hether or not you can appreciate the theoretical component of this contribution
that follows, the Eden
project still provides a way to promote "unity
in diversity" across all ethnic-cultural boundaries. This
in turn qualifies it as an unprecedented achievement.
Most
professionals agree that without a tangible route to 'unity' we have NO
means by which to resolve existing
conflicts that currently threaten human survival. At best, we can
only forestall their eventuality by actively coercing combatants to
temporarily cease hostilities. Over the long haul, this intimidation
inevitably fosters hostility that further destabilizes already fragile
global situations.
If
we are ever going to make meaningful headway in our search for world
peace, it is imperative that we first understand the dynamics of
"foundational theory" that sculpt the way we think. Once
they are understood, we must then determine a way to apply these
dynamics to the critical issues currently at
hand.
In
a world as technically advanced as our own, the continued practice of
linearly approximating cause and solution just doesn't work any longer.
Even as you read this, sufficient time for both qualification and
its implementation no longer exists in many critical equations upon which
the world depends for its continuance.
For
example: the flight time of nuclear armed missiles between potential
protagonists is down to less than 4 minutes in several quarters of
the world. This reduced time interval excludes humans from entering into
these equations, simply because
there isn't sufficient time in which to do so. This vulnerability has
resulted in the creation of "retaliatory schemes" that rely upon
"threshold
equations" that are executed solely by computers. Since computers
have no stake in the continuance of human life on earth, our dependency
upon them, in this regard, can only be seen as a death knell for mankind.
So
what is the answer? Since the resolution to any conflict can always
be visualized in a number of conflicting ways, by our current system of
thought, all of which are similarly
valid relative to the foundational premise from which they spring, a
resolution to the world's current quandary cannot come from an analysis of
the information that we've assembled to date. Neither can it come
from the pursuit of new information that is gathered under the same
pretext as the old. If it could, peace would already be ours.
It isn't, because a route to 'unity' simply does not exist by way of
the information gathering techniques currently in use.
The
reason is because conclusions arrived at, by our current approach, necessarily
give rise to opposing positions in the process of achieving
relevance. This cross-validation occurs because of an inherent
limitation within our thought process itself. Without understanding
its import, and utilizing it constructively, this limitation is
destined to continue to destabilize all attempts to construct a viable
approach to world peace.
The
only way to overcome this problem is through the consideration of
interdependency within the field of question, not the conclusions that
these questions solicit. It alone allows for the demonstration of a
commonality of intention between opposing difference; something that is
essential for convincing potential combatants to come together and
work together for the sake of creating a mutually viable approach
to peace. Anything less than active participation in a common cause
that is fundamental to the individual itself simply won't work.
Over
the years man has created many global institutions for the purpose of
advancing world peace, but unfortunately, no one has ever come up with the
much needed prescription by which to achieve that stated objective.
To date, the Eden project is the only global peace initiative that has
ever been identified by man. There simply has never been another.
More important, it employs the needed difference discussed above, in the
form of a "universal
format for making relevant inquiry into critical issues." This
is an extremely important difference that should not be underestimated, since it alone provides for a mutually acceptable global objective
that is actually obtainable.
The
attempt to achieve a consensus by any other means necessarily promotes
dichotomy while advancing specificity. Thus, it reinforces the
importance of difference as opposed to sameness. By switching focus,
however, the Eden project provides a realistic way to qualify and
thereafter demonstrate mutual intent between fundamental difference.
As such, it contains the only universally acceptable approach to problem
solving that is capable of providing temporal stability in an ever
changing world. This is a fundamental difference that is central to
the reconstitution of hope within mankind, something without which it
cannot survive.
This
project is the direct result of the applicability of the discovery of 'certainty' to global situation. And, since 'certainty' dictates the
basic form that knowledge must take in order to assume to relevance for
us, it cannot help but advance the cause of world stability when applied
to global situation. If you haven't already done so, consider what qualified
authority has to say about this project.
For
all of the above reasons, the Eden project is unique and
definitely warrants your immediate and serious attention. However,
all the promise it necessarily holds may still be lost if it is not
implemented in a timely manner -- since conditions in the world clearly
indicate that time is running out.
Emerging
from its conceptual stage this project needs all forms of
assistance. This includes exceptional people, meaningful group
affiliations, and a tangible (non-polarized) route to funding. If you
can help in any of these areas -- Contact us.
|
