Tuesday, October 27, 2015
One Introduction to "Multiple Destinations: A Solitary Traveler's Shoulder to a Wheel"
Many children, in different parts of the world, may have asked questions like this: "Is it possible to have progress without causing irreparable harm to the environment?" As a middle-aged man (who chose never to bring children to this world), I am in part motivated by a sense of duty to answer a question like this with honesty and clarity. Sadly, I first embraced a radical environmental outlook only in my teenage years. Despite my late start, I managed to do exceptional work on a 3-part book since 1980. That book, which remains unfinished as of 2015, is mostly intended for grown-ups, and it demands some background in science and political philosophy. In "Multiple Destinations: A Solitary Traveler's Shoulder to a Wheel", I choose to adopt a conversational voice, and wish to address a larger audience. After all, one of the many messages in the book that deserve a wide audience is that ‘unearned/unselected chronic human material poverty on earth’ (UCHMPE) can be eradicated within a generation –if it is given a high priority. Basic literacy for nearly all, and general education in some forms of critical thinking can and should also be part of a fight against UCHMPE.
As I see it, there are various groups that adhere to a notion of a 'purposive history'; and they disagree seriously as to what that purpose is. I caution against different forms of 'reifying' history, and reject the idea that certain popular 'purposes' can justifiably be imposed on unwilling humans. I also point out to some of the ways in which some common 'purposes' had been seen as excuses to foul our common nest. I argue that, as long as we avoid causing irreparable harm, we should be allowed to move in different directions. I challenge the legitimacy of theocratic, nationalistic, capitalistic, socialistic, 'progressivistic', and some other top-down ideologies. I underscore that progress can be made in many different ways, and, often, progress in one direction is made at the expense of the possibility of progress in other directions. Many forms of self-centered lives can indeed be self-destructive, as well as harmful to others. But many ways of forcefully recruiting people to 'societal' causes had proven to be too harmful (in different ways).
I also oppose assumptions about the desirability or inevitability of human population growth; increased urbanization and the continuation of urban sprawl; longer commutes (faster or otherwise); increased horizontal mobility for the few (with diminishing returns); and increased consumption of energy per person. My grandparents, on both sides, were subsistence farmers. Since childhood, I was privileged to live with small families in small villages around their busiest (harvesting) time. I also lived in large cities like Istanbul, Paris, London, and New York. In my youth, I worked as a tour guide in Turkey, visiting many ancient cities that were ruined, destroyed, abandoned, etc. My background in social sciences broadened my understanding that most of the human past is nomadic. Perhaps to a greater extent than my cohorts, I weave this fact into several ‘diagnostic’ statements about our present woes. What I learned in the fields of geography, history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, pedagogy, urban sociology, civil engineering, seismology, architecture, epidemiology, and the like, has all been deeply guided by a realization that "much could have been different, and much can be improved upon later".
In this conversational work, which I see as an open-ended endeavor that will remain open to ‘growth’ on the internet, I will be proposing a way in which our species can collectively begin moving in a direction that is less harmful to our planet, and even offer hopes of beginning to repair some of the harm that was done. This transformation is possible without the imposition of religious or ideological systems on most of humankind. In fact, part of what can be promised through this transformation is the establishment and strengthening of new intentional communities. One of the radical proposals that I make has the potential to reveal both the possibilities of improvement for our species, and the unforgivable shallowness of certain 'economic systems' that are presently dominant.
One of the main reasons that prompted me to travel to Europe in 1983, and to come to the U.S. in 1988 was my recognition that general and complete disarmament had to be the first step for a series of global efforts to address problems that beset us and other species. I am, of course, painfully aware that my generation, and those older than me, have achieved very little in this direction. My approach was never clouded by a superior loyalty to the (perceived) interests of any nation state, ethnic group, religious community, etc. Most people that I made contact with appeared unwilling to act as impartial human beings whose loyalty to 'humankind' was above any other loyalty. I admit that much of my time was wasted between 'wrong addresses' which included a few prominent people, but none with enough ‘fire in the belly’. I lived long enough to see humankind squander more than two decades even after the end of the so-called Cold War to make serious moves toward disarmament. Fortunately, I was also able to 'plant seeds', to help others build upon our goals, and move beyond disarmament, demilitarization, and general de-escalation in antagonistic relations among organized human societies.
While I am comforted by the fact that countless others had been more successful at ‘planting good seeds’ in most parts of the world, I am aware that far more people had been busy causing harm, and that some forms of harm are more commonly emulated by rivals, victims, et al. Therefore, part of the message of "Multiple Destinations” is that those of us who are committed to global security (concerning many aspects of human existence, as well as security for other species and life support systems) are duty-bound to make common cause with caring and dedicated people all over the planet.
In the chapter entitled "Traveling Companions", I speak to imagined young companions about certain simple pleasures that are generally denied to their generation, ways of life that are endangered throughout the world, ways in which grown-ups can hide from them the hurtful and destructive legacy of countless generations. I also suggest ways of embracing loyalty, gratitude, and a sense of duty that may threaten many groups that are powerful today.
I remain a believer in public transportation, but offer serious criticism against large cities, state-controlled transportation and communication, reliance on fossil fuels, etc. I have long viewed our social condemnation to certain forms of mass transportation as a social crime. I want to work toward ways of lessening and final break-up of that condemnation. I make some reference to my experiences as a 'solo traveler'; acknowledge that I had been more fortunate than countless other travelers; and offer ideas to help reduce some likely problems awaiting future travelers.
I never valued popularity above adherence to truth. If I reach certain ears, I may serve as an example of a 'soldier' who recognizes that not all fights are worthy of us; not all heroes end up victorious; and some failures may pave the way to lasting improvements for our species and the flora and the fauna. Certain 'creative' ideas may help us in becoming a more responsible species. Yet, as a man who offers a few radical proposals, I caution us against making too much of our 'ideas'. If we choose to become humble students of the many ways in which some other species gained superior traits, adopted better survival strategies, etc., as compared to us, we may have millions of years of learning from them. We may thus develop better ways of living among them, and, occasionally, serve as better-informed stewards.
August, 2015 (revised: October, 2015)
Anseynol (a.k.a. Seyn Laproyen)
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Close to 5 years after April Howe's assault and the subequent slanders, theft, etc., my victimization continues.
On 11 Dec. 2009,in the early evening hours, I was assaulted by April Howe in the house where she and her (late) husband were renting a room. This was her second assault (the first was not as serious, but I had informed the landlord, Andrew Gerald, in an e-mail and phone conversations). Her husband, Patrick Howe came downstairs to get her off me. I took out my cell phone and said: "This would not be my first choice, but ..." April Howe attacked me again, and made me drop my phone, I knelt down to retrieve it again. At that point, I heard April Howe scream: "Get his phone! Get his phone!". (I assume that Patrick was holding her at the moment.) Patrick did not obey her, and told her something like "Leave him alone." I called 9-1-1, and explained what happened. To this day, I wonder what April was capable of doing, if her husband chose to join in her vicious attack. I learned later that Patrick died some time later. I wonder under what circumstances...
Yesterday, I went to the 120th Precinct on Staten Island to get her arrested for her crimes. This was not the first time (that was on 14 December 2009), but I was hoping that my case would be clearer, after the dismissal of the case against me. Yesterday, I was given 3 phone numbers for the detectives. I called them a few hours later. I was told to come to the precinct in daytime, and try to speak to a detective...
This afternoon, my requests were brushed aside by an officer who told me that they would not file a 'retaliatory report'. I called the number for the detectives again, but I was not given permission to go upstairs.
I had called 9-1-1 several times before, over the years, trying to report crimes in different neighborhoods. My decisions to call and work with the police was never based on a naive faith in 'the system'. I was fully aware that the police regularly make (honest) mistakes, and that, sometimes, some policemen and other 'law enforcement' personnel deliberately victimize innocent people. I became aware of a shocking case through a "60 Minutes" program that was reported by the late Ed Bradley in 199x. It was revealed that a handful of 'dirty cops' in Massachusetts covered up the murder committed by a man who was working as an informant for the police. Going far beyond that unforgivable crime, they framed a completely innocent man as the murderer, and made sure that he was imprisoned as the sole killer! I hope that this case marks a very rare extreme, and one that none of us will encounter again.
After I was arrested, and an order of protection was issued, the landlord, who owed me close to $ 3000 in cash, chose to take advantage of the situation, and refused to give me some of my manuscripts, diaries, and belongings that are 'priceless' (and certainly irreplaceable).
One day, when I was retrieving some of my belongings from the basement of the house (in April's absence), I heard Patrick say to Paul Joseph Runnells (another roommate): "I did not do it to you [meaning me]. NYPD did." NYPD certainly did victimize many others before me and after me --in ways that are incomparably worse. However, in this case, I testify that NYPD made serious mistakes, whereas April continued to commit deliberate crimes against me.
