Friday, August 11, 2017

Basics of my paradise theory

I today noticed that someone seems to have messed with my paradise theory book file in this blog, and since I do not have the original, it is just a disaster. As far as I know others were not able to think these things through so that they would have a solid ground in the technologised modern world. It matters enermously that there would be enough room for the human nature and for healthy kind of moral in societies and in the world at large, even when the computers' viewpoint of counting, basic programming, lists etc determines quite lot of what people invest in, what they think matters in the future world we are netering. So it matters a lot to have just these mechanical kinds of basic truths of the paradise theory. The rest is just build upon that, a picture of a possible future.

I just copy here from the text (diagrams lacking). This is kind of engineering point of view, requiring the view of the natural sciences, especially physics, physical sciences and ecology, with some inclination toward theoretical philosophy:

Think of the world as a large biological system

(it is the biosphere in complete health
i.e. all living beings and their nature environment: rocks, earth, sky etc. together in good health and naturality):

humans are a part of that system,
and a human society with its environment
is a huge biological subsystem of it,
 interconnected with the rest of the biosphere,

and can be understood
in that context.


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 versus lot of conflicts
* unified harmonic
versus scattered one that does not work together to form a well-working whole
* healthy versus broken
* on a healthy ground, steady versus unsure, unsteady
* long-lasting  versus easily scattered
* strong  versus weak structure
* according to motivation, feelings and
the intellect & the idea in things versus against them.

This is a basic truth and has a very wide area of validity. So apply it very thoroughly to everything!


There are some basic truths about the functioning of complex wholes. These 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 the value of unifiedness, of fracturelessness in well "planned" systems.

The value of fracturelessness is 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 harmonical is unified well functioning. Such are the systems of nature.


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? Illness is a healthy function of a broken biological being, a way of it to try to cure itself. In other words, ilnesses are combinations 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. Safeguarding the health of the society is moral.
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 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.

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. The large scale consists of the small scale, of its added effect. Our feelings should go with the large scale!


The former explains why it is useful to be moral. So good should win over evil in a strongest one wins competition, like the evolution was. To see this clearly, let’s go through the problems step by step:

As we have already seen:

Human values bring good health and via health 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.
good moral would win
in a strongest one wins competition.

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:

The point of view of optimising of wholes
and moral as its end result:
why good moral
is the most optimised way to arrange one's forces

If there is some malicious practise here lacking, it is because I didn’t remember it, not because I wouldn’t know how to optimise it away!!!

Robbery, criminals, unjustices of every kind
* give feedback to those who cause each thing in the world  (health), so you can optimise toward better -> justice and fair play, responsible behaviour: causes and consequences taken into account (health)
* breaking (= a fractured whole) versus cultivating (health) in what creates profit -> support just cultivating: good moral!

Slavery and other kinds of forcing
* The human goals in life and the human needs are connected (health) plus answering the human needs and the working condition of the human are connected (health), so depriving a person from free moral action lessens the person's working ability noticeably (= a fractured whole).
* Too much forcing forces one to a revolution (= a fractured whole), to extreme means, so keeping the people under control is the harder the more artificial and unhuman, unfair (= a fractured whole) the arrangements of the rulers are.

Drugs, hypnosis, torture etc.
* Less individual guidance (= a broken whole) is harmful just like in the cases of slavery and control devices.
* Typically such means would be used against (= a broken whole) the reasoning of the individual (health), against the individuals' and society's needs (health) and so against work efficiency and work endurance and system's ways of functioning (health) - such doesn't make sense.
* Also if such means are used to put a wrong class of persons or things into power, against justice, that means against reasoning (Read the text Justice and optimising) and is harmful to the whole and to the parts; it also centres the lives upon wrong questions   (= a fractured whole) compared to what the efficiency, guidability and work endurance point of view demands (health).

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

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

Other kinds of manipulation
* manipulation means often that things are used to wrong purposes, some short-sighted technically thinking parasite like persons benefiting (= a fractured whole) instead of those who build the society, like farmers for example by producing food (health).

Technology at large, control devices
* Compare control to only a few persons of a certain kind via the technology (= a fractured whole) or what freedom of the moral ones gives: a correctable system with the thinking ability of all used thoroughly in making the arrangements of the society (health)
* The benefits of good moral would give: real support which leads to safety, guidability, cooperation, higher intelligence of the system, better endurance, more optimised toward efficiency (health)

Supercomputers, computer networks etc.
* Can be used to rationality, optimising, that's good if it is done morally, like for example this book of mine seeks to teach to do in ways, which are easy to program to computers. (Healthy works better than a broken one.)
* The value of human ways from the efficiency point of view: if you use human workers or human subordinates, human values are valuable to you (health), like this book of mine seeks to show, regardless of what kind of leadership (= a fractured whole) there is.
* Feelings of humans connect to their needs, which in turn connect, to their actions and well functioning and well-functioning is important for workers (health).
* Differences in the types of understanding of humans and computers: the natural understanding of humans about human functioning can be used too (health), and be of mutual benefit.

