed far enough to allow also that option and since our feelings advice toward it, it can be deduced that it best for the survival of the whole! So this direction together with the technology ought to be good enough. Let's term it good! 

This is just a generalisations of good in the old biological context:
1)happy life, health, moral, best survival for both individuals and the whole, for us and the generations to come.
Now take that term "health" and say it in a way that applies also to machines:
2) fully functioning optimised and fitted together with the whole
- that is what is good in technology: it works (functions optimisedly) and it produces us things that we need (it safeguards the future survival of the whole by taking care of the biological part).


Watch my video about how to achieve a perfect moral very easily.


UNIVERSAL LOVE

The Japanese have a point of view that I, a European, do not know almost at all but which fascinates me. It is the point of view of universal love, love of the individual toward the world at large and love of the world at large toward an individual. That connects to my own view of the world which is a simple mechanical model.

Feelings affect things. In that sense they are forces in life. Knowing that those forces are products of the evolution or creations of God, one can deduce about them. They have to affect the world toward a better health. That�s also what they in my experience have always been doing. So, the repelling feelings repel away factors which are harmful to health, the moving feelings move the world toward a bigger health and the binding feelings bind the world to the biggest health. So the completely healthy world must be a world full of binding feelings: full of love and happiness.

One can unite this idea with another simple idea and get a very beautiful result. The other idea is that healthy biological wholes work while broken wholes do not work at all. If one breaks a biological whole, the level of the whole works no longer. But some of the parts may have been left unbroken. So thoser parts may still work. To all levels of biological functioning applies that healthy wholes work while broken wholes do not function at all. The functioning of a partly broken whole is a sum of the functioning of the healthy parts. Applying this to all levels, from atoms to the biosphere, one gets the result that all biological functioning is build upon healthy pieces of the healthy natural biosphere.

These two thoughts together make us notice that all the functioning of biological beings is build upon things toward we and other healthy animals feel natural healthy love.

The existence of all the artificialities in the world does not change the nature of living beings, so this result about the world being build upon the things which we love stays valid. The change in living conditions by the introduction of technology has been too arubt to allow considerable adabtation by the evolution. God didn�t recreate humans when Adam and Eve ate the apple from the tree of good and bad knowledge. So, the world is still build upon the things which we love.

But loving things is a complicated thing. It is based on our perceptions about the reality. If our minds are too confused about all ther artificialities in the world, we cannot conceive right what is the role of each thing in the world and so we do not feel love toward the right objects but are instead sometimes mistaken: love the not-so-good instead of the really good.

But one with a really healthy mind and spirit would observe correctly what to love and what to resist as harmful. And to such an individual, the world would really be based entirely on loved things. I hope with this book to teach you some of that perspective. So that you too can be one for whom the beautiful phraces are not empty words but the reality of your daily life.

FEELINGS

You can download for free my book about the rationality of feelings at stores.lulu.com/khtervola


FEELINGS ARE PRODUCTS OF THE NATURAL EVOLUTION

We are products of the natural evolution. Our needs help us to stay fit and our feelings help us to answer our needs.
Our functioning is largely based on social things. We are pack animals. That's why we feel strongly about social things: they affect a lot our chances in life.
We are also adabted to a certain kind of living environment: to the nature. Just such environment makes us function best. That's why we feel strongly about the nature and the weather.
We are also adabted to certain kind of ways of living and to a certain kind of functioning of the human groups that we belong to. So we feel strongly about questions which have to do with the ways of doing things: do those cause us enjoyment or hurt us?

LOVE
When I say "love", I mean health and full functioning with all the needs answered from the point of view of life. Love is a charachteristic of a completely healthy system.
Answering needs makes the whole function well: that's why needs exist, that's what is meant by needs.



PEACE VERSUS PACIFISM
With the modern weapons it is easy to get much destruction with only a small effort. So it is more important than ever to support peace - just in the relation that the arms are stronger and more destructive. But even though that may be a great difference to the times long past, that is still different from pacifism in the sense of supporting peace at all costs. 
Aggression exists for a reason: in order to protect ther best alternatives against evil and degeneration. So pacifism at any cost is equal to supporting evil: it makes no sense. One should just respect moral, and justice as a part of it. Peace and equality sound beautiful in the ear of most, but justice is even better! One should weight the different things and see so which one is the best alternative. For exampkle Margaret Tatcher by fighting a tiny war propably did so much good for the respect for women at large that the benefits of that war counteract by far the losses - even in the eyes of pacifists since women are typically more capable of supporting peaceful alternatives.