I lived the first half of my life in a state that is often characterized as a police state. Since around 1980, I believed that human security should not be left to any state organization, let alone a state monopoly with little or no oversight. However, I will continue to do my part, trying to show the public and the police the real possibility of improvement (if not 'reform').
I will continue to bear witness against the crimes and mistakes that continue to do harm to me and those who support me. Crimes of this magnitude are not 'forgivable' in my book. I am also aware that others like me might be victimized in similar ways...
To be continued.
Anseynol
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
LARUUNASH, A NEW RELIGION
Personal Background:
This brief introduction is about a religion, and it was written with profound awareness of certain things whose value will outlive not only individual human beings, but possibly humankind as well. Still, somebody has to claim responsibility for the inevitable mistakes herein. As will be reemphasized below, this religion is not based on any revelation, and none of the tenets stated here is claimed to be derived from ‘sacred’/nonhuman sources. Therefore, I feel an obligation to start with some facts about the author.
I, Anseynol, am a moral agent, a political philosopher, a scientist, and an artist –among other things. Especially since my teenage years, religious matters had been central to how I understand and guide myself. My parents, all my relatives, and practically every adult I knew as a child were Muslims –with a wide range of piety. I was given what I now consider to be a pitifully shallow education in Islam. I embraced Islam with more zeal and passion than some adults in my environment, and made some modest efforts to educate myself. Nevertheless, even for a few years (as a teenager) when I defined myself as an ‘Islamic fundamentalist’, I had not read the Koran in my native tongue (Turkish). (Note that I do not say that I am Turkish –I do not associate myself with any national or ethnic group.) I ‘fell out’ of Islam in early 1980, when I turned 18. For a while, I was a genuine Deist, maintaining a belief in a single, omnipotent Creator, a creator whose ‘perfection’ had not been grasped by any theology that I was aware of. My change of faith from Islam to Deism was very cautious, based on a good deal of thinking, but in the end quite decisive. This change had been the most important change in my life up to that point.
Later, and I do not know exactly how much later (a year or longer?), I became an agnostic. One of the main reasons that I got out of Islam was this: The Creator who is believed by Muslims to be the author of Koran did not sound ‘perfect’ to me. I felt that the only way that I could maintain a faith in a ‘perfect’ being was to admit ignorance regarding things like ‘the problem of evil’, the reconciliation of free-will and predestination, life after death, last judgment, many souls burning in hell, and so on. Embracing that ignorance, I maintained my faith in a perfect Creator. By the time I began to define myself as an agnostic, I had serious doubts that the Creator of this universe could be both omnipotent and benevolent –then again, I knew I had no proof against the possibility of more creators than one. Theoretically, my abandonment of the idea of a perfect creator must have been the most important change in my religious views. But, somehow, the change from Deism to agnosticism was far less circumspect and far less agonizing.
In late 1980, probably around late October or early November, I laid the foundations of my political philosophy, which dictated to me my greatest mission. (My book “On the Threshold of …” is the best expression of my political thoughts.) At around the same time, I began to take notes for an open-ended book of religious dialogues between believers and nonbelievers of many kinds. One forceful character in the dialogues has an ‘antitheistic’ voice, sounding quite assured that a Creator who is still around can only be a cruel monster –with undeniable streaks of genius, kindness, and generosity. Another voice is more cautious and less melodramatic, but perhaps shares with some others in the dialogues a mixture of sympathy and admiration for the ‘Captain Ahab’ character. That voice counsels active suppression of such speculations, at least in the interest of sanity and ‘energy conservation’. Many conflicting approaches are presented in the book, without repeating the dogmas of any of the common religions of our time. The book will end with different suggestions to the perplexed/suffering audience and future generations who may struggle with the same questions. I still intend to complete that book, which I once thought of entitling “I Heard Them Saying …”. I believe that this book will be one of the best things that I can leave to future generations.
For several years, though, I was concerned about the timing of the book, and even about my being open about my religious views. I fully intend to be a leader (hopefully, just one of the many leaders) of a global political movement. That movement will have no shortage of obstacles and enemies, owing to its many radical proposals. I was afraid that I could do some disservice to that movement, if I also sought to establish a religious community. As years progressed, however, I became convinced that I have an obligation to make clear my religious views –come what may. I am also aware that the ideas and values summarized below may remain relevant and useful long after the realization of the goals that form the foundations of the political movement.
A New Religion?
The doctrine that I will outline here may or may not appear to some readers to be a ‘religion’. I, for one, would not be offended by those who refuse to grant our faith that title. However, I must insist that these ideas form a more or less complete set of beliefs that serve as a ‘religion-substitute’.
The central belief in Laruunash is this: The faith in the superiority and desirability of goodness, active adherence to virtues, and work in the service of goodness should be deemed more valuable than faith in cosmic entities, and more valuable than obedience to any power, including the Creator, if ever we are confronted with Oo (this is my proposed pronoun for the Creator, instead of He, She, it, or they). One brief (and inadequate) answer to the question of “Who is a laruuni (a believer in Laruunash)?” is this: “A laruuni is someone who is dedicated, above and beyond his/her own perceived interests, to doing good deeds, learning about and seeking ways of improving the lot of humankind, spreading good, and ‘maintaining’ the fruits of goodness. Theology is not central to Laruunash.” Put differently, faith in different theologies is to be treated with indifference by laruunis. We do not consider the question of whether or not a Creator exists to be an ‘unanswerable question’. (Who knows? Maybe it will be answered one day.) Nor do we argue that the answer should be positive or negative. Some of us may find it necessary to be searching for an answer to this question. Some others may have given up hope. All the same, it is our certainty about good and evil that defines us and brings us together.
One reason why such an answer can only be woefully inadequate is that ‘goodness’ can be, and indeed is interpreted in many different ways by different people. We fully accept the inevitability of this diversity of perception and interpretation. We also understand that many acts intended to create, maintain, and spread goodness may result in ‘harm’, or downright ‘evil’. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that there are forms of evil that all laruunis should fight against. All (able-bodied) laruunis should be united, seeking also the collaboration of other believers and nonbelievers, against such evil. We also believe that there must be a huge overlap between the sets of good causes and deeds that we each define and rank for ourselves (so that we can focus on what we do share, rather than where we disagree).
Whether or not believers in other religions and those who follow no religion take ours as a religion, they must understand a few things that are unique about us. I list below some of them. These, no doubt, are not the most important things to know about us. What I said before about our dedication to goodness, adherence to and pursuit of virtue, etc., are indeed the things that represent us best. Hopefully, many believers in other religions and many nonbelievers already share those (to some extent). Among the first things that should be known about us is our willingness and preparedness to work with people of other faiths and with nonbelievers in our service to goodness and in our fight against ‘evil’, shared problems, etc. What follow are the things that they may not share with us. Still, it is hoped that they will continue to work with us in spite of them. I must also add that the following are not in a descending order of importance; they may not be the full list of things that are exceptional about us; and some of the items are related to each other.
1. We accept no supernatural authority, no doctrine, and no dogma that orders us to go against the interests of humankind (directly or indirectly). We do not believe that the commandments of a Creator can justify us to do irreparable harm to innocent human beings (or to unreasonably overpunish guilty human beings). We acknowledge the inevitability of conflict between human interests, and between human beings and other species. We make no claim that we could resolve each such conflict to the satisfaction of all parties. We simply state that, in our efforts to resolve such conflicts, we do not recognize a 'higher authority' than direct or indirect human interests, the interests of other living beings, or of the ‘interests’ of (inanimate) systems that support living beings. Until species from other planets, or Oo present themselves, we refuse to prohibit or legitimize any human activity based on the presumed wishes of Oo, other deities, or other entities that are believed to rank higher than humans. Some may say to us, for instance, that we have a communal obligation to please God/the gods/the spirits of ancestors/…, and that the obedient believers and/or ‘the innocents’, as well as we, can be the victims of God’s/the gods’/… wrath. We certainly cannot prove that such indiscriminate, vengeful ‘divine’ acts are impossible. Even so, we refuse to forfeit our independence as moral agents to the multitude of faiths that portray different gods and/or other supernatural beings with different tastes, personalities, and records of wrathful acts. At the same time, we believe that we, human beings, often need to sacrifice our interests to make room for endangered species, or species essential to biodiversity. There may also be a general need to coerce human beings to work hard to reduce their harm to their environment, based on principles that may, if necessary, go beyond our concern for future generations of human beings.
2. We are fallibilistic. We understand that well-intentioned people (as well as ill-intentioned people) can make mistakes. (I myself am a fallible person who makes mistakes almost every day; and I have changed my mind about many important things, even after I became an agnostic.) Instead of denying our ignorance and weaknesses, we try to define limits to the ‘power’ of our religious leaders, and seek to reduce unintentional harm. We also believe that we can, if we so choose, learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Our readiness to accept the fact that we can make mistakes is certainly not tantamount to a recommendation to some seekers of certainty that they should look elsewhere (other religious communities, etc.). We believe that no other religious doctrine can make realistic or truthful claims to infallibility. Certainty can indeed be found in a limited number of scientific fields and disciplines (at least for a period of time). It is my belief that it is impossible to bring comparable levels of certainty to the kind of issues that all religions (as far as we know) have to cover.
3. Our religion does not require faith in any ‘prophets’, ‘saints’, and ‘divine leaders’. We even question the need for full-time leadership positions. We consider it our moral obligation to remain open to ideas that can guide us in greater service to goodness. Therefore, we believe that we must clear all obstacles to good ideas, proposals, etc., wherever the latter may come from. If we end up having leaders, their superior roles must involve rights and responsibilities of implementation, and not an unquestioned right to make single-handed decisions. Never hesitating to borrow ideas, etc., from all sources, including from our opponents and unkind critics, we strive to base our decisions on science (guided also by our dedication to good, alleviation of suffering, etc.). While science can offer little or no predictive ability regarding entirely new ideas and methods, it can at least be used in evaluating and controlling the consequences of such methods. (Voting, ‘democracy’, ‘protocol’, and the like are also to be avoided as unreliable rituals.)
4. Connected to our acceptance of fallibility, we also believe in the possibility of progress in many (and not all) spheres of human activity. We recognize that mistakes may sometimes lead to learning and progress. While we accept that great mistakes can be great teachers, we try to make sure that our mistakes remain small. We believe that all humans are obliged not to cause irreparable damage to our environment, and we are resolved not to jeopardize the future of our planet, or allow nonlaruunis to do so. Progress, in many instances, can be a way of solving or alleviating problems that are common to many human beings. Sometimes, it may be the best form of ‘charity’ that we can offer to our critics and opponents. Sometimes, it may come from others; in which case it would be our moral duty to adopt it, pay for it, support it, advocate for it, and try to improve on it.
5. We believe that one of the most critical ‘religious’ obligations we have is to organize ourselves both in opposition to what we see as evil, and in our efforts to create and/or maintain products of goodness. Aware of our weaknesses, we emphasize prioritization as one of our central missions. As we attain success in certain ‘battles’/struggles, and as new emergencies arise, our priorities are bound to change. In determining our priorities, we seek to collaborate with believers and nonbelievers who share our scientific approach to understand and/or to solve problems. In other words, instead of trying to set our beliefs and values ‘in stone’, we recognize our need to change our priorities depending on changes in our social and natural environments –remaining true to our values, of course.
6. At present, we declare nuclear weapons and nuclear technology to be our first targets. We believe that humankind’s entry into the nuclear era, the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, the nuclear tests that followed, and the continuing race to create and maintain nuclear weapons had been the single most consequential set of acts of evil. (The absence of immediate and sweeping punishment on humankind following the bombing of Hiroshima makes me doubt the characterization offered to us by many different faiths of a wrathful God/wrathful gods.) Until this evil is eradicated, we may not have an agenda with a higher priority (things like a catastrophic meteorite threat to our planet or extra-terrestrial attacks may theoretically acquire higher priority). While we make our peace with the fact that believers in different faiths will always have different priorities and agendas, while we refrain from forcing them to see things our way, we believe that we are justified in imposing the following agenda on humankind: The destruction of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, the abolition of nuclear industry, and the cessation of the dissemination of nuclear know-how.
7. We understand the nuclear threat as an accidental last stage of a continuing escalation of threat in the antagonism among organized human societies. This present antagonism happens to be among ‘nation-states’. It is conceivable that a similar, perhaps even worse, form of antagonism could exist among societies other than ‘nations’ –say, religious communities. All the same, people of our faith denounce nation-states as criminal organizations, and reject the idea of ‘nationhood’, as well as any other hereditary social formations. Laruunis are expected to declare their opposition to human antagonism, to territorialist, coercive, and inculcationist nation-states. Hopefully, all laruunis will have the courage to refuse to serve their ends. Specifically, laruunis should be prepared to resist serving in national armed forces (as distinct from serving in supranational, peace-keeping or peace-making armed forces); they should refuse to pay taxes that finance human antagonism; and they should refuse to serve in any way that maintains/strengthens the antagonistic capacity of nation-states.
8. We do not accept that states or powerful religious communities have a right to force their understanding of ‘justice’ on their inherited members (citizens) and neighbors. We intend to show them the need to apply scientific skepticism, caution, and experimentation to matters of justice/the Law. Rather than taking for granted the ‘right’ of states and religious organizations to make sure that their laws, etc., continue to exist (unchanged), we stand up for the rights of single and organized individuals to seek truth, virtue, and justice in their own ways, as long as they do not harm other human beings and/or the flora and the fauna. Where we believe that a state, etc., punishes innocent people, we consider it our moral obligation to protect the innocent. Where we believe that a state, etc., condones or rewards acts that are demonstrably harmful to humans (directly or indirectly), we should press for the punishment of such acts.
9. In accordance with our consequentialistic moral stance, we believe that human beings should try to compensate for their own crimes and mistakes. Therefore, while we fight against unjust punishment (by states or other organizations) of fellow laruunis and nonbelievers, we also enforce stringent rules on fellow laruunis to compensate for their harmful actions (including those that they committed before embracing our religion). Even/Especially when laruunis harm believers in other faiths, our religious organizations are expected either a) to force the responsible laruunis to compensate fully, or b) (in case that the responsible parties die, or are not apprehended, etc.) assume the responsibility to compensate on behalf of wrong-doers. Those laruunis who believe in an after-world, and/or divine justice are also obliged to make sure that they are prepared to compensate fully in this world. We are opposed to forms of punishment where states and other organizations punish the guilty in ways that do not redress the grievances of those who were harmed (and/or their dependents). In case laruunis fail to save fellow laruunis from such punishment (i.e., when offender laruunis are imprisoned or mutilated), we should still insist on our communal moral obligation to compensate.
10. We are ‘universalistic’; but we do not expect to be embraced by the majority of humankind. Like other ‘universalistic’ religions, we believe that no racial, ethnic, social, etc. group of human beings is to be banned from joining us. But we also believe that our religion can appeal only to a tiny minority of people. Unlike believers in other religions, we do not even entertain the hope that all humankind will, one day, embrace our faith. We believe that ours is a religion for people who have the courage to accept enormous responsibilities toward humankind and to the flora and the fauna. It appears to this laruuni that the vast majority of humankind are cowards, and they are unwilling to sacrifice their (perceived) interests for the sake of their needier neighbors, or for the environment. Not only do we have to accept a serious shortage of courageous people, but we also have to understand that many courageous people will never join our ranks. Certainly, there are many courageous and self-sacrificing people who are members of different faiths, and there are many who will remain nonbelievers. Laruunis are expected to collaborate with them (and show respect and gratitude, where necessary).
11. It is clear to us that compulsory indoctrination of children in (one of) their parents’ faith is the most effective method that ensures the ‘geographic’ distribution of religious communities on this globe. As effective as this early indoctrination is, we declare a unilateral refusal to indoctrinate children (anybody’s children) in our faith. We confess ignorance as to how and when different people reach maturity (we sadly acknowledge that many reach old age without reaching maturity, and some lose their ‘maturity’ after having reached it); but we, tentatively, choose age 18 to be the age at and beyond which we will feel justified to share our faith with youngsters. We remain committed to learning more about what constitutes ‘maturity’, ‘moral responsibility’, ‘sanity’, and we hope to collaborate with scientists of all faiths in our search for a deeper and more reliable understanding of these. We also hope to make scientific advances in determining what kinds of grown-up people may not be held responsible for their actions (and cannot, therefore, be accepted as laruunis). We seek to collaborate with believers and nonbelievers in establishing guidelines for a nonreligious moral education of children, one that tries to teach them, among other things, boundaries to their rights and interests, and the bases of their responsibilities to other human beings, the flora and the fauna, and life support systems.
12. As (imperfect) students of the human condition, we find our species engaged in a wide range of destructive behaviors toward other life forms with which we share this planet. While we hold no species to be superior to our own, we also consider it immoral (or a ‘mortal sin’) to cause the extinction of entire species, or even the destruction of ecosystems that are essential to the continuation of human life on this planet. We advocate changes in the ways we live, for the purpose of easing our burden on our different environments. However, we feel that ‘lifestyle changes’, even if they are adopted by the vast majority of humankind, would not suffice to reverse the dangerous course that was created by humans in the last few centuries. We recognize that the present global human population is not sustainable at any level of technology. Therefore, we refuse to have children, or to approve of the procreation of other human beings. We accept as fellow laruunis those who have had children in the past, if and only if they acknowledge their procreation as crimes toward fellow human beings and other species, and if they continue to make amends for their crimes. We understand that the pronatalistic doctrines and practices of many other religions are partly responsible for our present level of population, and thus for the degraded state of many of the world’s most vital ecosystems. We consider it our moral obligation to try to communicate to them the reasons why they should, at least temporarily, change their positions regarding population issues.
13. Our opposition to human procreation is intended to be temporary, until the global human population is reduced to a sustainable level. We make clear that we neither condemn nor glorify sexual conduct between consenting adult humans (be they heterosexual, homosexual, or any other conduct). Rather than being categorically good or bad, we understand human sexual relations to have the potential to bring about both good and bad consequences (sometimes both for the same person). We urge our fellow laruunis to seek higher good in their pursuit of sexual pleasures; but we do not condemn their sexual activities, unless they cause harm to others.
14. We acknowledge that goodness did not start with us. We assume that some virtues that we strive to cultivate in ourselves (like ‘mutual aid’; protection of and compassion toward the young and the weak; self-sacrifice by parents, elders or concerned strangers; collaboration within and between species; standing up to bullies; etc.,) had been traits displayed by members of many species long before human beings even existed. If we differentiate between humans (who can indeed claim more intentionality and planning concerning their actions) and the rest of animals, we can safely maintain that we have made considerable progress both in our understanding of virtues and in attaining spectacular results with our virtuous acts. Even though some of the most glorious examples of success in virtuous deeds are relatively recent, we acknowledge that much of the groundwork upon which we have built is thanks to unnamed billions whose religions are nearly or completely ‘dead’ today. Specifically, we understand that over 90 % (not that percentages are important here) of the story of human existence on this planet involved human societies that were hunters, gatherers, and fishers. The religions that are dominant today show a heavy agrarian bias; we feel that they are less than kind to the legacy of our prehistoric ancestors. We appreciate much of what agrarian and settled human societies accomplished. At the same time, we are aware that our (tainted) success could not have been possible, if we had not had inherited a rich flora and fauna, and virtually untouched mineral resources, from our pre-agricultural ancestors.
15. While we strive to understand, appreciate, and preserve what we value in the record of our ancestors (as well as trying to learn from other species), ours is a religion that is adamantly opposed to one of the oldest, and most resilient religions: Ancestor-worship. Not only do we not take for granted that our ancestors were better than us, we do not even preach respect for the elderly and/or for parents simply because they are elders or parents. Our focus is on virtues, skills, ideas, strategies, actions, previous record, and the like, rather than on the human beings who come up with these ideas, etc., or who propagate them, or who put them to practice. We do support and advocate the rewarding of people based on their (past) record; but at no point should we stop questioning, evaluating, and criticizing the actions of those whom we recognize to be superior/exemplary in their fields. This principle is one of the many reasons why I myself, as the current advocate of this religion, should not be the focus of anybody who is serious about studying Laruunash. What matters is whether or not the ideas are sound, applicable, conducive to the spread of goodness and/or to moral growth, and certainly not whether or not I may be an exemplary person (a good ‘ancestor’ to worship after I am gone).
16. As I stated before, we accept fallibility in our social, political, and scientific endeavors. We also believe that progress is still possible in unlimited fields. However, we believe that no political, religious, scientific, or other body has the right to impose a ‘forced march’ on the unwilling toward what the former may perceive as progress. We believe that those who desire progress should be given the freedom to pursue it; but they should also be held responsible for any harm that may result from their efforts and/or from what they create. The principle that we propose for all humankind is this: Progress should be fully ‘insured’ by those who hope to benefit from it. We are ‘consequentialistic’ in our approach to human responsibility. Wherever possible, individual agents of ‘progress’ or scientific endeavor should be forced to pay full compensation for the harm they cause. Where the harm is too great for the above to compensate for, the entire community of those who ‘insured’ the enterprise should pay the compensation. Where progress brings more benefit than harm, the scientists, financiers, et. al., should be given the right to ‘sell’ the fruits of the progress to those who had not financed it, or supported it in some other way (that can be proven to impartial judges previously accepted by both sides). Some laruunis will hopefully be qualified to bring cautious progress to more people than those in their own communities. Some may demand, and will hopefully receive, reward for their work; some may choose to donate their labors and ingenuity to their communities or to humankind. Hopefully, most laruunis will work toward the creation of full accountability of ‘progressive’ efforts on a global basis.
17. We are not ‘messianic’; in other words, we do not believe that certain problems are destined to remain unsolved until a chosen being is sent (again) to this world. Nor do we believe that this world will soon be destroyed, and/or that human existence on this planet will be brought to an end by a divine power. While we cannot prove the impossibility of either messianic or doomsday visions, we consider it a ‘sin’ to endanger the future of our planet. Scientifically, we may have to accept that our sun will turn into a red giant in a few hundred million years, and that this planet will be doomed close to that point. It is conceivable that some other inescapable cosmic catastrophe may terminate life on this planet long before the solar catastrophe. Nevertheless, we operate on the moral principle that human beings should work in collaboration with people of other faiths so as to make sure that it is cosmic forces or divine will that put an end to (human) life on this planet –not human stupidity and destructiveness.
18. We collaborate with believers and nonbelievers for social, political, and economic programs that aim to improve human lives. Our diverse views on what programs may bring about more good, differences between our political opinions and commitments should not hide from us our duty to be each other’s watchdogs, and to learn from each other. One project, and political vision, that may or may not bring together all laruunis is the abolition of unearned/unelected, chronic human poverty on earth (UCHPE). Whether or not they share my political commitments to specific remedy programs for the abolition of UCPHE (which I outlined in my political work), laruunis should work individually and collectively to alleviate UCHPE, and fight against the human and nonhuman agents that perpetuate UCHPE. We do acknowledge the right of adults to choose poverty, and the fact that some adults, through their bad choices, earn their poverty. But we consider it criminal to perpetuate the poverty of children, entire families, villages, neighborhoods, and castes of people. I, for one, believe that UCHPE can be abolished within less than two generations, provided that a wide variety of socio-economic programs are implemented successfully, along with a global and decades-long control of human births.
19. Once a global birth control program brings the total human population on this planet to a level that is sustainable, we can afford to set far higher standards for each and every child that will be borne after the abrogation of that program. As one laruuni, and as a political agent, I propose for that period an economic system whereby which subsistence will be guaranteed for each and every child before giving birth to it. In other words, enough wealth, shelter, resources, means of transportation, and a large enough land should be secured or collectively guaranteed for each and every child before its conception. This is intended to be one of the most radical attempts at safeguarding future generations from the harm that is due to the socially-imposed obligation to 'work'. I, as one laruuni, believe that future generations can be brought to a level of civilization where they can eliminate not only the social obligation to work, but much of the biological and zoological struggle to subsist. I hope that some laruunis will initiate and/or join efforts toward the creation of an economic system that will make pre-guaranteed subsistence a reality.
20. While we consider it one of our religious obligations to create global accountability, and while we oppose many human endeavors, the consequences of which cannot be confined to controlled environments, we also consider it one of our moral obligations never to obstruct good deeds (except in the service of greater goodness). We should remain vigilant against ‘progressive’ efforts that are ‘uninsured’; but we should also support/insure progressive efforts that appear to be promising. We may compete with believers in other faiths; but we should always allow them full access to their individual potential to do good, as well as access to their fair share of resources, to create greater glory than us. Since laruunis are condemned, for the foreseeable future, to remain a tiny minority, and to the extent that ‘there is strength in numbers’ (and wherever there are ‘economies of scale’), we should only be happy to see greater good coming from religious communities other than ours. Not standing in the way of goodness is, clearly, a principle we should remind ourselves in our dealings with each other as well. In fact, we should be aware that many of our good deeds can also be obstacles to greater good that we are capable of doing…
The above are some of the ways in which Laruunash is different from most other faiths. I declare myself a poor student of comparative religions. Therefore, I am in no position to state that Laruunash is the only religion for which all of the above statements can hold true. Then again, it matters little if the above are new or old. It is important for others to understand that we remain hopeful that they will work with us, even though we are determined never to hide or forget the many points where we disagree with them.
As a firm believer in my own (and others’) fallibility, I declare this document to be a ‘work in progress’. The present version is from April 2010. It is offered to the general public with readiness to benefit from criticism. A list of over 550 key concepts related to Laruunash can be found in a file named “Laruunash.WD2” on the same diskette/CD where you may have found this file (it is in Info Select 2007 format). In that alphabetical list, I address some of the main topics that relate to Laruunash (as well as other religions). That file, too, is a work in progress. Since Laruunash is open to new ideas, new prioritizations, new projects, the future of this religion may depend less and less on my original theoretical work. And since we are determined to work hard toward the creation and spread of good, others will know us better by the fruits of our work.
You may get in touch with the author and/or other laruunis by logging on to:
http://anseynol.blogspot.com/
This brief introduction is about a religion, and it was written with profound awareness of certain things whose value will outlive not only individual human beings, but possibly humankind as well. Still, somebody has to claim responsibility for the inevitable mistakes herein. As will be reemphasized below, this religion is not based on any revelation, and none of the tenets stated here is claimed to be derived from ‘sacred’/nonhuman sources. Therefore, I feel an obligation to start with some facts about the author.
I, Anseynol, am a moral agent, a political philosopher, a scientist, and an artist –among other things. Especially since my teenage years, religious matters had been central to how I understand and guide myself. My parents, all my relatives, and practically every adult I knew as a child were Muslims –with a wide range of piety. I was given what I now consider to be a pitifully shallow education in Islam. I embraced Islam with more zeal and passion than some adults in my environment, and made some modest efforts to educate myself. Nevertheless, even for a few years (as a teenager) when I defined myself as an ‘Islamic fundamentalist’, I had not read the Koran in my native tongue (Turkish). (Note that I do not say that I am Turkish –I do not associate myself with any national or ethnic group.) I ‘fell out’ of Islam in early 1980, when I turned 18. For a while, I was a genuine Deist, maintaining a belief in a single, omnipotent Creator, a creator whose ‘perfection’ had not been grasped by any theology that I was aware of. My change of faith from Islam to Deism was very cautious, based on a good deal of thinking, but in the end quite decisive. This change had been the most important change in my life up to that point.
Later, and I do not know exactly how much later (a year or longer?), I became an agnostic. One of the main reasons that I got out of Islam was this: The Creator who is believed by Muslims to be the author of Koran did not sound ‘perfect’ to me. I felt that the only way that I could maintain a faith in a ‘perfect’ being was to admit ignorance regarding things like ‘the problem of evil’, the reconciliation of free-will and predestination, life after death, last judgment, many souls burning in hell, and so on. Embracing that ignorance, I maintained my faith in a perfect Creator. By the time I began to define myself as an agnostic, I had serious doubts that the Creator of this universe could be both omnipotent and benevolent –then again, I knew I had no proof against the possibility of more creators than one. Theoretically, my abandonment of the idea of a perfect creator must have been the most important change in my religious views. But, somehow, the change from Deism to agnosticism was far less circumspect and far less agonizing.
In late 1980, probably around late October or early November, I laid the foundations of my political philosophy, which dictated to me my greatest mission. (My book “On the Threshold of …” is the best expression of my political thoughts.) At around the same time, I began to take notes for an open-ended book of religious dialogues between believers and nonbelievers of many kinds. One forceful character in the dialogues has an ‘antitheistic’ voice, sounding quite assured that a Creator who is still around can only be a cruel monster –with undeniable streaks of genius, kindness, and generosity. Another voice is more cautious and less melodramatic, but perhaps shares with some others in the dialogues a mixture of sympathy and admiration for the ‘Captain Ahab’ character. That voice counsels active suppression of such speculations, at least in the interest of sanity and ‘energy conservation’. Many conflicting approaches are presented in the book, without repeating the dogmas of any of the common religions of our time. The book will end with different suggestions to the perplexed/suffering audience and future generations who may struggle with the same questions. I still intend to complete that book, which I once thought of entitling “I Heard Them Saying …”. I believe that this book will be one of the best things that I can leave to future generations.
For several years, though, I was concerned about the timing of the book, and even about my being open about my religious views. I fully intend to be a leader (hopefully, just one of the many leaders) of a global political movement. That movement will have no shortage of obstacles and enemies, owing to its many radical proposals. I was afraid that I could do some disservice to that movement, if I also sought to establish a religious community. As years progressed, however, I became convinced that I have an obligation to make clear my religious views –come what may. I am also aware that the ideas and values summarized below may remain relevant and useful long after the realization of the goals that form the foundations of the political movement.
A New Religion?
The doctrine that I will outline here may or may not appear to some readers to be a ‘religion’. I, for one, would not be offended by those who refuse to grant our faith that title. However, I must insist that these ideas form a more or less complete set of beliefs that serve as a ‘religion-substitute’.
The central belief in Laruunash is this: The faith in the superiority and desirability of goodness, active adherence to virtues, and work in the service of goodness should be deemed more valuable than faith in cosmic entities, and more valuable than obedience to any power, including the Creator, if ever we are confronted with Oo (this is my proposed pronoun for the Creator, instead of He, She, it, or they). One brief (and inadequate) answer to the question of “Who is a laruuni (a believer in Laruunash)?” is this: “A laruuni is someone who is dedicated, above and beyond his/her own perceived interests, to doing good deeds, learning about and seeking ways of improving the lot of humankind, spreading good, and ‘maintaining’ the fruits of goodness. Theology is not central to Laruunash.” Put differently, faith in different theologies is to be treated with indifference by laruunis. We do not consider the question of whether or not a Creator exists to be an ‘unanswerable question’. (Who knows? Maybe it will be answered one day.) Nor do we argue that the answer should be positive or negative. Some of us may find it necessary to be searching for an answer to this question. Some others may have given up hope. All the same, it is our certainty about good and evil that defines us and brings us together.
One reason why such an answer can only be woefully inadequate is that ‘goodness’ can be, and indeed is interpreted in many different ways by different people. We fully accept the inevitability of this diversity of perception and interpretation. We also understand that many acts intended to create, maintain, and spread goodness may result in ‘harm’, or downright ‘evil’. Nevertheless, we firmly believe that there are forms of evil that all laruunis should fight against. All (able-bodied) laruunis should be united, seeking also the collaboration of other believers and nonbelievers, against such evil. We also believe that there must be a huge overlap between the sets of good causes and deeds that we each define and rank for ourselves (so that we can focus on what we do share, rather than where we disagree).
Whether or not believers in other religions and those who follow no religion take ours as a religion, they must understand a few things that are unique about us. I list below some of them. These, no doubt, are not the most important things to know about us. What I said before about our dedication to goodness, adherence to and pursuit of virtue, etc., are indeed the things that represent us best. Hopefully, many believers in other religions and many nonbelievers already share those (to some extent). Among the first things that should be known about us is our willingness and preparedness to work with people of other faiths and with nonbelievers in our service to goodness and in our fight against ‘evil’, shared problems, etc. What follow are the things that they may not share with us. Still, it is hoped that they will continue to work with us in spite of them. I must also add that the following are not in a descending order of importance; they may not be the full list of things that are exceptional about us; and some of the items are related to each other.
1. We accept no supernatural authority, no doctrine, and no dogma that orders us to go against the interests of humankind (directly or indirectly). We do not believe that the commandments of a Creator can justify us to do irreparable harm to innocent human beings (or to unreasonably overpunish guilty human beings). We acknowledge the inevitability of conflict between human interests, and between human beings and other species. We make no claim that we could resolve each such conflict to the satisfaction of all parties. We simply state that, in our efforts to resolve such conflicts, we do not recognize a 'higher authority' than direct or indirect human interests, the interests of other living beings, or of the ‘interests’ of (inanimate) systems that support living beings. Until species from other planets, or Oo present themselves, we refuse to prohibit or legitimize any human activity based on the presumed wishes of Oo, other deities, or other entities that are believed to rank higher than humans. Some may say to us, for instance, that we have a communal obligation to please God/the gods/the spirits of ancestors/…, and that the obedient believers and/or ‘the innocents’, as well as we, can be the victims of God’s/the gods’/… wrath. We certainly cannot prove that such indiscriminate, vengeful ‘divine’ acts are impossible. Even so, we refuse to forfeit our independence as moral agents to the multitude of faiths that portray different gods and/or other supernatural beings with different tastes, personalities, and records of wrathful acts. At the same time, we believe that we, human beings, often need to sacrifice our interests to make room for endangered species, or species essential to biodiversity. There may also be a general need to coerce human beings to work hard to reduce their harm to their environment, based on principles that may, if necessary, go beyond our concern for future generations of human beings.
2. We are fallibilistic. We understand that well-intentioned people (as well as ill-intentioned people) can make mistakes. (I myself am a fallible person who makes mistakes almost every day; and I have changed my mind about many important things, even after I became an agnostic.) Instead of denying our ignorance and weaknesses, we try to define limits to the ‘power’ of our religious leaders, and seek to reduce unintentional harm. We also believe that we can, if we so choose, learn from our mistakes and the mistakes of others. Our readiness to accept the fact that we can make mistakes is certainly not tantamount to a recommendation to some seekers of certainty that they should look elsewhere (other religious communities, etc.). We believe that no other religious doctrine can make realistic or truthful claims to infallibility. Certainty can indeed be found in a limited number of scientific fields and disciplines (at least for a period of time). It is my belief that it is impossible to bring comparable levels of certainty to the kind of issues that all religions (as far as we know) have to cover.
3. Our religion does not require faith in any ‘prophets’, ‘saints’, and ‘divine leaders’. We even question the need for full-time leadership positions. We consider it our moral obligation to remain open to ideas that can guide us in greater service to goodness. Therefore, we believe that we must clear all obstacles to good ideas, proposals, etc., wherever the latter may come from. If we end up having leaders, their superior roles must involve rights and responsibilities of implementation, and not an unquestioned right to make single-handed decisions. Never hesitating to borrow ideas, etc., from all sources, including from our opponents and unkind critics, we strive to base our decisions on science (guided also by our dedication to good, alleviation of suffering, etc.). While science can offer little or no predictive ability regarding entirely new ideas and methods, it can at least be used in evaluating and controlling the consequences of such methods. (Voting, ‘democracy’, ‘protocol’, and the like are also to be avoided as unreliable rituals.)
4. Connected to our acceptance of fallibility, we also believe in the possibility of progress in many (and not all) spheres of human activity. We recognize that mistakes may sometimes lead to learning and progress. While we accept that great mistakes can be great teachers, we try to make sure that our mistakes remain small. We believe that all humans are obliged not to cause irreparable damage to our environment, and we are resolved not to jeopardize the future of our planet, or allow nonlaruunis to do so. Progress, in many instances, can be a way of solving or alleviating problems that are common to many human beings. Sometimes, it may be the best form of ‘charity’ that we can offer to our critics and opponents. Sometimes, it may come from others; in which case it would be our moral duty to adopt it, pay for it, support it, advocate for it, and try to improve on it.
5. We believe that one of the most critical ‘religious’ obligations we have is to organize ourselves both in opposition to what we see as evil, and in our efforts to create and/or maintain products of goodness. Aware of our weaknesses, we emphasize prioritization as one of our central missions. As we attain success in certain ‘battles’/struggles, and as new emergencies arise, our priorities are bound to change. In determining our priorities, we seek to collaborate with believers and nonbelievers who share our scientific approach to understand and/or to solve problems. In other words, instead of trying to set our beliefs and values ‘in stone’, we recognize our need to change our priorities depending on changes in our social and natural environments –remaining true to our values, of course.
6. At present, we declare nuclear weapons and nuclear technology to be our first targets. We believe that humankind’s entry into the nuclear era, the use of nuclear weapons on civilians, the nuclear tests that followed, and the continuing race to create and maintain nuclear weapons had been the single most consequential set of acts of evil. (The absence of immediate and sweeping punishment on humankind following the bombing of Hiroshima makes me doubt the characterization offered to us by many different faiths of a wrathful God/wrathful gods.) Until this evil is eradicated, we may not have an agenda with a higher priority (things like a catastrophic meteorite threat to our planet or extra-terrestrial attacks may theoretically acquire higher priority). While we make our peace with the fact that believers in different faiths will always have different priorities and agendas, while we refrain from forcing them to see things our way, we believe that we are justified in imposing the following agenda on humankind: The destruction of nuclear weapons, weapons of mass destruction, the abolition of nuclear industry, and the cessation of the dissemination of nuclear know-how.
7. We understand the nuclear threat as an accidental last stage of a continuing escalation of threat in the antagonism among organized human societies. This present antagonism happens to be among ‘nation-states’. It is conceivable that a similar, perhaps even worse, form of antagonism could exist among societies other than ‘nations’ –say, religious communities. All the same, people of our faith denounce nation-states as criminal organizations, and reject the idea of ‘nationhood’, as well as any other hereditary social formations. Laruunis are expected to declare their opposition to human antagonism, to territorialist, coercive, and inculcationist nation-states. Hopefully, all laruunis will have the courage to refuse to serve their ends. Specifically, laruunis should be prepared to resist serving in national armed forces (as distinct from serving in supranational, peace-keeping or peace-making armed forces); they should refuse to pay taxes that finance human antagonism; and they should refuse to serve in any way that maintains/strengthens the antagonistic capacity of nation-states.
8. We do not accept that states or powerful religious communities have a right to force their understanding of ‘justice’ on their inherited members (citizens) and neighbors. We intend to show them the need to apply scientific skepticism, caution, and experimentation to matters of justice/the Law. Rather than taking for granted the ‘right’ of states and religious organizations to make sure that their laws, etc., continue to exist (unchanged), we stand up for the rights of single and organized individuals to seek truth, virtue, and justice in their own ways, as long as they do not harm other human beings and/or the flora and the fauna. Where we believe that a state, etc., punishes innocent people, we consider it our moral obligation to protect the innocent. Where we believe that a state, etc., condones or rewards acts that are demonstrably harmful to humans (directly or indirectly), we should press for the punishment of such acts.
9. In accordance with our consequentialistic moral stance, we believe that human beings should try to compensate for their own crimes and mistakes. Therefore, while we fight against unjust punishment (by states or other organizations) of fellow laruunis and nonbelievers, we also enforce stringent rules on fellow laruunis to compensate for their harmful actions (including those that they committed before embracing our religion). Even/Especially when laruunis harm believers in other faiths, our religious organizations are expected either a) to force the responsible laruunis to compensate fully, or b) (in case that the responsible parties die, or are not apprehended, etc.) assume the responsibility to compensate on behalf of wrong-doers. Those laruunis who believe in an after-world, and/or divine justice are also obliged to make sure that they are prepared to compensate fully in this world. We are opposed to forms of punishment where states and other organizations punish the guilty in ways that do not redress the grievances of those who were harmed (and/or their dependents). In case laruunis fail to save fellow laruunis from such punishment (i.e., when offender laruunis are imprisoned or mutilated), we should still insist on our communal moral obligation to compensate.
10. We are ‘universalistic’; but we do not expect to be embraced by the majority of humankind. Like other ‘universalistic’ religions, we believe that no racial, ethnic, social, etc. group of human beings is to be banned from joining us. But we also believe that our religion can appeal only to a tiny minority of people. Unlike believers in other religions, we do not even entertain the hope that all humankind will, one day, embrace our faith. We believe that ours is a religion for people who have the courage to accept enormous responsibilities toward humankind and to the flora and the fauna. It appears to this laruuni that the vast majority of humankind are cowards, and they are unwilling to sacrifice their (perceived) interests for the sake of their needier neighbors, or for the environment. Not only do we have to accept a serious shortage of courageous people, but we also have to understand that many courageous people will never join our ranks. Certainly, there are many courageous and self-sacrificing people who are members of different faiths, and there are many who will remain nonbelievers. Laruunis are expected to collaborate with them (and show respect and gratitude, where necessary).
11. It is clear to us that compulsory indoctrination of children in (one of) their parents’ faith is the most effective method that ensures the ‘geographic’ distribution of religious communities on this globe. As effective as this early indoctrination is, we declare a unilateral refusal to indoctrinate children (anybody’s children) in our faith. We confess ignorance as to how and when different people reach maturity (we sadly acknowledge that many reach old age without reaching maturity, and some lose their ‘maturity’ after having reached it); but we, tentatively, choose age 18 to be the age at and beyond which we will feel justified to share our faith with youngsters. We remain committed to learning more about what constitutes ‘maturity’, ‘moral responsibility’, ‘sanity’, and we hope to collaborate with scientists of all faiths in our search for a deeper and more reliable understanding of these. We also hope to make scientific advances in determining what kinds of grown-up people may not be held responsible for their actions (and cannot, therefore, be accepted as laruunis). We seek to collaborate with believers and nonbelievers in establishing guidelines for a nonreligious moral education of children, one that tries to teach them, among other things, boundaries to their rights and interests, and the bases of their responsibilities to other human beings, the flora and the fauna, and life support systems.
12. As (imperfect) students of the human condition, we find our species engaged in a wide range of destructive behaviors toward other life forms with which we share this planet. While we hold no species to be superior to our own, we also consider it immoral (or a ‘mortal sin’) to cause the extinction of entire species, or even the destruction of ecosystems that are essential to the continuation of human life on this planet. We advocate changes in the ways we live, for the purpose of easing our burden on our different environments. However, we feel that ‘lifestyle changes’, even if they are adopted by the vast majority of humankind, would not suffice to reverse the dangerous course that was created by humans in the last few centuries. We recognize that the present global human population is not sustainable at any level of technology. Therefore, we refuse to have children, or to approve of the procreation of other human beings. We accept as fellow laruunis those who have had children in the past, if and only if they acknowledge their procreation as crimes toward fellow human beings and other species, and if they continue to make amends for their crimes. We understand that the pronatalistic doctrines and practices of many other religions are partly responsible for our present level of population, and thus for the degraded state of many of the world’s most vital ecosystems. We consider it our moral obligation to try to communicate to them the reasons why they should, at least temporarily, change their positions regarding population issues.
13. Our opposition to human procreation is intended to be temporary, until the global human population is reduced to a sustainable level. We make clear that we neither condemn nor glorify sexual conduct between consenting adult humans (be they heterosexual, homosexual, or any other conduct). Rather than being categorically good or bad, we understand human sexual relations to have the potential to bring about both good and bad consequences (sometimes both for the same person). We urge our fellow laruunis to seek higher good in their pursuit of sexual pleasures; but we do not condemn their sexual activities, unless they cause harm to others.
14. We acknowledge that goodness did not start with us. We assume that some virtues that we strive to cultivate in ourselves (like ‘mutual aid’; protection of and compassion toward the young and the weak; self-sacrifice by parents, elders or concerned strangers; collaboration within and between species; standing up to bullies; etc.,) had been traits displayed by members of many species long before human beings even existed. If we differentiate between humans (who can indeed claim more intentionality and planning concerning their actions) and the rest of animals, we can safely maintain that we have made considerable progress both in our understanding of virtues and in attaining spectacular results with our virtuous acts. Even though some of the most glorious examples of success in virtuous deeds are relatively recent, we acknowledge that much of the groundwork upon which we have built is thanks to unnamed billions whose religions are nearly or completely ‘dead’ today. Specifically, we understand that over 90 % (not that percentages are important here) of the story of human existence on this planet involved human societies that were hunters, gatherers, and fishers. The religions that are dominant today show a heavy agrarian bias; we feel that they are less than kind to the legacy of our prehistoric ancestors. We appreciate much of what agrarian and settled human societies accomplished. At the same time, we are aware that our (tainted) success could not have been possible, if we had not had inherited a rich flora and fauna, and virtually untouched mineral resources, from our pre-agricultural ancestors.
15. While we strive to understand, appreciate, and preserve what we value in the record of our ancestors (as well as trying to learn from other species), ours is a religion that is adamantly opposed to one of the oldest, and most resilient religions: Ancestor-worship. Not only do we not take for granted that our ancestors were better than us, we do not even preach respect for the elderly and/or for parents simply because they are elders or parents. Our focus is on virtues, skills, ideas, strategies, actions, previous record, and the like, rather than on the human beings who come up with these ideas, etc., or who propagate them, or who put them to practice. We do support and advocate the rewarding of people based on their (past) record; but at no point should we stop questioning, evaluating, and criticizing the actions of those whom we recognize to be superior/exemplary in their fields. This principle is one of the many reasons why I myself, as the current advocate of this religion, should not be the focus of anybody who is serious about studying Laruunash. What matters is whether or not the ideas are sound, applicable, conducive to the spread of goodness and/or to moral growth, and certainly not whether or not I may be an exemplary person (a good ‘ancestor’ to worship after I am gone).
16. As I stated before, we accept fallibility in our social, political, and scientific endeavors. We also believe that progress is still possible in unlimited fields. However, we believe that no political, religious, scientific, or other body has the right to impose a ‘forced march’ on the unwilling toward what the former may perceive as progress. We believe that those who desire progress should be given the freedom to pursue it; but they should also be held responsible for any harm that may result from their efforts and/or from what they create. The principle that we propose for all humankind is this: Progress should be fully ‘insured’ by those who hope to benefit from it. We are ‘consequentialistic’ in our approach to human responsibility. Wherever possible, individual agents of ‘progress’ or scientific endeavor should be forced to pay full compensation for the harm they cause. Where the harm is too great for the above to compensate for, the entire community of those who ‘insured’ the enterprise should pay the compensation. Where progress brings more benefit than harm, the scientists, financiers, et. al., should be given the right to ‘sell’ the fruits of the progress to those who had not financed it, or supported it in some other way (that can be proven to impartial judges previously accepted by both sides). Some laruunis will hopefully be qualified to bring cautious progress to more people than those in their own communities. Some may demand, and will hopefully receive, reward for their work; some may choose to donate their labors and ingenuity to their communities or to humankind. Hopefully, most laruunis will work toward the creation of full accountability of ‘progressive’ efforts on a global basis.
17. We are not ‘messianic’; in other words, we do not believe that certain problems are destined to remain unsolved until a chosen being is sent (again) to this world. Nor do we believe that this world will soon be destroyed, and/or that human existence on this planet will be brought to an end by a divine power. While we cannot prove the impossibility of either messianic or doomsday visions, we consider it a ‘sin’ to endanger the future of our planet. Scientifically, we may have to accept that our sun will turn into a red giant in a few hundred million years, and that this planet will be doomed close to that point. It is conceivable that some other inescapable cosmic catastrophe may terminate life on this planet long before the solar catastrophe. Nevertheless, we operate on the moral principle that human beings should work in collaboration with people of other faiths so as to make sure that it is cosmic forces or divine will that put an end to (human) life on this planet –not human stupidity and destructiveness.
18. We collaborate with believers and nonbelievers for social, political, and economic programs that aim to improve human lives. Our diverse views on what programs may bring about more good, differences between our political opinions and commitments should not hide from us our duty to be each other’s watchdogs, and to learn from each other. One project, and political vision, that may or may not bring together all laruunis is the abolition of unearned/unelected, chronic human poverty on earth (UCHPE). Whether or not they share my political commitments to specific remedy programs for the abolition of UCPHE (which I outlined in my political work), laruunis should work individually and collectively to alleviate UCHPE, and fight against the human and nonhuman agents that perpetuate UCHPE. We do acknowledge the right of adults to choose poverty, and the fact that some adults, through their bad choices, earn their poverty. But we consider it criminal to perpetuate the poverty of children, entire families, villages, neighborhoods, and castes of people. I, for one, believe that UCHPE can be abolished within less than two generations, provided that a wide variety of socio-economic programs are implemented successfully, along with a global and decades-long control of human births.
19. Once a global birth control program brings the total human population on this planet to a level that is sustainable, we can afford to set far higher standards for each and every child that will be borne after the abrogation of that program. As one laruuni, and as a political agent, I propose for that period an economic system whereby which subsistence will be guaranteed for each and every child before giving birth to it. In other words, enough wealth, shelter, resources, means of transportation, and a large enough land should be secured or collectively guaranteed for each and every child before its conception. This is intended to be one of the most radical attempts at safeguarding future generations from the harm that is due to the socially-imposed obligation to 'work'. I, as one laruuni, believe that future generations can be brought to a level of civilization where they can eliminate not only the social obligation to work, but much of the biological and zoological struggle to subsist. I hope that some laruunis will initiate and/or join efforts toward the creation of an economic system that will make pre-guaranteed subsistence a reality.
20. While we consider it one of our religious obligations to create global accountability, and while we oppose many human endeavors, the consequences of which cannot be confined to controlled environments, we also consider it one of our moral obligations never to obstruct good deeds (except in the service of greater goodness). We should remain vigilant against ‘progressive’ efforts that are ‘uninsured’; but we should also support/insure progressive efforts that appear to be promising. We may compete with believers in other faiths; but we should always allow them full access to their individual potential to do good, as well as access to their fair share of resources, to create greater glory than us. Since laruunis are condemned, for the foreseeable future, to remain a tiny minority, and to the extent that ‘there is strength in numbers’ (and wherever there are ‘economies of scale’), we should only be happy to see greater good coming from religious communities other than ours. Not standing in the way of goodness is, clearly, a principle we should remind ourselves in our dealings with each other as well. In fact, we should be aware that many of our good deeds can also be obstacles to greater good that we are capable of doing…
The above are some of the ways in which Laruunash is different from most other faiths. I declare myself a poor student of comparative religions. Therefore, I am in no position to state that Laruunash is the only religion for which all of the above statements can hold true. Then again, it matters little if the above are new or old. It is important for others to understand that we remain hopeful that they will work with us, even though we are determined never to hide or forget the many points where we disagree with them.
As a firm believer in my own (and others’) fallibility, I declare this document to be a ‘work in progress’. The present version is from April 2010. It is offered to the general public with readiness to benefit from criticism. A list of over 550 key concepts related to Laruunash can be found in a file named “Laruunash.WD2” on the same diskette/CD where you may have found this file (it is in Info Select 2007 format). In that alphabetical list, I address some of the main topics that relate to Laruunash (as well as other religions). That file, too, is a work in progress. Since Laruunash is open to new ideas, new prioritizations, new projects, the future of this religion may depend less and less on my original theoretical work. And since we are determined to work hard toward the creation and spread of good, others will know us better by the fruits of our work.
You may get in touch with the author and/or other laruunis by logging on to:
http://anseynol.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Thursday, July 5, 2007
To build peace, we need to build more than peace
Excerpt from Raymond Williams (1921 - 1988):
Necessary Linkages
"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …
This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."
* * *
This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".
For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams
Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572
==========
It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.
Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.
No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.
Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...
In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.
I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.
In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).
It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...
Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.
[More on this later.]
Necessary Linkages
"… the socialist contribution to the politics of nuclear disarmament must be more than simply collaborative, and must include solidarity with Third World struggles against an imperialist economic system which globally reproduces hunger and exploitation. This is no matter of riding the peace campaign for some partisan objectives. …
This can appear only to add to our burdens, for which our present strength is still insufficient. But this must be the final point of the present argument. It is, fortunately, still possible to generate movements for peace and for disarmament on the most general human grounds. That these are again growing is a significant gain against the culture and politics of violence. Yet alike for their intellectual adequacy and for extension of their support, it is necessary to reach beyond the moving and honourable refusals on which many of them still characteristically depend. To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons. Unless the refusals can be connected with such building, unless protest can be connected with and surpassed by significant practical construction, our strength will remain insufficient. It is then in making hope practical, rather than despair convincing, that we must resume and change and extend our campaigns."
* * *
This short excerpt is from the late Raymond Williams’ article in "Exterminism and Cold War", Verso Editions, 1982, pp. 65 – 85. The text above is from pp. 64 – 65. The ISBN # of the book is: 0-86091-746-0. Raymond Williams, in his article, is making explicit reference to 'anti-imperialist' movements. I am not a socialist, nor have I ever been one. Still, I wholeheartedly agree that "To build peace, now more than ever, it is necessary to build more than peace. To refuse nuclear weapons, we have to refuse much more than nuclear weapons".
For more info on Raymond Williams (31 August 1921 - 26 January 1988), you may visit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams
Apparently, the original article appeared in:
New Left Review I/124, November-December 1980
More info at:
http://newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=1572
==========
It seems to me that one of the first things that we need to build is trust. Many people who choose not to join a movement for disarmament or 'peace' need to be convinced that we are capable of building a political and economic system that can offer a higher level of security. Most people may never believe that sustainable peace can be promised by a 'man-made' political system. We, those who dare to offer 'global security', should at least convince them that we can predict, avoid, and suppress more instances of organized violence.
Followers of a purely nonviolent ideology or moral system have a vital role in creating such a climate of global security. I am aware that many people find such 'pure' nonviolent activists too weak and too naive. On many levels, I think they are wrong, and it may be possible to prove them wrong. However, nor do I think that it is realistic to suppress certain acts of organized violence only with methods of nonviolent activism. Those who claim otherwise should, of course, be welcome to try the methods that they think are best for the purpose. If they fail, they should not be authorized to stop others from trying different kinds of interventions --provided, of course, that they limit their harm (deadly harm, if need be) to those who are presently engaged in organized violence.
No doubt, those who adhere to 'purely nonviolent methods' will not trust those who are prepared to resort to quasi-military interventions. Fortunately or unfortunately, their opinions, prejudices, and fears are not the most critical for the creation of a system of trust. The vast majority of people who need to be convinced of the viability of a global security system need to be shown that the protectors and builders of peace have 'teeth' as well. No less importantly, those who are planning to engage in organized violence must be sent a clear message that they are not likely to 'get away with murder'.
Far too much loose talk has been made about "an eye for an eye leaving everybody blind". As I see it, a global security system, or a global justice system can be viable if and only if clear distinctions are made between innocence and guilt, between those who initiate violence and those who punish violent acts. Ideally, even some of those who are punished can be made to understand that their original crimes were far less excusable than the punishment that they receive (assuming that they continue to think that the punishment was unfair)...
In addition to the need to build trust in the capacity of peace-builders and peace-keepers to create a higher level of global security, there is also need to build trust that a higher level of economic security can be created under that system of security. No doubt, many of those who reap profits from wars cannot, and should not, be promised similar gains from a climate of peace. But we need to show that the vast majority of humankind stand to gain a great deal more (economically, as well as socially and morally) from times of peace.
I am opposed to those who argue that a single economic system needs to be imposed on all of humankind. I believe that a great variety of economic systems can be realized, provided that they are kept from harming each other, or even depriving each other of vital resources. One thing that the present system cannot offer or promise is 'intentional economic communities'. Once a system of global security is created, people can and should be given the freedom to move away from their local, regional, or 'national' economies, and form ties with like-minded people elsewhere on earth. They should also be given the freedom to travel, to migrate, and to start communities in new places.
In other words, although I believe that it is vital to build trust among those who are reluctant to support anti-war movements, although I believe that this trust should include trust in our ability to build a better economic system, I do not think that we should seek to create that trust by offering a detailed, 'positive' economic program. Instead, our program needs to be one that specifies many prohibitions that try to prevent economic harm, while making room for a wide variety of different economic systems. It is my view that it would be 'epistemically immodest' for anyone to pretend that there is a single best economic system for all humankind. But even if such a system is brought forward, and outperforms all other economic systems in a fair competition, it would be unjustifiable to impose such a system on those who do not wish to practice it. After all, economic success, efficiency, etc., are neither the sole nor the primary goals of all grown-ups, let alone all human beings. It is also unfair to deprive people of the 'freedom to fail' in ways that are likely to harm only themselves (and not their neighbors or the flora or fauna).
It seems to me that, presently, there is an attempt to avoid discussions of alternative economic systems. I do agree that there has been too much distraction and 'analysis paralysis' in the near past, owing to the demands by some communists and socialists that peace movements should first aim at abolishing capitalism. But I do not think that it is wise or even realistic to try to suppress all questions about alternative economic systems. Many people, throughout the world, risk governmental oppression for their anti-war activism. Many risk their very lives simply to show their opposition to wars. Those who are prepared to die for their ideas need to be given permission to make clear how they would prefer to live...
Also relevant to arguments against war and organized violence (including terrorism) are arguments for (or against) different value systems. Much of this can be distracting also. To pick comical examples, some people argue that world peace can be possible only after the conversion of all humankind to (some version of) Christianity, or Islam), or after a certain number of people practice Transcendental Meditation... Still, it is unwise and unfair to try to block all such arguments. As Arthur Koestler tried to address (with limited success) in his essay "Yogi and the Commissar", we need to strike a balance between the extreme positions concerning individual morality and bringing about social change.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Willing to Work for the Poor (Who Fight against Poverty)
I suppose I am not the only person who would rather make a very modest living working for a good cause than make oodles of money working for rich people (and/or for a cause that is harmful to life on this planet). Sadly, poor people are not hiring...
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
As I see it, those who are serious about fighting against poverty should be prepared to punish a great many poor people who work hard to perpetuate poverty. (They should also be prepared to take wealth from a lot of undeserving rich, and punish many of them for perpetuating poverty --but that should go without saying.)
I was not raised in a society where there was much (or any?) talk of blaming the poor for their plight. Nor was it common to hear people accuse the poor of laziness, stupidity, etc. Although I spent most of my adult years in the US (and most of it in New York), I never bought into such thoughts. I may add that the prevailing 'groupthink' among the 'progressives' in this country does not, generally, include any analysis that places any responsibility for the perpetuation of poverty on the poor themselves.
Despite all these, I consider it an unforgivable example of intellectual cowardice to ignore the significant role that _some_ poor people play in the perpetuation of poverty.
I will go further into this topic. For the time being, I want to make it clear that I am in favor of a global redistribution of wealth (and the creation of intangible resources for everyone). I also believe that unearned (or unchosen), chronic, human material poverty on this planet can be abolished within two generations.
Next, I will elaborate on the kind of poverty that I believe can be abolished (UCHMPE).
Monday, April 2, 2007
Who is Anseynol?
Anseynol is a name that I made up for myself. To the best of my knowledge, this is not a word in any language. (Google searches yield only results that relate to me.)
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
As someone said before, "I am not an open book, least of all to myself" [I am not sure if General Gordon was the first to say this --see "Khartoum"]. Among other things, I am the author of "On the Threshold of ...", a 3-part book that remains a 'work in progress'.
I am the first and present 'advocate' of Laruunash.
I uploaded a summary of Laruunash to www.archive.org.
A search for Anseynol may yield:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Anseynol%22%20AND%20subject%3A%22humanism%22
To be continued.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)