Artificial living conditions and malfunctions created by them
* The human nature is still the same, one created by the natural evolution: human needs and ways of functioning stay the same so best functioning is attained via healthy happy natural life
* The human being is an optimised whole: the different parts support functioning (health); if one tries new combinations (= a fractured whole), they typically don't produce a good functioning so there is nothing to gain in work efficiency by artificial living arrangements (= a fractured whole), torture etc. (= a fractured whole)

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

Cool calculating behaviour
* The good side is that it is important to measure sizes correctly.
* Humans have feelings in order to help in understanding things (health), not using feelings as a way to guide one's behaviour (= a fractured whole) makes one dangerous to one's social environment (= a fractured whole), a person who even alone destroys much of the functioning of the society.
* Understand that you must always cooperate morally, especially in the largest scale (health).

* Humans are pack animals: the group supports the functioning of the individual and social life is emotionally rewarding (health)
* cooperation creates the force of masses (healthy whole), so moral is beneficial
* moral means cooperating for common good, i.e. for the good of all (health)

Commercial things
* Meeting human needs sells best (health).
* If the state has enough tax money, one can let the things, which are for, common good (health) compete just like other things compete in a market economy.

War, armies, militaristic ways
* the value of peace and harmony (health) versus the harm caused by conflicts and wars (=a fractured whole)
* Upbringing of the next generation needs peaceful circumstances (healthy whole).
* A home to defend makes the soldiers fight better (healthy whole).

Short term view at the expense (= 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 also 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.

Understand that every obstacle on the road toward meeting the natural needs of humans, makes smaller the amount of labour force in use and makes its working ability smaller, causes opposition and so makes the system less stabile, less guidable and less self-repairing and less intelligent (because of less natural cooperation and less well functioning workers).

So, good
stronger than evil.


If one can be sure about anything, then also about the fact that good wins over evil.
Or at least about the fact that good is stronger than evil.
This can be deduced from the fact that healthy one functions better than a broken one.
Always when it is a question of some whole
it is best for its owner, governor or the like to keep it healthy and unbroken.

This means that
all big leaders need to support good moral.

Like allegiances are beneficial in the small scale are
they useful likewise in the large scale: value peace!

So it is beneficial for any kind of leader of a big whole to support good moral.


If you are, like the persons deciding about a country’s foreign policy, by your reputation among the most intelligent ones in some group, the others in the group will try to follow your example about what is the wisest course of action. So if you follow some guidelines in the world at large, they will follow the same guidelines in your own society. So what you follow in the world at large will result in what your own society will become like. So choose the most advantageous course of action: the most moral one, so you will benefit most.

The problem maybe isn't with the leaders, it is with what the masses imagine that would be beneficial for a leader to do: a leader understands that it is beneficial to support moral in the society. If the masses copy all wrong what the intelligent ones do, the system goes ashtray anyway, even if there is good moral and skill at the top. That's one reason why the masses have to be educated, so that they wouldn't follow persons who are not suited to be leaders at all. The leaders have the difficult task to be understandable, i.e. to look convincing and to still govern well. So it is the understanding of the masses, which is in fact in the governing position.

One should pay close attention to who, what kind of person, group or thing is in power and not let the evil ones get into power at all.


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 from 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 beneficial 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.


The value of harmony as a vector sum

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

   Contradictory  versus  non-contradictory, harmonical

< > v ^     contradictory
> > > >  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 to the vector sum 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 and with excellent moral)
loose (according to the way that things are)
global (all parties in harmony and 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 OF A COMPLETELY HEALTHY WORLD, Gaia.

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


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.


“Harmonic forest islands” is the best way that I can think of to think of people living peacefully together. Each person alone is identified with an island with harmonic forest growing on it (in harmony with the goals in life of the individual but encompassing many different areas of life). Each cooperating group is identified with a harmonic forest island (the individuals in the group may have various ultimate goals but they agree about the practical arrangements to be made). 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 biggest vector sums with no conflicts which would needlessly spend any of the forces.


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 (= those islands) 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. More than healthy curing kind of aggressivity 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 my homecountry 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.


The human society forms a functional whole. One can benefit from its functioning if one is a part of it or in friendly terms with it. The society arranges at least water, food, shelter, help in emergencies and means to get such for oneself: work to do.
That’s why the individuals i.e. tha smallest balls in the picture, are high in the air in the biggest ball i.e. in the biggest group, i.e. have reached far toward the fullfilling of their own personal goals.
But how to get the society work well together for the good of all and why just so? The answer is good moral. This book tries to go through some calculations and estimates which support good moral. It is moral which is benefical, not evil, since good moral means working for the good health of the whole. This book is just about the straightforward skilled optimising of wholes.

It is much better though if you start with the end result: good moral, and not with the beneficality point of view, since if you get lost on the way before you end up with good moral, then the end result is a mess and will not bring you the benefits gained by the thoropugh optimising of wholes, the benefits of good moral: the unoptimised result will not bring the benefits of an optimised well working whole, i.e. the benefits of a moral society with a high standard of living.



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, whatever 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 understand 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.

No comments:

Post a Comment