A CULTURE BEAUTIFUL LIKE A RELIGION:
THE TRADITIONAL FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND

Compassion for all living beings, a life long all-encompassing devotion to their good, a devotion that rises straight from one's own heart and is put to practise with all of one's own understanding and all knowledge and wisdom that one has managed to gain. Everything seen from this perspective, all the time: first a feling: what life is like, what to support and what to avoid; then devotion born from those feelings and one's whole life accordingly � as far as one can oneself influence things, in a culture of complete freedom of individuals � with only the MASSES OF foreign influence from other cultures disturbing�

= THE FINNISH SPEAKING MAIN CULTURE OF FINLAND

A paradise movement

I love Life, happiness and things positive for happy life
- like most of the others, like You too.

So I support from my heart
the arrangements in the world which support good life,
moral in this sense of the word.

This is all that is needed for a better world.

(Speaking out this view is also a good way to win new friends.
It works well also wordlessly, on gesture language.)

(If you base your emotional life solely to the things which can bring you happiness at this very moment, you will find a peace of mind. Do not base it at all on the things that you want to oppose, like things causing suffering or good valuable things lacking: do not unwisely grasp those negative things with your feelings. Instead oppose the negative things and support the positive things. That's it.)

And please believe me when I say that this perspective is in fact just one version of the traditional Finnish speaking culture of Finland, even though propably most Finns would not recognize it since I have chosen the terms and the perspectives differently from the usual. In my opinion and in the opinion of many other Finns too Finland has many really excellent solutions to offer to the world and so should have the role of leading the world toward good that Sweden nowadays has. Swedish culture is much less convinced about its own "finery" and is needlessly malicious under the surface. Compared to that Finland has lots of sincerely more worthy things to offer - without selling any drawbacks as a part of the deal like Sweden does. (The Swedish demand you to trust the Swedish culture instead of your own understanding, Finland respects the understanding of each and offers just thoughts for support, so you can "buy" just a part of the whole bunch of ideas.) It is just that our traditional ways of expression are too modest and self-critical to the extreme in our culture's endless search for true objectivity and great trustworthiness in offering the best alternatives. We always trust that you will see the value of our ways yourself (that's how we treat everyone) because that's the way that you can be surest about them and that's the most fair way to treat you - but of course you won't see if you cannot even get to know our culture. Good life for all fairly is our goal - realistically in the modern world. That all in the world would be happy and free, deciding themselves about their own lives is the common dream of us Finnish speaking Finns. The following of the behavioral rule "Live and let others live." that we all respect and which we also demand others to respect quarantees that there is no room for evil deeds in this - please think this through with examples: otherwise it may be difficult to see.
There is a big difference between the Finnsih speraking Finnish way in which everyone lives in a way whcih arises stright from one's heart and the culture is just a common expression of this, spread by communication and sharing of thoughts, and the Swedish ways where a predetermined outer form determines the allowed behaviour of each, often supressing what people really are and causes so maliciousness and so more supressing of valuable things. The Finnish ways really work: if each one is demanded to follow them there is no fear of evil running free. And the way to get the people to follow them, is to just tell to them of the possibility of following them and of the benefits and other good sides of them and to let them choose freely. It is a pity that there is not more of this communication between cultures so that the Finnish culture would spread. Often the looks of Finns are too rational - that amount of rationality is explained by the excellent motivational ground of Finns and by our unusually good ability in holistic thinking which in my opinion can connect to our language and to our valuing of nature. Would it help if people knew that sexuality here us free: each one is allowed to choose just the partner that they want to. As people behave responsible, there are no drawbacks in this. And since there is no role play, there are much much fewer forced kind of sexual encounters than in most other cultures, including the Swedish speaking cultures of Finland and Sweden. So the atmosphere of sexuality is really nice - for all! We here think that the Finnish culture could solve the world's huge problems - just like that if it just would spread like the culture of USA owadays does or even maybe like the culture of Sweden does. And how much easier it would be: just leave people the chance to do things in Finnish ways and tell them in a way understandab�le to common sense and feelings why those ways are for their own good and follow their own ideals.
Finland is a very peaceful country where it is difficult to get people to understand that if our country were conquered by others, they would not necessarily immediately adobt our ways - because the distances are too wide, because the ways of adpobting new things are different, because the people in those other countries are not necessarily as free (completely free), because our culture hasn't even this far spread to all over the world like it in our opinion should since it would be good for all and allow the keeping of all the old good sides of all those other cultures. Our Finnish speaking Finnish culture is a free cooperation of all the citizens for better life for all equally in the best ways that we have come to think of. It is a system correctable from all places. The only drawback that we have is that we are not perfect as humans: the systems can reach only our common level but we always keep the ideals as a direction to go to and in our opinion that is the vest way to do things - that too is under discussion if anyone wants to challenge it, like everytyhing is, by not likely to change as long as we all agree about it staright from our heart. The work motivation in fInland is very high: so much we agree with the ways of our society and so the standard of living in Finalnd is unusually high. The amount of corruption in Finalnd is the lowest in the world and the crime rates low. One of the first thoughts in this internet page, the paradise movement idea, is our common tune. Our views are typically all human but of course to some extend coloured by our own culture.

We Finns think that it would be for the good of all if the Finnish speaking Finnish culture had a dominating role in the world. The problem maybe is not Sweden but the fear of honesty of many people from the other cultures. The Finnish culture does respect honesty very much but still most Finns lie outrageously, much like is the reputation of Arabs - while Arabs maybe lie even more. So I guess that the honesty demanded by the Finnish culture would not be too much for anyone. It just helps to arrange things to everybody's benefit. I myself am honest, really.

According to these calculations it would pay well to invest a lot in supporting the traditional Finnish speaking Finnish culture with its moral.

It may be that the too tense and cruel atmosphere of market economies has to do with the too tense and cruel cultures of the countries (Sweden and Japan have rigid social codes which give too little room for the individuals) which serve as model economies. It would be better to choose the traditional Finnish speaking main culture of Finalnd with its values to be a model culture in how to live with a market economy. The coises of the Finnish speaking main culture of Finland are on rational grounds that fit together with the market economy - unlike the tradition based rigid forms of the cultures of Sweden and Japan. If one looks at the soul of the Finnish speaking culture of Finland, it is very positive to happy life and extremely moral: one that cpould solve the world's greatest problems at the same time as offering economical prosperity, stability and true enjoyable freedom of individuals and groups ina very peaceful way. This is the dream of the Finnsih speaking Finnish culture because in its excellent caring moral it wishes the best for all the world: all the good things that we here understand and enjoy, while needing to give up none of your own good sides - replacing them with even better would be good though...
One example of the Finnish way to conceive things is that one places weight on what one can get with money and not on money itself. That makes sense objectivily looking and makes people much more motivated while increasing their understanding of what matters in the world.

The Finnish speaking main culture of Finland values personal estimates of things, so the whole culture and society structure have been approved by some five million unusually able objectively thinking individuals on their own.
Sometimes it is difficult for the outsiders to observe the Finnish ways and values, since those are based on the personal estimates of each and people from other cultures often have the idea that their own understanding should be supressed by some rigid rule of conventional ways and the understanding of those in power. Besides, the looks of Finns may lie because the Swedish speaking Finns are mixed with the main culture and have a different, to foreigners more familiar social position centered and outer looks oriented way of doing things than the actual Finns. (The Swedish speaking ones get their cultural features from Sweden.) The Finnish speaking Finns like to build all things on true ground - that's what one is motivated to if one is free to follow one's own choises in life, and that ought to be, theoretically estimatedly, the economically best alternative too.
Finland shouls not grant Sweden the right to claim that it is like Finland in what comes to its culture or to be anything else than what it really is like. Otherwise things go ashtray. Each country should be treated according to what its culture is like. In regard of Sweden one should mention also the bad, evil sides of the Swedish culture and its attitude toward other nations and cultures which differs greatly from the very moral globally responsible and even loving Finnish culture. If one is not honest about these things, one is misleading people very badly - so very many are mislead to follow Sweden - and damaging, maybe even badly, both one's own country and the other countries of the world as well.
Sweden has long been rich. Finland has started from a poor beginning and ended up being one of the countries with a highest standard of living in the world. So what kind charachteristics in a culture create economical wealth? Sweden being rich, it has been typical to respect Sweden for that without querstioning its cultura� charachteristics, without counting the benefits and losses they create compared to for example the Finnish speaking culture of Finalnd. For example the typically Swedish sin of maliciousness prevents full cooperation which is a way to gain wealth. And where malicousness prevents full justice, things do not get treated according to what they are like and so one does not become as rich as one otherwise could become. This contrasts to the Finnish rule "Honour those who truly deserve respect." And the freedom and the good will born from the Finnish rule "Live and let others live!" are a good ground for cooperation. In my opinion one should examine cultural charachte5rstics objectiverly and copy only those which it is good to copy and not harmful. economically or otherwise. The Finnish culture is on strong rational grounds while the Swedish culture is more arvitrary. 

The traditional RATIONAL MORAL of Finland: OVERCOMING THE OPPOSITE VIEWS

A CONTRASTING FAULTY VIEW ON EVOLUTION
Many people think that if one by any means manages to win, for example to kill the other one, that is somehow good in the eyes of the evolution. This view would lead to evil ruling if it were correct, but it isn't: Compare two different areas where in one the competition is like above, by any means, and another one where the competition is of the kind that lets the best one win in each thing. Now in the first area the population would develop toward mean and cunning, while its general health and performance in any other tasks would suffer. On the other area the population would stay completely healthy and develop in strenght. If these two areas were in competition later on, the healthy ones would be stronger and win. So it is only healthy competition which is right in evolutions eyes. Short-sighetd solutions do not let your genes survive.
And if the group were very large like the whole world's population, and the evil ones in power in that, they still would degenerate and some unobserved healthy group inside the population would win in the end. So if you think that you are in competition with others, too harsh competition isn't good for your future survival, neither is competition by any means available ok for your future fate. Competition that ensures your own health asnd the health of your own group is the best for you. That means also supporting healthy competition in the scale of the whole world, since if you are under the power of others, their ways influence your own life and survival: their ways should be kept as beneficial to your own health as possible - that isn't the smae as being better than your neighbour, that isn't enough if there is some faraway danger that you ahve to fight too: you have to reach your full potential, to benefit from every chance of improvement that is available. Only then have you made your survival as sure as possible for you.
The society agreement is the way that ordinary people ally for their present and future wellfare. That's why good moral is important - see my calculations earlier on this page.


OUR FEELINGS GUIDE US 

TOWARD THE BEST ALTERNATIVE 

IN THE TOUGH WORLD

The evolution found the strongest and safest, the best arrangement in every way in the tough competition. Term that "the completely healthy world". Suppose that feelings were created after that or at the same time or adabted to the thus found best choise: the task of feelings is to guide us toward that best choise, toward the health of the world. So what feelings guide us toward, needs to be the best choise in the tough world, the choise that will win in practise - not only because our feelings wish so but because of its "every" feature! On the other hand, what will win in the tough world, is the healthy world and that is a global paradise in our eyes!


MY TWO BOOKS (AND MY OTHER PAGES) BACK UP THE THOUGHTS AT THIS PAGE

Please, if you still doubt the validity of these thoughts, read my two books which are available in the internet for free: one about the beneficiality of excellent moral from the pure power-benefit point of view, and another one about the rationality of feelings and instincts in the light of the theory of evolution - in the tough modern world. See the link at the bottom of the page to my homepage for finding the books. The official version at stores.lulu.com/khtervola includes pictures and is in the pdf-format. The other versions are just ordinary text only internet pages here at www.paradisewins.net but should be easier to reach. Personally I think that the pictures and diagrams are handy though. 

My first self-published book: Power Politics Leads To Excellent Moral

which is of the hard rationality of moral, and

My second self-published book: Work Efficiency And Likings

which is of the hard rationality of feelings, which is somewhat lighter to read (a more pleasant subject).

Please, if you find these thoughts interesting, advertise my pages and my two self-published books or the ideas in them, so that others too will get to know them.

Please note that you should not doubt things which are too complicated for your own understanding. Follow the truths that you can understand and don't waste time destroying already existing answers which bring the world toward good. But if you can think things through by yourself, please check these thoughts yourself too!

You might be interested in what kind of thinking I have used. The idea is the following but I am not sure whether you can follow it through - see my book Work Efficiency and Likings at stores.lulu.com/khtervola or at www.paradisewins.net/WEL.html for the rationality of feelings. So I start with an atmosphere: an atmosphere of a landscape of things. Then I use my sense of sight to get objective proportions to the atmosphere & to the landscape, and use my feelings, the feelings in the atmosphere to obtain an understanding of the meaningfulness of those phenomena to life and a philosophical kind of view to their role in the world. This is an objective holistic view of the situation. The phenomena get their areas of apperarance from the sensed reality and then I just classify them according to the scientifical picture of the world which together with objectivity at large give the phenomena their proportions, areas that they affect and their relationships, in the world at large forming so a mechanical kind of holistic view of the phenomena and of the whole world. It is essential here to use a holistic view of the world!


A SIDE STEP: OPTIMISING THE TECHNOLOGY
So an optimised system consisting of both natural and artificial parts is optimised as healthy. This is a generalisation of the term "health" to such systems: fully functioning and optimised in many ways goes my definition of health of such systems. For such a system to be optimised, the parts of it have to be adabvted to each other and optimised, healthy and fully functioning, themselves. So how to optimise the artificial parts? For that you need engineering type of thinking: objective thinking with sizes and connections of things right. That is an ongoing process: the development of technology. What it requires of humans is good thinking ability and that in turn is based on healthy natural ways of living. So the development of technology and the changing of ways of living to more paradise like is possible simultaneously! The change in the ways of living supports the development of technology.
Increase your intelligence to hundredfold in handling complex structures like the whole world - easily and pleasantly!

THE RATIONALITY OF FEELINGS
Feelings help us to answer needs, and answering needs keeps us healthy.
If something is fully according to emotions, it is well suited for life. But if there is something lacking, it causes negative emotions, so that we would know to fix taht shortcoming away.
If you do not see your emotions this way rational, you are propably making some thought errors, for example that of not using a holistic view of the world and remembering that the health of the society and the health of the world at large are good for yourself too. Or then you lie to yourself because of social position, imagination or a lack of trust in feelings, etc. Or then you think in words, which offer a very narrow fragmented view of the world instead of the single holistic view that is the most efficient way to think and natural to humans.


THINKING OBJECTIVELY BY STARTING FROM FEELINGS
So if you have a holistic view of the world, you can start from any feeling and see what phenomenom in the world it concerns and what are the structural parts of the world whose health it tries to safeguard.

A PROBLEM

Here are answers to many of the major questions that interest people - as objectively as is ever possible for one single capable person. Why bothers no-one to take it seriously? I am very intelligent, yes, that is why my thoughts go quite quickly and need translating to the pace of an average (academical?) individual or community. Still, that ought not lessen the value of my answers here. The only problem is that my thoughts are quite theoretical and the practical solutions involving social complications thought only part of the way, according to my own social abilities and general knowledge of the world (which is far from good enough). Still, my thoughts are true, they offer new answers and insight into the widely varied phenomena that I handle. As such they are extremely valuable and ought to be taken into account just like one listens to the thoughts of many established academical thinkers (philosophers). I am academically educated too: I have those good sides in my thinking. Where my thoughts and style differ from the academical, I have tried to rise above the ordinary academical level of expertice, uniting all the viewpoints that I have heard of to one single holistic view, using all the time all the criterions for objectivity, essentiality and skill that I have heard of. So my thoughts differ from the ordinary, yes, but for a good reason. I am not neglecting the ordinary academical level of handling things. I am just too familiar with it, so I pass through it in a fraction of a second and continue handling more difficult things, things of greater importance in the world!


One ought to choose important things so that they lead the world toward good. That is the principle according to which they ought to be chosen. That could mean that this perspective of mine should - soon? - get a leading role in how to arrange things in the largest scale and in making tough decisions - completely morally and in harmony with happy life & feelings.
I am somewhat horrified by this, since it is so hard to achieve and a really big role to get. But of course one does not do this kind of big things alone - everything is done by many many highly capable individuals. Still, I do not know whether I am up to the task: for example, what would be the first step for me to take? Is there anything that I need to do in addition to what I have already done?!??!!


The difference is that where ordinary thgoughts use some partial perspective, say that of an individual soldier of a certain war, I use a holistic perspective of the whole wolrd and of the human nature.
So where ordinary things start from the level of daily life and arrive at the complexity of the nearest environment, my thoughts start with easy sure divisions in the whole world, like natural or artificial, healthy or broken, the best possible or clearly something less, and an easy model of what the whole world is like (all biological beings are by their nature parts of the biosphere + the nature of all biological beings is a product of the evolution), arriving so at truths whose areas of validity are very large indeed and which can be proven true both by theoretical means and by comparing to one's life in practise.

The difference between ordinary non-objective selfishness and my view on true selfishness is that the ordinary "selfish" person thinks of himself/herself as separate of the rest of the world and thinks that his/her own good is equal to something which depends only on himself/herself, without the state of the world affecting it at all. My view is that selfishness means reaching for the best possible fate for yourself WHILE taking into account also the rest of the world and how it affects your own good. So where the ordinary "selfish" person manoveurs in the world without regard for how those maneuvers affect the world and via that his/her own good, my view on selfishness means paying mostly attention to the world at large, reaching for the best possible fate for oneself via affecting just the rests of the world and one's relationship to it. The rest of the world is such an enermous factor in our lives, that one ought not neglect it!

Why do I insist on using a holistic view when many others bother to use only a partial view of things? The one using a partial view is like one travelling with a tiny lantern in darkness in an unfamaliar district where he can never know what is behind the next corner. On the other hand, the one using a holistic view is like one watching the whole landscape from a hilltop from where she can know most of the main features of where she is going. So a holistic view is much better and it is also easy, like you can see if you visit my page /thinking.html.

The whole is huge. It affects your life enermously: it is your whole living environment with social relationships as a part of it. So what the whole is like matters enermously to you. Each time that you think of some phenomenom, think what such phenomena mean to the whole: see them as building blocks of and as structures of the whole. Like: with this kind of building block with this variation from place to place, from time to time, you get a whole that is structured this way. From that you know at least these things of the whole. Like: naturality -> natural living conditions -> health and happiness; artificialities -> not suited to base one's whole life upon them.

ATTENTION: I am not doing any thinking work to produce these thoughts, I am just communicating, going through my old picture of the world in simple ways. So if you have something to ask, please write to me and ask it straight ahead, even if you yourslef are not / are an expert in the subject who isn't / is supposed to know these things that interest you!

Maybe I should add a word or two about the thinking type to use in these thoughts of mine:
Use a holistic picture of the world like at my page /thinking.html Use school like /scientifical holistic picture of the world connected to your ordinary experienced picture of the world. So that when I refer to something, you look at it in your picture of the whole, seeing it, its role, its relationship to other things etc. For example "Human values -> health -> working ability" translates to: " When we care for people, answering their needs (= following human values), they stay healthy. Healthy people work well: they are fit - and also motivated if we allow them room to live freely according to their nature like human values allow for them and for others."

Why does a holistic view create simplicity to important matters while a partial view leads to an enermous complexity and confusion? This is the same point as in navigation: if you first look at the landscape, then observe where your path goes in thgat landscape and what it is like to travel, you already know just about everything that you need to know. But if you first look at your feet and then every now and then glance at the nearest environment, you do a lot more work but gather much less knowledge of where you are and where are you going. Consequently you get lost much more easily. A single good holistic view can do the same work for you as tens or hundreds of glances around yourself, so a holistic view is much easier to use and to form than a bunch of partial views. 

ONE ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVE: FOLLOWING NAMES IN A NATURAL WAY

Name oriented action
All names should be interpreted in the most natural way, taking into account fully what each name naturally means to humans to human life. Positive things are something to achieve for, negative things are something to avoid. Tool like things one uses naturally as helping aids in reaching for those natural goals of achieving and avoiding. So each name should be interpreted as commanding to reach for all positive things and to avoid all negative things. This is a generalisation of what the name especially specifically mentions of the human nature. This way each name finds it place in the whole which is structured according to the same principles as the healthy natural biosphere, Gaia or Eden, i.e. according to perfect non-religious moral. Religious things can be seen as referring to the nature of humans as either products of the evolution or as creations of God.

SUMMARY
Divide the world to two components: how humans and other living beings will be treated, and what are the NEEDS of using the existing technology. Technology develops as time passes, so there is no fixed answer to what the combination of these two components will be. So there will be TWO DIRECTIONS to aim at: the global paradise of a healthy natural world, and the demands of the efficient use of technology. In what comes to the working ability of humans, these two directions are the same. But in what comes to the need for roads, factories, computer networks etc., these two differ. Some tens of years ago computers were of the size of houses, now portable versions are common. So maybe the demands of technology get somewhat smaller as the time passes: technology is adabtable, humans are not. Still, the end result propably isn't as ideal for humans as the world wide paradise without any technology. It will be something in between: propably the buildings and technology get adabted to the natural needs of humans, since as the time passes, many more options are possible than at the beginning of the era of technology.

I do not think of this paradise as a fixed kind of end result. Instead I think of it as a direction to develop into, starting from our present day situation. Both the adabtation of machines via their development to the requirements of humans and the development of technology to smaller and more efficient lead to smaller requirements for the use of technology. But how small will they become as the time passes, that I do not know!
But at first I think that the ways of living can be changed toward more healthy and natural just by changing our view on what is a good way to arrange things because that too determines a lot.


SOURCES
Referencies and sources: none. These are thoughts that I have thought on my own, mainly as a child when I had read nothing except the compulsory school books and dozens of children's story books. But of course I had academical parents which bought me a scientifical picture of the world, which like the teaching in the school included the basics of the theory of the evolution. And then there is the Finnish speaking Finnish culture which includes a rational moral which is always presupposed. My own thinking is characterised by its thorough quest for objectivity in everything, but not with any great insight into anything. I kind of apply all that I know to the extreme: all the time to everthing, thinking all things as far as I can with my thinking ability and as sure as I can, startingfrom an ordinary school like or academical picture of the world with a knowledge of the scientifical method: make experiments or observations, deduct from them and test the thus formed hypothesies by further independent observations. This results in very wide areas of application for some trustworthy basic truths, continual holistic point of view to everything and the questioning of the meaningfulness of each thing done. Last but not least: I am a woman, so I get well along with feelings without being confused about them. 

THE POLITICAL CLASSIFICATION OF THESE THOUGHTS
These thoughts should of course be classified according to what they suggest that one should support, i.e. according to their end results which are LEFTIST (SOCIALISTS and DEMOCRATS, not communist) or GREEN (ENVIRONMENTALIST). And not by their starting points which seem to be at least partly from the extreme right wing. 
For the very religious these could be religious thoughts, emphasising the role of God's creation work and of good universal moral and healthy ways of living.

If you have any questions or comments about any of my thoughts, 

please write to me! 

My e-mail address is at the bottom of the page, under the links. Please understand that I am extremely good at explaining my point of view from different kinds of starting points and at answering all kinds of questions - IF you just bother to send me an e-mail asking me the things that you do not understand or would like to know more about. No-one has yet bothered to do so. I have to know the question before I can answer. But I can speak a different kind of language to different kinds of people and use several different points of view, all ending nicely. So, if you have any questions, please do write to me: ihmejuttu@suomi24.fi

or by post: Hannele Tervola, Lähderanta 11 B 25, 02720 Espoo, Finland, European Union.

No question is so big as to not to be worth thinking over by yourself. On the contrary: just the biggest questions should be thought over by all, all by themselves, so as to find lots of new answers.


What is this style that I write about like in looks, in my estimate: Serach from the internet the song Jambalaya sung by Brenda Lee (the sound of it, not her looks) and the video (in YouTube.com?) of Jhonny Cash singing a Ring of Fire - something of the kind, I suppose: both strong and feeling, and at the same time perfectly moral. Well, but I do not know for sure...





Well, I tried singing the style myself since after all it is my theory and my way fo living but the end result aren't so beautiful - just shut your ears?! But here it is:


Communicating this perspective to others is easy via gesture language:
I love life, happiness and things positive for happy life - like most of the others, like You too.
That means that I support from my heart the arrangements in the society & in the whole world which support good life, moral in this sense that is.
This is all that is needed for a better world.

A better attempt of mine about communicating by my singing style how all people are by their nature moral is here:


Vladimir Vysotski's song about galloping horses tells abot the necessity of following feelings:



Indian chief Seattle (according to whom the town of Seattle was named): "All things are bound together, all things connect. Man has not woven the web of life, he is just one thread of it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself!"

Please read my other pages too!!! (these links are in no special order)

My MAIN THEORY supporting the claim of a paradise being the winning option
My homepage and LINKS to my pages and to my two books
Life is all that matters
An e-mail answer from the White House
More life to school children??
Sexuality and learning - just an objective text, You can read it! It applies also to friendship.
Work completely according to your feelings
Living morally is easy and makes one happier than anything
Everything is based on good
Rationality of feelings (also for those who do not trust feelings to begin with)
All good things fit together well
About masterful skill, my explanations of Tao-Te-Ching
The artificialities do not change things at all
You can watch my very intelligent pets and many thoughts of mine on video at www.youtube.com/khtervola
IF YOU DOUBT THESE THOUGHTS - READ THIS: going through these thoughts in a critical way
Some more links

I do not know where the possible weak points of my thoughts are. Everything should be surely objective. You should tell me where the possibilities for improvement are. 

I have reached 

the most beautiful 

things that I know of, 

made them real possibilities

and this world wide,

starting from an as cynical point of view as I can imagine 

i.e. from the completely value-free competition for power and benefit, 

and from all the nicer points of view that I know of.

If things are even worse, i.e. evil ruling without other goals than just destruction, we can use the value-free competition to put the more moral ones, our own side into power, to let the global paradise win. I have succeeded in this. I can even prove it for computers governing instead of living beings and for the case that no material world exists and we are just spirits or some kind of intelligent constructions run inside a huge computer brain (The beneficality of the optimised solution to the whole does not demand that you would have been planned and especially fitted to that kind of whole by the evolution or by intelligent planning.). 

I do not know what more I could do, 

the rest is
up to you!

At least spread the view that these objective grounds for a global final paradise exist 

here at www.ParadiseWillWin.info !

(Inform others also that my two books contain more  grounds for supporting good in the tough world.)

A PARADISE MOVEMENT

I LOVE LIFE, HAPPINESS AND THINGS POSITIVE FOR HAPPY LIFE
- LIKE MOST OF THE OTHERS, LIKE YOU TOO.

THAT MEANS THAT I SUPPORT FROM MY HEART
THE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE WORLD WHICH SUPPORT GOOD LIFE,
MORAL IN THIS SENSE OF THE WORD.

THIS IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED FOR A BETTER WORLD!

Speaking out this view is also a good way to win new friends.
It works well also wordlessly, on gesture language.

Social suceess, why I write

Please note: this is a way of life according to the human heart and soul. It has bought me an enermous social success compared to what I used to have. (Please see the page "Why I write" for a description of that.)
I have also received an answer to my e-mail containing this thought from the White House of USA and from the headquarters of the United Nations. So please take this thought, this way of life, seriously! Others, more intelligent than you, have done so!


Please check: how moral you could be this way? No longer do you need to complain that moral is a too big strain on you or on just about anybody else either...

All human action is essentially a paradise movement: a movement for better life in a better living environment. That's what moral essentially is.

(The Finnish speaking Finnish European culture is a paradise movement and so is the common European culture largely. If You are interested, You could ask the information bureau of the European Union for information on how our society structure seeks to make life as good as possible for all.)

In other words: I love happiness and dislike suffering, so I take happiness and the avoidance of suffeing as values for myself, as values which to follow in arranging the world.



MORAL
=
doing meaningful things and
living a healthy happy life!





LIFE IS A SONG

It is our nature to see life as a song, as a great panorama of music. That's why we love music: its sound is in our nature, the natural stimuli that we used to hear all the time.
In the natural life in a natural environment a long time ago we were immersed in beauty, much like we can admire the sight of nature even nowadays. But then, a long time ago, it was every side of our life that was so beautiful.
Like with the fracturelessness of nature, beauty is a charachteristic of full health. And since the healthies is the most well functioning, the natural world full of the beauty of full health is the source of miracles in the eyes of us who are used to the fractured world with all the artificialities. The untouched human nature is so well functioning in every respect that it looks miraculous in our eyes. So it is also with our perception of life as a song: it is natural perception about the essentails of human life, about the well funcrtioning and healthy and healthily beautiful in our lives. Whenever we use a machine and it makes a KRAAH sound, we know that we have made something wrong. It is the same with humans. And when our senses sing, we know that we have done everything right!

Hannele Tervola, Finland, Europe
The great song of life

How to inform people about this perspective?
It is a perspective well suited for choosing what kind of symbolics one ought to choose.
So a big, global, change in symbolics, and in flags especially, toward healthier, more beneficial and more idealistic at the same time could communicate this perspective to all - at least across time when the symbols and flags are used by the peoples. Also the national anthems of some countries, if not of all, would need changing, with respect for the nature of the people.





Symbols that I value are that of a healthy strong happy animal on an island formed by its own living requirements, and
the sun (red or reddis colour) which could symbolize the whole human kind and the global paradise of a healthy world as a goal.

These are not my thoughts alone: these are
 traditional women's truths and
common European cultural charachteristics,
very valuable to all.

In most cultures women take care of most of the upbringing and nurturing of children.
So they are the ones whose values are well suited to that work,
well suited to safeguarding the good living conditions, health and intelligence of the offspring.
These are the same values that guarantee that adults stay in good shape.

It is important to give enough room to these essential basic values.
The easiest and most straightforward way to do so is to support the
position of women
in both domestic life (which takes care of the well being of individuals)
and in the society at large (which takes care of the well being of all).