[gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter + + The War against GPS: Global Peace Science
- From: Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Martin, Glen T" <gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2014 15:08:03 +0400
Dear Glen,
GHA and I cannot understand, what do you want in the end and ultimately? You
have two alternatives.
The first alternative. If you do not want to cooperate with the GHA in creating
GPS, please, write to us: "I do not want to participate in GPS and refuse to
discuss and publish anything in its book on the motives that shown in my letter
of May 28." It's your email, which is fully, on 100% negative, aggressive,
hostile and destructive to GPS. It gives you a complete reasoned basis for such
refusal. This frees both you and us from wasting time. Please, read carefully
my answer on it in 11 pages..
The second alternative. If you want to cooperate with the GHA in creating GPS,
we expect from you the following five practical things:
2.1. The confirmation of your positive judgments and estimates of
Tetrasociology and ABC of Harmony as "our new planetary paradigm, the
fundamental revolution in science and paradigm shift in human consciousness"
[ABC, 298], as well as from your article here [ABC, 108-109] and other your
positive comments about the importance of GPS, etc. We can cooperate with you
only if you see any positive value of GPS. This does not exclude your
constructive criticism, which is possible only in this case. If your valuation
of GPS is on 100% negative, as in your letter of May 28, we cannot cooperate
with you, as you are with us.
2.2. You send me your promised donation of one thousand dollars for global
peace in the GPS book, like all of its co-authors on their possibility, for
its translation into two languages ??(Russian and English, one page worth $ 30
- total $12 000), to edit it (one page worth $ 20 - total $8000), for
statistical studies of India and the U.S. ($4000) for its publication in two
languages ??(at least $6000 dollars) and so on.
2.3. You write your article in 2-3 pages with your constructive criticism of
GPS as your rebuttal and clarification/correction of your letter of May 28.
2.4. You correct in this spirit your article about the Earth Constitution for
GPS (see its constructive criticism in my answer to 11 pages).
2.5. You correct in this spirit your prospect of the Conference 2015: "The
Building New World and Global Peace: Paradigms of Evolution of Consciousness
and Social Harmony" (you could edit it) and put on the discussion in it the two
alternative approaches as two alternative structures: 11 sectors of Barbara
Hubbard (Evolution of Consciousness) and SOCIONOME (social genome of global
harmony and peace) and SPHERONS of GPS. This will greatly enhance the
scientific interest and meaning of your conference, strongly fresh its
scientific contents and importance. I could send you my version of its
prospect, if you want.(See in more details in my answer to 11 pages).
These five positive steps provide you and us with constructive cooperation,
instead of endless bickering that you started in February of this year. I can
engage in constructive cooperation, but I refuse to bicker. I will not respond
to your emails of this nature - it is a waste of time. Do you agree with these
five positive steps of our constructive cooperation?
So, you have two alternatives. Please let us know your choice, which we will
respect. Thanks for the response.
With love, best harmony wishes,
Leo
Dr Leo Semashko:
State Councillor of St. Petersburg,
Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony;
Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia;
Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005;
Director, GHA Website "Peace from Harmony": www.peacefromharmony.org
Global Peace Science from Harmony: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=585
and
In Russian: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=ru_c&key=606;
World Interfaith Harmony Project on the ABC of Harmony Base:
www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=541;
GHA Program Book, The ABC of Harmony for World Peace:
www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478;
GHA Peace Video: http://youtu.be/hbxY5lREOeA;
My Web page: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253;
Address: 7/4-42 Ho-Shi-Min Street, St. Petersburg 194356, Russia
Phone: 7 (812) 597-65-71; Skype: leo.semahko
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/leo.semashko?ref=tn_tnmn
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin, Glen T, gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6 июня 2014 г., 18:52:23
Subject: [gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter + + The War against GPS: Global Peace
Science
Dear Leo,
I do not think that hostility is in order. You did ask for remarks about the
first two chapters of the book, and my remarks were sincere, honest, and
supportive, wishing the book the best of success. Why do you consider these
simple thoughts a “war against GPS”? People in the world of peace studies and
academia write thoughtful criticisms of one another’s work all the time. This
is the only way that human understanding and the pursuit of truth can move
forward.
Jürgen Habermas calls this way of discussion a “dialogue directed toward mutual
understanding.” I think that is what our discourse on GHA and other public
media should be. We should be trying to mutually understand one another with
the goal of harmony, peace, and global justice. Please let us look at our
dialogue this way, not as “war.” I do not understand why you would think that.
You may publish my letter and your rebuttal as you like, but I think it would
not promote either harmony or GPS to do so. I was simply trying to request
that you explain to everyone how GPS serves a “a new paradigm for global
peace”. If I have failed to understand how it does this, it is also likely
that others have not understood how it does this either, even if they are
hesitant to speak up.
Instead of attacking my observations about what appears to be missing from GPS,
please just explain to me and everyone, in comprehensible terms, what this new
paradigm is. If it is so esoteric that no one but you or a few people can
understand it, how is it going to serve as a paradigm for global peace?
That is all I was asking. Please let us engage in harmonious dialogue directed
toward mutual understanding, not in acrimony, hostile remarks, and accusations
of “war on GPS.” If peace leaders cannot work in harmony and mutual
understanding, how can we expect the rest of the world to do so?
Yours in peace,
Glen Martin
Dr. Glen T. Martin
President, World Constitution and Parliament Assoc.
(www.worldparliament-gov.org)
President, Institute on World Problems (www.earth-constitution.org)
Professor of Philosophy and Chair, Peace Studies, Radford University
(www.radford.edu/gmartin)
Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International
From: Leo Semashko [mailto:leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 6:47 AM
To: Martin, Glen T
Cc: peace-from-harmony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter + + The War against GPS: Global
Peace Science
Dear members of the GHA, dear Glen,
I am happy to send you in attachment for your discussion within three days,
until June 9, inclusively, a new paragraph of GPS (11 pages), devoted to the
answer on Glen’s destructive criticism (see below). I consider it as the war
against GPS.
Before publishing our polemic, we will discuss it. Everything is said in this
paragraph. I just want to emphasize one idea that can be a constructive way to
restore the working relationship. It is as follows: We will publish your (Glen)
letter and our response to it in the book and on the website. Are you able to
publish these texts at least on your website for your students and your
conference participants, to revive and to inspire them through scientific
revolution of GPS at least in its criticism?
Could you destroy our deep doubts on this score? Thank you,
With love, best harmony wishes,
Leo
Dr Leo Semashko:
State Councillor of St. Petersburg,
Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony;
Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia;
Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005;
Director, GHA Website "Peace from Harmony": www.peacefromharmony.org
Global Peace Science from Harmony: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=585
and
In Russian: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=ru_c&key=606;
World Interfaith Harmony Project on the ABC of Harmony Base:
www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=541;
GHA Program Book, The ABC of Harmony for World Peace:
www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478;
GHA Peace Video: http://youtu.be/hbxY5lREOeA;
My Web page: www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253;
Address: 7/4-42 Ho-Shi-Min Street, St. Petersburg 194356, Russia
Phone: 7 (812) 597-65-71; Skype: leo.semahko
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/leo.semashko?ref=tn_tnmn
----- Original Message -----
From: Martin, Glen T, gmartin@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 27 мая 2014 г., 23:23:08
Subject: [gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter
Dear Leo,
I wish you the best of luck with this book and promoting global peace science.
But as someone who has been Chairperson for many years of a program in peace
studies at this university, I have to say that GPS is not a panacea for world
peace and it is very unlikely that the placing it at the beginning of this book
is going to somehow make thoughtful and informed people subscribe to it.
As I wrote to you earlier (which resulted you’re your removing me as co-editor
of the book), none of the major themes that characterize the worldwide
movement in peace studies appears in GPS. There is no consideration of the
vast contributions to understanding the violent dynamics of our world made by
Max Weber, Immanuel Wallerstein, Jürgen Habermas, and others. There is no
consideration of the global ethics movement and the great amount of work done
on defining global ethics on behalf of peace. There is nothing about the
theory and practice of nonviolence and the vast amount of work coming from the
inspirations of Gandhi, King, Tolstoy, etc.
Nor is there anything about the worldwide movement for the study and practice
of nonviolent communication led my Marshall Rosenberg and others. There is
nothing substantive about the role of capitalism in the promotion of war, a
literature spearheaded by Marx and continued by many others. There is no
analysis of totalitarianism, its forms and roles in war and violence, and the
literature on that subject, led, for example, by Hannah Arendt. There is
nothing about the vast literature on human rights and human dignity and its
contributions to creating peace and harmony. Nor is there anything about the
ethics of care and compassion and the literature around that theme. What are
all these scholars, working in all these fields, going to think about GPS? I
doubt very much if they are going to drop their own substantial work and flock
to GPS.
Regarding GPS itself, it is not clear to me how the four societal spheres can
be effectively and properly differentiated or what value it would be to
approach society this way. Each set of social information ?C humanitarian,
instrumental (informational), organizational, and technical would seem to apply
to all the spheres. I can see gathering specific information for selective
purposes defined by certain spheres, but how this contributes to peace is not
apparent to me.
One can appreciate that these four functions are essential to society
(humanitarian, informational, organizational, and technical), but recognizing
this appears to me to be merely a descriptive feature of the interrelation of
these. However, I do not see these as classes of people but as functions that
are often the domain of any one person: for example, I personally have
humanitarian functions, informational functions, organizational functions and
technical functions ?C as do many other people. This categorization appears
somewhat arbitrary and limited in its usefulness.
Nor do I see how study of these functions is going to lead to harmony or peace.
Historically society both nationally and internationally has been involved
with much conflict, war, and violence. I do not see any prescription here for
changing things in ways that would promote peace. Like the famous case of
Adolph Eichmann, I may appear to have benign technical, organizational, etc.,
functions, but I am still part of a social machine dedicated to war, violence,
and genocide.
I can perhaps see how the sociology with multivariable and dimensions would be
a good place for dialogue among social scientists and other thinkers. But how
is this going to get the world to peace? What if my technical job is building
nuclear weapons? Am I in “disharmony” with something? I do not see how the
words “disbalance” or “disproportion” (that appear many times) are illuminating
as to how we can achieve peace. According to the definitions in the chapter,
I could apparently be building weapons while in a state of social harmony.
Neither do I find analysis of the institutions and motivations usually
associated with war and violence: I do not find any mention of multinational
corporations, systems of exploitation, industrial-military complexes,
militarized sovereign national security states, terror and counter-terror,
undemocratic structures of governing, motives for imperialism, patterns of
hate, fear, and ignorance, etc. ?C things that are most often taken as causes
of war and impediments to be overcome through a process of both dialogue as
well as structural changes. What am I missing here?
And as I said above, neither do I see mention of the positive things that
are usually associated with the establishing of peace: conflict resolution,
authentic democratic modes of governing, economic conversion to peaceful goods
and services, dialogue directed toward mutual understanding, nonviolence in
theory and practice, nonviolent forms of communication, economic and social
justice, truth and reconciliation processes, respect for human rights and human
dignity, etc.
In the literature of peace studies, analyses are often divided into structural
dimensions (economic, social, and political systems that may support either war
or peace) and psycho-social dimensions (people’s fears, emotions, moral
convictions, attitudes, etc.). How does Tetrasociology address transformation
in each of these areas? Just collecting data is not going to create peace.
What are the ethical, structural, social, and psychological characteristics of
a world peace system (as opposed to the present war-system)? In these
chapters, I see the word “harmony” appear over and over again, but its useage
appears so vague and general that I do not see how it seriously addresses any
of the above issues.
As I said above, I wish you the best of luck with this, but I do not think that
GPS supplies any hitherto undiscovered secret about how to create peace in a
complex world. I am willing to bet that many people contributing papers to
this volume have much to say that is ignored by GPS. And I do not think it
will not help the cause of peace if we fool ourselves into thinking we have a
magic bullet.
My best harmony wishes to you and all the authors of this book. We all
sincerely want peace, but in the quest for peace and harmony we also must also
remain faithful to truth, intellectual integrity, and the tradition of quality
scholarship upon whose shoulders all peace researchers build.
Dr. Glen T. Martin
President, World Constitution and Parliament Assoc.
(www.worldparliament-gov.org)
President, Institute on World Problems (www.earth-constitution.org)
Professor of Philosophy, Radford University (www.radford.edu/gmartin)
Laureate, GUSI Peace Prize International
From: gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:gha-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Leo Semashko
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2014 7:59 AM
To: Prof. Dr. Timi Ecimovic
Cc: mulej@xxxxxxxxx; gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gha] Re: 1st and 2nd Chapter
Dear Timi,
Thank you very much for your support of the GPS first chapters, their
appreciation, congratulations and your corrections! But I read it the first
time.
As for your suggestions and corrections - they are acceptable in principle but
we will look at the discussion in GHA and other suggestions.
In this regard, I ask everyone, please, send your responses to ALL MEMBERS of
GHA to the GHA address: gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Is it possible for you? It would be more efficient. Thank you.
With love, best harmony wishes,
Leo
----- Original Message -----
From: Prof. Dr. Timi Ecimovic, timi.ecimovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 26 мая 2014 г., 18:55:28
Subject: 1st and 2nd Chapter
Dear Leo!
It is second time I am working on same issue.
1. General view ?C great work, nice presentation and profound innovation
within the social sciences ?C please accept my congratulations.
2. Let me comment on CREATION. Creation has got many meanings but most
significant meaning is “God Creation” of everything including mankind. I am
suggesting first sentence God created human…… to be: The Nature of the planet
Earth allowed Homo sapiens to live within the Biosphere of the planet Earth. My
sentence is not obligatory but possible solution.
3. Global Peace Sciences is created by God’s will - is creationism
statement. I am suggesting following: Global Peace Science is summary of work
of people of good will. The sentence is not obligatory but possible solution.
4. Preface: (Possible solution) Need, intent and conditions of the GPS
work.
Please it is not easy work to read 1st and second chapter, but my suggestion is
to replace use of creation and like words with understandable simple words -
work, evolution, reach, achievement etc.
My contribution is not obligatory and you dear Leo are free to do whatsoever
you think is better for GHA.
Have a nice day!
Timi
*Prof Dr Dr h. c. Timi Ecimovic,
Korte 124
SI - 6310 Izola - Isola
Slovenia
Phone: ++ 386 5 64 21 360
E - mail: timi.ecimovic@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Home page: www.institut-climatechange.si
Other related posts:
