[gha] Re: The Freedom Budget of 1966 and its Implications + Understanding the Harmony Science
- From: Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Bob Dyck <bobdyck@xxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 20:25:27 +0400
Dear Bob,
Many thanks for your excellent constructive letter and criticism. Yes, we
welcome and appreciate it.
Please, let me answer the points.
1. Sorry, but we do not know in the GHA: Who is Bob? - Economist, philosopher,
anthropologist, peacemaker, poet …, where you live and work, what is your age
(if it's not a secret), your country, the address of your website, your
publications, etc.? Could we include your E-mail to our mailing list
gha@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (about 300 members of the GHA)? Please, let us know it all.
Thank you. GHA recognizes and appreciates the openness and transparency in our
relations.
2. Your term "Peace Science" – what is it represents? – Traditional peace
science or "Global Peace Science from Harmony" (GPS), created in the GHA?
Please, do not confuse these terms, but to distinguish them. Thank you. Due to
the confusion of these terms I, and others, badly understand you.
3. "A brief review of The ABC of Harmony (what's your time frame?)" - The
sooner the better. One week will be enough? If not, please, define these frames
yourself. Thank you.
4. You write: "ABC's epistemology and methodology are not sufficiently well
articulated". But you have not read our ABC. When you will read it, we will be
glad to know: in what exactly “ABC's epistemology and methodology are not
sufficiently well articulated”? We greatly appreciate your concrete ideas in
this area.
5. You give a good overview of the traditional "Peace Science". In connection
with this, I like to invite you to write to Jan. 31 your article ( 3-5 pages )
with about the title: "The Merits and Achievements of Traditional Peace
Thinking." This topic is planned in our GPS book. In this article, you could
compare the two approaches / methodologies to peace: the traditional and from
theory of harmony (GPS) and assess their focuses and their scientific quality.
Which is better: "knowledge in action" or "science of harmony" in accordance
with the objective requirements but not subjective preferences? GHA recognizes
that these approaches / methodologies complement each other. It is our
fundamental idea. The conflicts are endless and conflict resolution does not
provide global peace, although they may be useful pragmatic. The scientific
definition of global peace this theory is not able to give. It can only give a
"science of harmony", although we do not exclude the possibility of other
approach but we did not see it today - it does not exist today. But maybe you
know something about this approach. The main idea here is to recognize the
necessity and possibility of Global Peace Science from something: from harmony,
from justice, from love, from economy, from politics, from law, from culture,
etc. Of course, it is required to show the real examples of these approaches,
as our ABC and GPS. Would you be willing to write this article about all of
this? Thank you. I have answered all your questions.
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: Bob Dyck, bobdyck@xxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 7 декабря 2013 г., 2:38:36
Subject: [gha] The Freedom Budget of 1966 and its Implications +
Understanding the Harmony Science
Thanks, Leo, I see now that Peace Science is less firmly grounded than I
gathered from my previous reading, and I am glad to know that you welcome
constructive critique. Time permitting, I would like to write a brief review
of The ABC of Harmony (what's your time frame?). My impression so far is that
ABC's epistemology and methodology are not sufficiently well articulated. Both
are critical to a productive scientific inquiry.
When I look up "Peace Science" on the web, I got no direct response. But
Wikipedia provided an entry called Peace and Conflict Studies. Under this
heading, I found a sole reference to Peace Science, as follows:
In 1963, Walter Isard, the principal founder of Regional science assembled a
group of scholars in Malmö, Sweden, for the purpose of establishing the Peace
Research Society. The group of initial members included Kenneth Boulding and
Anatol Rapoport. In 1973, this group became the Peace Science Society. Peace
science was viewed as an interdisciplinary and international effort to develop
a special set of concepts, techniques and data to better understand and
mitigate conflict.[8] Peace science attempts to use the quantitative techniques
developed in economics and political science, especially game theory and
econometrics, techniques otherwise seldom used by researchers in peace
studies.[9] The Peace Science Society website hosts the second edition of the
Correlates of War, one of the most well known collections of data on
international conflict.[10] The society holds an annual conference, attended by
scholars from throughout the world, and publishes two scholarly journals:
Journal of Conflict Resolution and Conflict Management and Peace Science.
It so happens that Walter Isard was one of my mentors at the University of
Pennsylvania. I took two of his courses on regional science. I believe the
sociologist Elise Boulding, wife of Kenneth Boulding, was also involved. You
may know the journals this group has published. I find it interesting that
their focus was on conflict resolution and utilized quantitative analysis,
whereas your focus seems to be more on the parameters of social harmony, I
gather from a non-quantitative perspective. Would you care to comment on this
difference?
My own perspective is that the most immediately useful perspective might be to
place the emphasis on PLANNING for peace and/or conflict resolution. I would
think of it as an experimental approach to help determine which methods and
strategies work best in different socio/cultural settings. Thinking like an
anthropologist, I would be cautious of "one method fits all." I am reminded of
Gilbert Rist's fine book, The Delusions of Economics (London and New York: Zed
Books, 2011).
This strategy would place emphasis on "knowledge in action" rather than on a
less focused "science of harmony" that I would think less likely to produce
practical prescriptions. This is the sort of thing I am getting at when I talk
about epistemology and how do we learn what we want to know. It also relates
to the methodology question I raised. Again, I would welcome your comment.
I have no idea about funding for this sort of thing, but the Wikipedia article
I mentioned has a long list of research institutes located all around the
world, as well as a listing of UN and other international organizations, NGOs,
and national AID donor agencies. Maybe some of them have funding.
Best, Bob
On Dec 6, 2013, at 11:20 AM, Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Bob,
Thank you for your detailed letter.
I understand your doubts as the person who first time encountered with a new,
unknown to him science. To overcome these doubts in one direction or another
can the only way - a more profound study of this science. In connection with
this, I like to once again invite you to explore and write a review about the
ABC of Harmony as a scientific theory of social harmony, especially in its
first 80 pages here:
www.peacefromharmony.org/file/6079/ABC_of_Harmony_eng.pdf.
We believe that the presented theoretical and logical arguments here enough to
recognize this theory as scientific. Its empirical arguments are presented in
the Program of Sociological Study (www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=579),
which we can not do because of the lack of the necessary funding for it in
$60.000. (Could you help us find this funding?) The basis and logic of this
study, from our point of view, are also enough empirical argument to recognize
this theory as scientific.
Of course, the sufficient arguments - this is only the minimum for any science,
which makes the first step. Any science in its beginning is very far from
perfection, to which it goes for centuries and millennia, such as mathematics
and etc. If you as well as members of the GHA, acknowledge these arguments as
sufficient (for the beginning and at the minimum) to recognize this theory by
science of social harmony, we can cooperate with you further. If you do not
find these arguments by the sufficient, then we invite you to formulate YOUR
enough arguments for this science.
Of course, for a broad understanding of global peace the one science is not
enough, it requires religion, philosophy, art and the appropriate social,
political and economic practices, as reflected in the contents of our Global
Peace Science (GPS) book. But science in this complex of peace knowledge is
central.
My first counter-argument is this: if possible military science, then why is
not possible peace science? Yes, live in peace far more complex and complicated
than to live in war, constantly killing each other. It's very simple and a lot
of mind for this is not necessary. Live in peace - is far more complicated
thing, for which more than for war requires science. But humanity has not yet
approached to peace science because of its complexity. Our (GHA) GPS - it is
only a first attempt at this very difficult path for humanity. As you know, all
the first born in pains. If you share with us the difficulties of this way and
make your contribution to this science, we would greatly appreciate it. We are
waiting for your review of the ABC of Harmony and your decision to participate
in GPS. Thank you.
Note: The GHA established the rule to do all the theoretical discussions by
public and transparent to all, so I send my answer to you for all members of
the GHA.
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: Bob Dyck, bobdyck@xxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 6 декабря 2013 г., 9:21:49
Subject: [gha] The Freedom Budget of 1966 and its Implications
Dear Leo and Matjaz:
Thanks for your response to my note, which included reference to the article
that I included for consideration in the forthcoming new GHA book. Your
suggestion for retitling my article seems appropriate for the book, but I would
like to continue thinking about it for now.
I have been reviewing the GPS (Global Peace Science) ideas that inform the new
book. I have several observations and questions. I find the idea of a SCIENCE
of global peace a bit off-putting, because (1) it does not appear to be
consistent with the generally accepted and rather narrow definition of science,
including systems science, and (2) because I am not clear, from the materials
sent by Leo, how one would state the epistemology and methodology of Global
Peace Science.
It seems to me that what we are talking about is a systems approach that does
much more than empirical research, but I don't see a definition of it anywhere.
I do have the impression that it is perhaps more interested in what I would
call "systems design" than in "systems analysis." In other words, it is
interested in how to build a peaceful society in future time, guided by certain
principles and objectives. From Martin Luther King's perspective, those
principles would include justice, democracy, equality, and compassion as some
of the key ideas for building a better and more peaceful world.
This may explain what you intend by your list of "laws," but it is not
immediately clear how those laws were derived or where they came from. It
appears to me that they may derive more from philosophy than from science.
That would not necessarily be a bad thing, in my view, but it might suggest
more accurate naming of the organizing concept.
Since you reference the book, HARMONY, by Prince Charles, I turned to it for
further insight. I see reference to such things as natural orders and
rhythms, including nature's geometries, as a basis for man's more harmonious
relationships with nature and human societies. Traditional science helps
explain nature's parameters and patterns, but I'm not persuaded that it tells
us everything we need to know in order to design creatively. In fact, on page
307, Charles highlights an apposite quote: "Humans are complicated and
imperfect creatures and there is always friction wherever societies form, but
evidently such people the world over cannot conceive of themselves as
disconnected observers of the world." I would understand this to mean that
science, as an "objective" methodology, simply is insufficient.
In summary, I applaud your effort towards peace building, but I am not
especially comfortable with your naming of SCIENCE as the umbrella conceptual
framework.
Perhaps you would be so good as to help me better understand your approach to
these conceptual and naming matters. I intend no disrespect, but my feeling is
that your conceptual approach is not as well articulated as it might be, and
that there may be some significant semantic problems.
All best wishes,
Bob
On Dec 4, 2013, at 3:34 AM, Leo Semashko <leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Matjaz,
Many thanks for the introduction of a new coauthor for Global Peace Science
(GPS).
Dear Robert,
We are happy to meet you and we welcome you among the GHA coauthors of its new
book: GPS.
Thank you very much for your interesting article about poverty in the context
of justice, freedom and democracy.
Context of the GHA new book, to which we invite you to make your contribution
– is GPS. Its key ideas, contents, rules and requirements are presented here:
www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=585.
Could you modify your article for this context and in accordance with the Rules
for articles in this book? For example, to change the title of your article as
follows: "Ways to Overcome Poverty: Essential Condition of Economic Justice for
Global Peace." Do you agree with it or you want to edit it? (You could suggest
your any other adequate article for GPS). Among these ways you might consider
the natural resource rent for each person of the Earth since birth, as it is
established in Norway, Kuwait and some other countries.
To better understand the GPS theoretical basis - the science of social harmony,
which is presented in the ABC of Harmony
(www.peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=478), we invite you to read this book
and write a brief review up to the 1st page to publish it on our website
“Peace from Harmonyâ€: www.peacefromharmony.org. This will allow you to
better understand our scientific position and define your attitude towards it.
Last, technical question: Could we include your E-mail to our mailing list
(about 300 GHA members) through which we discuss all articles in GPS and other
issues of GHA? 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: MATJAŽ MULEJ, mulej@xxxxxxxxx
To: leo.semashko@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: 4 Ð´ÐµÐºÐ°Ð±Ñ€Ñ 2013 г., 1:46:23
Subject: [gha] Re: The Freedom Budget of 1966 and its Implications
Dear Leo and others,
attached please find the potential contribution to the book on peace. Prof. Dr.
Robert Dyck is my good friend and frequent coauthor.
Best,
Matjaz
From: Bob Dyck [bobdyck@xxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2013 4:23 AM
To: MULEJ matjaz
Subject: The Freedom Budget of 1966 and its Implications
Dear Matjaz:
I have found my new book by Le Blanc and Yates about the Freedom Budget of 1966
fascinating and have developed a paper based on it. See the attachment:
.
The 1966 budget was named the freedom budget because it gave people the freedom
to live productive lives. Although I did not say it explicitly in the paper,
the budget could just as appropriately be called a peace budget, because a
current version of it would be consistent with ending our endless wars, just
as the original was linked with an end to the Vietnam War.
I think the paper would be appropriate for inclusion in the peace book project
you mentioned recently, but I seem to have misplaced your correspondence and do
not now have access to any of the details you sent.
Pls take a look and let me know what you think.
Best, Bob
Other related posts:
