Home

Mission

Contents

News

Links

Authors

About Us

Publications

Harmony Forum

Peace from Harmony
Francisco Parra-Luna. A Systemic Index of Human Development: In Search of World Peace from Harmony

Francisco Parra-Luna

 

 


FRANCISCO PARRA-LUNA,
GHA Ambassador of Peace and Disarmament in Spain,

PhD in Sociology (University of Lausanne);

Catedrático Emérito Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Now RETIRED

Current activities: Active member of the International Academy foir Systems and Cybernetic Sciences; Editor of the Buletin AVANCES SISTEMICOS as Presidente of Honor of the Sociedad Española de Sistemas Generales.

Home: Las Rozas, Madrid, calle Yucatan 26, 28231,Spain

Telef. 3400 6389731.mobile 3400 670649637

Personal page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=838

System Journal: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=846
 

CV

 

FRANCISCO PARRA-LUNA, Catedrático Emérito of Sociology,Licenciado in Political Science (Geneva University); PhD in Sociology (University of Lausanne); Licenciado in Sociology por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid and PhD in Sociology from this university.Founder and first president of“Working Group o­n Systems Theory” of the International Sociological Association; Ex-President du Comité de Recherche sur la Teoríe de Systemes dans l’ Association Internationale de Sociologues de Langue Francaise; Ex-President ofSociedad Española de Sistemas Generales (SESGE) and now President of Honor; Founder andDirector of the Instituto Universitario de Recursos Humanos de la Universidad Complutense; Coordinator of theTheme“Cybernetics and Systems” within theInternacional Encyclopedia of Life SupportSystems of UNESCO; Editor of the Bulletin AVANCES SISTÉMICOS. Author of 21 books o­n theoretical and methodological aspects of social systems, like “Towards Comparing National Social Performances”,Univ.Lausana, 1975; “Elementos para una Teoría Formal del Sistema Social”, Ed. UCM,1983 and de “The Performance of Social Systems”: Problems and Perspectives”,Ed. Wiley, N.York, .2001. He has published about 50 articles in professional journals, among them: “An Axiological Systems Theory: Some Basic Hypotheses”, in Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, (2001); “ and several of his Works have beenhonoured. He is “favorite son” of Villanueva de los Infantes, Ciudad Real, Spain, where he has a square dedicated to him in the town.

Education:

*Licence en Science Polirique par l+Úniversité de Geneve, Switzerland

*Ph.D. in Sociology par lÙniversité de Lausanne, Switzerland

*Licenciado en Sociologia por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid

*Ph.D. en Sociologia por la Universidad Complutense de Madrid

 

*Married from 1968 with Vivian Idreos, She is Interprete of International Conferences (English, French, Spanish,, Greece)

Two children; male and female and four grandchildren

*I like: sports (cycling, Tennis), tourism, writing, cinema

 

Main publications:

*Towards Comparing National Social Performances, These de Doctorat.Univ.Lausanne, 1975

*Elementos para una Teoría Formal del Sistema Social,ed.UCM, 1983

*El Balance Social de la Empresa (three books) (1980-1989)

*Sociologia de la empresa y los Recursos Humanos, Ed.Taurus, 1993

*The Performance of Social Systems:Problems and Perspectives, ed. Kluwer Scademics.Plenum Publihsers,2000

*La universidad transformacional, Edit. Biblioteca Nueva,2003

*Sociologia Industrial y de la Empresa, Edit. Aguilar, 2003.

*(Three books consecrated to the discovery of the "Place of la Mancha" in the Quixote by the application of Systems Theory):

*ElLugar de la Mancha es....El Quijote como un sistema de distancias/tiempos", Ed.UCM 2005

*El enigma resuelto del Quijote; Un debate sobre el Lugar de la Mancha, Ed. Univ. de Alcalá, 2009

*El Lugar de la Mancha: un irónico Cervantes a la luz de la crítica científica", Ed. B.Nueva, 2015

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reviews, Letters and Discussion




Dear Francisco,

Let us exclude apologies for the delays that we both sin, maybe I am more than you. I bring you my apologies. Our delays are natural and we can tolerate them.

Many thanks for your response with a generalization of your evaluation of my Tetrasociology and the possibilities of synthesis (from the thesis through the antithesis) of our positions. I agree with your conclusion that the central divergence of our positions is your universal Maslow needs and my spheres and their spheral universal needs. I believe that the synthesis of these positions is possible for the benefit of both, and most importantly for the benefit of science (Sociocybernetics) of global peace. But this is a very big job, not for o­ne year, as I think.

I also recently finished writing my response to your criticism o­n the five positions that I am sending you in the attachment. All our creative discourse I was glad to publish o­n your personal page (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=838) together with the Russian translation of some of its fragments for Russian-speaking readers.

Best wishes for peace from harmony through science,

Leo,
01-10-18

 

Dear Francisco,

          Thank you very much for your review (below) and appreciation of Tetrasociology: "Without ceasing to admire the enormous intellectual effort that your Tetrasociology has put forward" as "the UN epistemological guide." I am also very grateful and appreciate your criticisms about it in the framework of your constructive proposal to complement Tetrasociology (spheral approach) with your value approach. Our discussion, correspondence and mutual reviews are published o­n your personal page here: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=838

          You stressed that the "The Tetrasociological approach (People, Information, Organization and Things) of the GHA (Leo Semashko) can be a prelude to the Axiological-Humanist approach (Parra-Luna)." Your concept of "prelude" is "the basis, the soil, the foundation , source" in the evaluation and understanding of Tetrasociology (spheral approach) in relation to your axiology. This is a very important, key o­ntological thought for understanding their complementarity, synthesis and cooperation in the epistemological sense. I fully agree with it, I am ready and will be happy to cooperate with you within this sense and narrative.

          This idea also forms the basis of my answers (below) to your five criticisms, so that we can better understand each other's positions and that we can more effectively discuss them next year within the framework of your remarkable Sociocybernetic Congress in Spain, to which I will be happy to come. I will also mention them in my article to your Congress, which I will write at the end of November. My preliminary judgments about some of them.

          1. You write: "TetrasociologyNEEDSTOBECOMPLEMENTEDwithalanguagethatpeoplefromallovertheworldunderstand. "Re-humanize" its language, in a way that should be easily graspable and understandable by the "man in the street."Let me note that out of 16 fundamental key concepts of Tetrasociology, 12 are understandable to a person from the street: people, information, organization, things; production, distribution, exchange, consumption; social, information, political and economic spheres. They are closely connected with the "daily reality of people" that can not be denied. Of course, their everyday and scientific understanding is very different as any concept: atom, electron, light, energy, etc. On the other hand, science can not and is not limited to ordinary terminology, so it is the highest level of human thinking along with philosophy. Perhaps more than 90% of scientific terminology (especially mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology) is inaccessible to a person from the street. Therefore, Tetrasociology as a third-order Sociocybernetics (spheres and spherons) also contains a significant layer of unique scientific terms that are inaccessible to a person from the street. These include, above all, the key terminology of the four Spherons - the population’s classes engaged by production in four spheres. But it is easily explained to a person from the street and is graphically illustrated by statistics, tables, diagrams and models (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836) if he wants to understand it and is not afraid to spend time and effort for it.

           2. Tetrasociology should "use a REFERENTIAL PATTERN OF NEEDS / UNIVERSAL VALUES (RPUV)." You suggest using Maslow's needs structure. For all its importance, it is fairly criticized in its grounds. An alternative structure of the needs, abilities and values ​​of a person that preserves the content of Maslow, but in a different, spheral paradigm was proposed by Tetrasociology in 2002, pp. 35-39 (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/2-1_eng.pdf) and in subsequent works. Of course, the spheral structure of human needs, abilities and values ​​is at the very beginning of its development, therefore it is far from perfect and has many shortcomings, correctable in the future together with you, if you agree to correct it.

          3. I fully agree with your requirement to "operationalize them by empirical quantified indicators", i.e. relevant statistics. This is a matter of fundamental importance and complexity, relating to the quantitative / statistical expression of the spheral (integral, generalized) needs and values ​​in order to maximize harmony between them, if we explain them o­n the basis of a spheral approach. I have been dealing with this issue for more than 40 years, to which I devoted dozens of books and articles. They are synthesized by spheral statistics of Spherons and understanding of the need and new, fractal tetramathematics of harmony for its full expression (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836). Traditional statistics, in view of its fragmentation, divorce, national limitations, 50% incompatibility and subjective political preferences is not suitable for these purposes. At best, it can be used as an initial chaotic empirical material for global spheral statistics. You could be sure of its advantages, including for your wonderful "System Index of Human Development and World Peace" if you could conduct a statistical study of Spherons of Spain with any professional statistician for any year of the national census in it according to the named samples (10-15 pages). Is this research possible for you?

          4. Your wonderful "graphic axiological profile" at the global and national level of more than 200 countries requires common statistics for them, which today does not exist. Its absence can be filled o­nly by global spheral statistics. Are you ready to cooperate in its creation?

          5. Your system indicators T, Y, X in the formula "T = Y / X", intended for any country and for the global level, also require generalized spheral indices that make up the common denominator of traditional disjointed/segmental and disparate statistical indices of different periods for o­ne country. Only o­n their basis you can get statistical indices of social "negentropy" and "maximization of health, welfare, security, knowledge, freedom, distribution equity, conservation of nature, quality of activity and moral prestige with the least effort, energy consumption or possible costs." How can you compare and calculate these so different values ​​and attributes without a common denominator of common statistical indices, which today does not exist? This your task becomes realizable o­nly after they are created. From my point of view, they can o­nly be as global spheral statistics. We do not know any other way. And you know an alternative way of such statistics? If you do not know, then again I want to ask you: are you ready to cooperate in the creation of spheral statistics and its fractal mathematics? This is a new task of the 21st century. I will analyze your comments in more detail later.

          Now the last, technical question: could I know when my review will be published in your system Journal? You talked about the end of September. Thank you. Best wishes for peace from harmony through science,
Leo,
01-10-18

 

Дорогой Франциско,

          Большое спасибо за ваш обзор и высокую оценку Тетрасоциологии: «Не перестаю восхищаться огромным интеллектуальным достижением, которое выдвинула ваша Тетрасоциология» (Without ceasing to admire the enormous intellectual effort that your Tetrasociology has put forward) как «Эпистемологическое руководство для ООН» («UN EPISTEMOLOGICAL GUIDE»). Я также очень благодарен и высоко ценю ваши критические замечания о ней в рамках вашего конструктивного предложения дополнить Тетрасоциологию (сферный подход) вашим ценностным подходом. Наша дискуссия, переписка и взаимные рецензии опубликованы на вашей персональной странице здесь: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=838

Вы подчеркнули, что «Терасоциологический (сферный) подход (Люди, Информация, Организация и Вещи) ГСГ (Льва Семашко) может быть прелюдией аксиолого-гуманистического подхода (Пара-Луны)». “The Tetrasociological approach (People, Information, Organization and Things) of the GHA (Leo Semashko) can be a prelude to the Axiological-Humanist approach (Parra-Luna).” Ваше понятие «прелюдия» - это «основание, почва, фундамент, источник» в оценке и понимании Тетрасоциологии (сферного подхода) в отношении вашей аксиологии. Это очень важная, ключевая онтологическая мысль для понимания их дополнительности, синтеза и сотрудничества в гносеологическом смысле. Я полностью согласен с ней, готов и буду счастлив сотрудничать с вами в рамках этого смысла и нарратива.

Эта мысль также составляет основу моих ответов (ниже) на ваши пять критических замечаний, чтобы нам лучше понимать позиции друг друга и чтобы мы могли более эффективно обсудить их в следующем году в рамках вашего замечательного Социокибернетического Конгресса в Испании, на который я буду счастлив приехать. Я также коснусь их в моей статье на ваш Конгресс, которую я напишу в конце ноября. Мои предварительные суждения о некоторых из них.

          1. Вы пищите: «Тетрасоциология нуждается в языке, понятном людям всего мира, доступном человеку с улицы» (“Tetrasociology NEEDS TO BE COMPLEMENTED with a language that people from all over the world understand. "Re-humanize" its language, in a way that should be easily graspable and understandable by the "man in the street"). Позвольте заметить, что из 16 фундаментальных ключевых понятий Тетрасоциологии, 12 – понятны человеку с улицы: люди, информация, организация, вещи; производство, распределение, обмен, потребление; социальная, информационная, политическая и экономическая сферы. Они самым тесным образом связаны с «повседневной реальностью людей» (with the daily reality of the people), что невозможно отрицать. Конечно, их обыденное и научное понимание сильно различается как любого понятия: атом, электрон, свет, энергия и т.п. С другой стороны, наука не может и не ограничивается обыденной терминологией, так она составляет высший уровень человеческого мышления вместе с философией. Возможно, более 90% научной терминологии (особенно математики, физики, химии и биологии) недоступно человеку с улицы. Поэтому Тетрасоциология как Социокибернетика третьего порядка (сфер и сферонов) так же содержит значительный пласт уникальных научных терминов, недоступных человеку с улицы. К ним относится, прежде всего, ключевая терминология четырех Сферонов – классов населения, занятых производством в четырех сферах. Но она легко объясняется человеку с улицы и наглядно иллюстрируется статистикой, таблицами, схемами и моделями (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836), если он хочет понять ее и не боится потратить время и усилия для этого.

2. Тетрасоциология должна «использовать РЕФЕРЕНЦИАЛЬНЫЙ ПАТТЕРН/СТРУКТУРУ ПОТРЕБНОСТЕЙ/УНИВЕРСАЛЬНЫХ ЦЕННОСТЕЙ (РСУЦ)» (“use a REFERENTIAL PATTERN OF NEEDS/UNIVERSAL VALUES (RPUV)”). Вы предлагаете использовать структуру потребностей Маслоу. При всей ее значимости, она справедливо критикуется в ее основаниях. Альтернативную структуру потребностей, способностей и ценностей человека, которая сохраняет содержание Маслоу, но в иной, сферной парадигме предложила Тетрасоциология в 2002, стр. 35-39 (http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/2-1_eng.pdf) и в последующих работах. Конечно, сферная структура потребностей, способностей и ценностей человека находится в самом начале своего развития, поэтому далека от совершенства и обладает многими недостатками, исправимыми в будущем вместе с вами, если вы согласны корректировать ее.

          3. Я полностью согласен с вашим требованием «операционализировать РСУЦ эмпирическими количественными показателями» (operationalize them by empirical quantified indicators), т.е. соответствующей статистикой. Это вопрос принципиальной важности и сложности, касающийся количественного/статистического выражения сферных (целостных, генерализованных) потребностей и ценностей с целью максимизации гармонии между ними, если мы объясняем их на основе сферного подхода. Я занимаюсь этим вопросом более 40 лет, которому я посвятил десятки книг и статей. Они синтезированы сферной статистикой Сферонов и пониманием необходимости новой, фрактальной тетраматематики гармонии для ее полноценного выражения (http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836). Традиционная статистика, ввиду ее фрагментарности, разорванности, национальной ограниченности, несопоставимости на 50% и субъективных политических предпочтений не годится для этих целей. В лучшем случае она может быть использована как исходный хаотический эмпирический материал для глобальной сферной статистики. Вы могли бы убедиться в ее преимуществах, в том числе для вашего замечательного «Системного Индекса Человеческого Развития и Глобального Мира» (SYSTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND WORLD PEACE), если бы вы смогли провести совместно с вашим профессиональным статистиком статистическое исследование Сферонов Испании за любой год национальной переписи населения в ней по названным образцам (10-15 страниц). Это исследование возможно для вас?

          4. Ваш замечательный «графический аксиологический профиль» на глобальном и национальном уровне более 200 стран требует общей для них статистики, которой сегодня не существует. Ее отсутствие может быть восполнено только глобальной сферной статистикой. Готовы ли вы сотрудничать в ее создании?

         5. Ваши системные показатели T, Y, X в формуле «T = Y / X», предназначенной для любой страны и для глобального уровня также требуют генерализованных сферных показателей, составляющих общий знаменатель традиционных разрозненных и несопоставимых даже для одной страны статистических показателей разных периодов. Только на их основе вы можете получить статистические показатели социальной «негэнтропии» и «максимизации здоровья, благосостояния, безопасности, знания, свободы, справедливости распределения, сохранения природы, качества деятельности и морального престижа с наименьшими усилиями, энергопотреблением или возможными издержками». Как вы можете сравнивать и вычислять эти столь разные ценности и атрибуты без общего знаменателя единых статистических показателей, которых на сегодняшний день не существует? Эта ваша задача становится реализуемой только после того, как они будут созданы. С моей точки зрения, они могут быть только как глобальная сферная статистика. Мы не знаем другого пути. А вы знаете альтернативный путь подобной статистики. Если вы не знаете, то я снова хочу спросить вас: готовы вы сотрудничать в создании сферной статистики и ее фрактальной математики? Это новая задача 21 века. Я буду анализировать ваши замечания более детально позже.

          Теперь последний, технический вопрос: могу ли я узнать, когда будет опубликован мой отзыв в вашем системной журнале? Вы говорили о конце сентября. Спасибо.

          Лучшие пожелания для мира из гармонии через науку,

Лео,

01-10-18

-----------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Leo:

Forgive me for the delay, but at last I can respond to your interesting criticism of the SIHD that we are calculating. What I am sure of is that the good thing is to be initially in disagreement, since from this disagreement, the dialectic argument "Thesis-antithesis-synthesis", seems to me the o­nly way to advance knowledge.

That's why I thank you very much for your sincere and clear criticism towards the SIHD.I ATTACH your criticism and my comment to it.

GreetingsFrancisco

30-09-18


COMMENTS o­n THE CRITIQUE OF LEO SEMASHKO

 

Generally agreeing with his pertinent observations, o­nly three points are necessary to clarify:

1. The SIHD o­nly seeks, in principle, to improve the traditional UNO index in the double sense of: a) include in the numerator the "Needs / Values" of the Reference Pattern of Universal Values (PRVU); and b) consider a denominator in the index composed of "arms export". This, if well done, should represent a considerable ethical advance for all the governments of the world.

2. The SIHD intends to achieve this with the law of minimum effort, or in systemic terms: maximizing T = Y / X where the “Y” are the Outputs y “X” the Inputs. Possibly, o­nly with the nine indicators described in the Annex as the numerator "Y" we would get similar results to those obtained using the hundreds of existing coded indicators in the international and national statistical yearbooks.

3. The SIHD seeks to establish its roots in the historical development of the human being advanced by Maslow and his system of priorities. This separation into nine universal needs (perhaps "ten" splitting the 9 "Moral Prestige" in another, the 10, the "Power"), would, in my humble opinion, be more humanistic and definitive than the nonetheless admirable complex of the Spheras. and Spherons with its 16 theoretical dimensions. The essential difference between the PRVU and the Tetrasociology is that the first registers the FINES achieved and the second the MEDIA used. It is the same difference between focusing o­n the "ends" of the car (speed, consumption, comfort, safety, pollution, etc ... ..) and the components or "means" that allow them (engine, wheels, bodies, steering wheel, ... ......). The interesting thing is to look at the PURPOSES and o­nly when they do not satisfy, or pretend to be improved, then you go to the media.

Summarizing: The essential task, and where we HAVE TO START, is o­n the purposes expected / achieved by the system. These are the concrete terms that respond to the needs of people around the world. This point 3 is the essential difference between the approaches of the Referential Pattern of Universal Values ​​(PRVU) and the Tetrasociology proposed by Leo Semashko.

FranciscoParra-Luna

30-09-18

--------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Francisco,

          Thanks for the support. I fully agree with your "The Tetrasociological approach (People, Information, Organization and Things) could be, and in my opinion should be,complemented and closed with the Axiological-Humanistic approach that ends with the person, the society, the need and the value that satisfy it. In my humble opinion it should be its final inevitable language." We will be cooperate in this strategy. I will reply you in details after 17 September, after my vacation. I will publish your excellent article.

          Could you publish my review of your article? You promised me it. When it can be publish? Thank you. Heartily,

Best wishes for peace from harmony,

Leo

29-08-18

 

Dear Leo:

I send you again my critical observations about your "Spherons" project. Without ceasing to admire the enormous intellectual effort that your Tetrasociology has put forward, I clearly tell you that it NEEDS TO BE COMPLEMENTED with a language that people from all over the world understand, and also allow MEASURING what they hoped to achieve and what they really achieved. It is my modest opinion. See ATTACHED DOCUMENT

For instance, could you tell me what do you think about my SYSTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT that I sent you some days ago? I would be grateful to you if your send me a criticism.

Thank you for your efforts and best regards,

Francisco Parra-Luna,

29-08-18

 

Dear Francisco,

Thanks for your email. I re-send you my review, which I sent to you o­n August 3 and which you approved and promised to publish. We will discuss more details after my return from vacation, after September 17. Heartily,

Leo

30-08-18

 

Dear Leo:

          I need to know as soon as possible, please, if you accept the invitation to the Congressin Villanuea de los Infantes, Spain during the 28 June to 2 July 2019. We are closing the budget for the congress. I look forward to hearing from you

         Best regards

Francisco Parra-Luna

18-09-18

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 

THE TETRASOCIOLOGY OF GLOBAL HARMONY ASSOCIATION (GHA)
AS UN EPISTEMOLOGICAL GUIDE FOR A NEW SYSTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT:
IN SEARCH OF WORLD PEACE

By Francisco Parra-Luna

 

        The work that GHA is doing is commendable. It is enough to see, not o­nly the political and scientific personalities interested or involved in its global project, but, and above all, the enormous theoretical, essay and scientific content stored o­n its website. But all this effort should not be kept o­nly in libraries, but be applied for the good of humanity. Uncontrolled migrations, ecological problems, famines, wars and terrorisms are already morally unbearable.

          Interestingly, the Tetrasociological approach (People, Information, Organization and Things) of the GHA (Semashko) can be a prelude to the Axiological-Humanist approach (Parra-Luna) where the four pillars are: the individual person, society as a whole, the universal needs and the values that satisfy them. Measuring the levels of satisfaction pursued in each of these needs (values), the achieved realizations (objective and subjective) and the deviations produced, would be the antepenultimate step prior to the corrective action (cybernetics) in search of the desired and progressive world happiness and peace pursued by the GHA,and that, in the words of Leo Semashko, implies the general improvement of the social conditions of humanity what it means to meet all their needs, both basic and artificial.

 

But this step would require, in turn, o­n the base of the Tetrasociological approach, to add five complementary approaches to the GHA theory:

 

        * First, "re-humanize" its language, in a way that should be easily graspable and understandable by the "man in the street". This new language should be spoken in common terms of their salaries received, health services available, education, equality of opportunities, and so o­n. In short, to respond to their concerns of corporal, material and security wellbeing for him and for his people in a future perspective. As Protágoras said: “Man is the measure of all things”.

         * Second, to do that, it is necessary to use a REFERENTIAL PATTERN OF NEEDS / UNIVERSAL VALUES (RPUV) such, f.i., as the o­ne developed by the author o­n the basis of Natural Law of Plato, Ciceron, Suarez, Crocio.., the UNO Human Rights, and A. Maslow among others. (see, F.Parra-Luna, “An Axiological Systems Theory: Some Basic Hypotheses”, Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 00-2001.p. 1-26.This RPUVincludes the following nine universal needs/values: Health, Material Wealth, Security, Knowledge, Freedom, Distributive Justice, Conservation of Nature, Quality of Activities and Moral Prestige, a list that must include any possible human appetite (as proof of its validity) and therefore, must serve as a general theoretical framework for valid comparative measures in any space and time.

         * Third, operationalize these nine values through their theoretical dimensions and each of them by empirical quantified indicators that represent them with a minimum of validity.

The number of indicators to use can vary between o­nly o­ne and several hundred, but always looking for the information provided (Y) cost as little as possible (X). It is about maximizing the general expression T = Y / X, as will be seen later.

        * Fourth, present the resulting axiological profiles (a graphic comparison of their relative levels achieved) both globally and at the level of each country, or any other smaller society,resulting in the visualization of this instrument, perhaps, the o­nly "dashboard" (control panel) available to know where our societies are axiologically going and in particular the global society as a whole. If we do not have this graphic axiological profile, it is as if we are driving a ship in the ocean without knowing where we are going.

        * Fifth, apply the general systemic rule of T = Y / X where T is the transforming capacity or efficiency of any system; "Y" represents in this case the average (to be maximized) of the levels reached in the value system; and "X" the effort or costs (to minimize) caused. Index of productivity that forces in each case (f.i., the elaboration of this Index, the GHA projects, the achievements of each government, etc.) to reduce the efforts "X" to align them with the achievable "Y" in order that the "T" results (using standardized numerical expressions) equal to or greater than "1", or in other words ecologically sustainable in the short, medium and long term . Any project, especially as ambitious as the o­ne proposed by the GHA project,can not fail to apply the formula T = Y / X which tries to achieve always the desired results with the minimum possible cost. How to obtain the best possible health, as well as material wealth, security, knowledge, freedom, distributive justice, conservation of nature, quality of activities and moral prestige with the least effort, energy consumption or possible costs? This simple expression of T = Y / X raises something very close to the concept of "neguentropia" in relation to the Second Law of Thermodynamics that could prevent the world from its foreseeable ecological difficulties.

 

        In summary: The Tetrasociological approach (People, Information, Organization and Things) could be, and in my opinion should be,complemented and closed with the Axiological-Humanistic approach that ends with the person, the society, the need and the value that satisfy it. In my humble opinion it should be its final inevitable language.

        I am afraid that this mere and previous theoretical language of Tetrasociology in terms of "Spherons" ("social", "Information", "organization" and "Technical"), or "Resources", "Processes", "Structures" and "States" , never have application because of its disconnection with the daily reality of the people.

        Given that what is pursued is world peace, it would not be superfluous to take a first operational step by publishing and presenting to the governments, as well as to the UN and interested institutions, this new SISTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT(SIDH), or other very similar, that in any case should be penalized by the export of arms when using as its denominator, the percentage of world exports in each period, which means to suggest to governments not to export weapons for two reasons: first, because it could be a flagrant immorality to sell weapons to poorer or less rich countries given their inhuman lethal consequences; and second, because, in effect, it will reduce the so-called Human Development Index under the ethical principle that it can not be considered a country "humanly developed” to the same extent that it exports armaments.

        It is o­nly a suggestion that I submit to the GHA in case it is of interest.At the moment we are carrying out in the Complutense University of Madrid (UCM), in collaboration with the Spanish Society of General Systems (SESGE) and its Bulletin ADVANCES SISTÉMICOS, a first calculation of the ISDH applied to the 28 countries of the European Union.


Francisco Parra-Luna,

Retired professor of the UCM;

Honorary President of the SESGE;

AVANCES SISTÉMICOS editor;

Member of the International Academy for Systems and Cybernetic Sciences (IASCYS).

Web: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=838  

29-08-18

--------------------------------------------------------------



TOWARDS A SYSTEMATIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT (ISDH):
IN SEARCH OF WORLD PEACE

(Short, schematic version)

By Francisco Parra Luna

 

FOR AN AXIOLOGICAL-GLOBAL SYSTEM OF EMPIRICAL INDICATORS:

 

This system tries to fulfill the following requirements: a) be theoretically founded (UNO, Maslow, Parra-Luna ...); b) offer quantified information exceeding mere theoretical presentations; c) referred to universal needs directly felt by the people and in the terms understood by them; d) must understand any human need felt in no matter what space and time as validation method; e) it offers integrated or summarized indicators in such a way that it tries to optimize the “benefit /cost” or “utility /effort” ratio; and f) it will be ideologically or politically neutral by using exclusively scientific or falsifiable /verifiable methods.

 

The fundamental theoretical basis will be the REFERENTIAL PATTERN OF UNIVERSAL VALUES (RPUV) (1), explicit in Table 1:

 

 

Table 1: Universal needs/values

 

Where each of these large values will be divided into theoretical dimensions and each of them into empirical and standardized empirical indicators so that their levels achieved are comparable.

 

THE AXIOLOGICAL PROFILES AS A GUIDE

In this way it will be possible to obtain two advantages: a) to know the axiological content of each ideology and therefore the overcoming of its traditional conflicts; and b) define and facilitate progress.

 

As a mere illustrative historical example, fig.1 and 2 show the typical axiological profiles of Communism and Capitalism:

  

 

Fig. 1: The Axiological profile of Capitalism

 

Political system that prefers to emphasize the values of Material Wealth (W) and "Freedom" (F) although at the expense of those of "Security" (Se) and "Distributive Justice" (DJ). That is just the opposite of what pursues Communism: raise the values of "Security" (Se) and "Distributive Justice" (DJ) but at the expense of Material Wealth (W) and "Freedom" (F)

  

 

Fig.2: The Axiological profile of Communism

 

Which of the two systems is better or less bad? With rigor it is not known, since o­ne would have to calculate the area under both profiles to compare their "axiological surfaces", something possible today by data and by methods, even to remove iron to the differences between the mixed systems that currently proliferate.

Only through viewing this type of profile it is possible to visualize the best global policy to follow. Decide to what level you can grow economically without harming the conservation of nature; where to leave degrees of freedom to people without reducing the distribution of wealth; to what extent new technologies are compatible with human dignity and freedom; or to what extent peace can be achieved by reducing inequalities and injustices. Peace, for example, (the "Security" value) is o­nly possible if it behaves in balance with the other values, or as Leo Semashko says: "it is not possible to reach peace in the worldwithout improving the general conditions of people", In summary, o­nly an axiological profile like this or very similar, may serve as a "scorecard" for global governance. Otherwise it will mean blind driving without knowing where this humanity installed o­n planet Earth is heading. Therefore, to the excellent theoretical formulation of the Tetrasociology by Leo Semashko, it would o­nly be necessary to take the step towards the collection of data and the elaboration of axiological profiles. By 2018 there would be enough theories, data and methods to move to the operational phase.

 

IN SEARCH OF HUMAN PROGRESS

 

The maximum we can do is: a) to balance the relative levels achieved in the nine values; and b) to increase their average level. Some Scandinavian countries could be a first exemple. (Fig. 3)

 

 

Fig. 3: An exemple of a more balanced “systems of values”

  

 

Fig. 4: Dynamic steps toward Progress.

 

Figure 4 shows the phases through which the notion of PROGRESS passes, consistent in raising the average level of the 9 global indicators and its average deviation or leveling of the profile in search of the most desirable balance between the nine values.

The initial difficulty is to ensure that each country or relevant political unit (f.i., the European Union) calculates, knows and flatten (horizontalize) its own profile in such a way that all the world's rulers are aware that they o­nly have to live (govern) to achieve the elevation of the most balanced “system of values” referred to in figures 3 and 4.

 

This is the task, as the first operative step, of the HUMAN DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM INDEX (ISDH). And this is the proposal that should be presented to the UN (), the most interested Agencies and all the governments in the world. This should be the most efficient path towards world peace in the shortest time possible.

 

Francisco Parra-Luna

 

1. Parra-Luna, F., "Axiological Systems Theory: Some Basic Hypotheses", in Systems Research and Behavioral Sciences, num.18, 2001,

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Leo Semashko
Systemic Index of Human Development: Dignity and Limitation
Review


         The proposed by Dr. Francisco Para-Luna "Systemic Index of Human Development" (SIHD) [1] is of considerable scientific interest with its own merits.

        The first of them, from our point of view, is the demand for a systematic approach as a holistic vision of human development and its holistic statistical index. The author analyzes many attempts to create such an index and quite rightly critically concludes that all of them do not meet the requirement of integrity/holism/system and are insufficient.

        The second of them is that a SIHD is intended by the author to solve equally systemic / holistic "world problems and search of world peace". It is quite obvious that the world system problems, especially the maximally systemic problem of global peace, can not be solved without adequate integral statistical indices, among which SIHD is supposed to be the most satisfactory. This index grows in author's thinking and imagination from a high degree of civic concern over a multitude of unsolvable and escalating global problems: the arms race, environmental destruction, gender inequality, corruption, a crisis of democracy and economy, an increase in crime, and so o­n.

        The third merit can be called the requirements of integrality to the criteria and principles that determine the SIHD. The author states: "it is necessary to consider at least three systemic principles generally little or nothing applied in the formulation of the indexes reviewed, namely: "Purpose" (what is pursued?, "Epistemological totality" (are all the variables?), and "Transformational maximization" (what effort does it require?): Principle of Purpose. What is pursued when building an index of human development? It is supposed to improve the lives of all the inhabitants of the planet. Then it will be necessary to start from a theoretical reference about the human needs to be met."[1] This is the highest and o­nly adequate level of the requirement for integral indices.

        These are the three most important and fundamental, from our point of view, dignity of SIHD, which make it o­ne of the best integral indices of our time. The review short volume does not allow disclosing them in more detail. Nevertheless, this is enough for his appreciation.

         At the same time, SIHD demonstrates a limitation in many aspects from the point of view of formulated system requirements, the main part of which relates to the general depressive state of the social sciences, especially traditional statistics, demonstrating virtually complete fragmentation and unsystematicity in hundreds of its partial, branch and virtually incoherent disciplines, testifying to the extremely low level of systemic scientific thinking in them. Unfortunately, SIHD remains within these traditional, limited partial approaches that do not meet the requirements of the integrity of human development, the knowledge of which lags behind for 1-2 centuries.

         As an example of unsystematicism and substitutive subjectivism, we can refer to our criticism of the branch narrowness of the "Global Peace Index" (GPI) from the systemic positions of the spheral integrity, which is presented in the GHA fundamental book "Global Peace Science" [2, 134-154]. GPI covers 162 countries of the world and compares them according to the degree of "peacefulness" and "non-violence" in the framework of several, subjectively selected partial criteria, according to which the most aggressive and militaristic countries are among the most peaceful [3]. These include the United States, which for all decades after 1945, carried out 37 wars in which more than 20 million people died [4; 5], which has more than 800 military bases that occupy 170 countries [5] and which has the most colossal military budget. All these facts are discriminated in GPI, which in the end becomes fake propaganda cosmetics of the most double militarism. This indicator is created for the needs of the world hegemon and its policy of violence, in propaganda of which "war becomes peace" [5]Therefore, it refers to a cluster of militaristic cosmetics, rather than scientific value.
         The fundamental unsystematic limitation of traditional social science, including statistics of different indices, is overcome by tetrasociology [6], which is defined as third-order sociocybernetics, i.e. as sociocybernetics of spheres and spherons of social production [7]. This approach defines the paradigm of holistic system thinking - the tetranet paradigm of thinking spheres and spherons [7]. Within the framework of this paradigm, the sociocybernetic genome of structural harmony of global peace [8] is constituted, which embraces the integrity of human development not in terms of constantly changing subjective needs and values, but in terms of 16 fundamental, stable in all changes of objective resources, processes, structures and actors.

        Traditional fragmented and unsystematic social science remains at the level of partial thinking, which, in the final analysis, created all the world's problems and can not be resolved without any solutions for morecentury. Albert Einstein long noticed this fundamental danger and risk of humanity, having formulated the requirement of replacing partial thinking with a new, systemic and holistic: "We shall require substantially new manner thinking if mankind is to survive." Unfortunately, mankind still does not show a strong desire to survive without changing the old unsystematic thinking and pandering with it the rampant arms race that is leading humanity to imminent death.

Therefore, from our point of view, the overcoming of this system / integral limitation of the SIHD is possible o­nly within the framework of sociocybernetics of spheres and spherons, which, by definition, excludes any partial narrowness and ensures the formation of statistical spheral indices in the interests of all humanity, all people, and not the interests of militaristic hegemons. o­nly this third-order sociocybernetics (spheres and spherons) provides a fully scientific systemic approach for a holistic vision of human development and its holistic statistical indicators.

          The core of this vision is "the inner harmony of the world as the o­nly true objective reality" in the opinion of Henri Poincare, who was forgotten under the pressure of Marxist and liberal partial ideologies [9]. In third-order sociocybernetics, it is transformed into the principle of "structural holistic and genetic harmony of spheres and spherons of o­ne social production in all its infinite forms" [7]. Structural spheral harmony is a true synonym of social system and integrity/holism in this sociocybernetics, in which any array of "human needs" is o­nly its very narrow and limited part. It is the structural spheral harmony, which must be the true "numerator" in o­ne form or another, indeed the "Systemic Index of Human Development", and its downward "denominator" should not be any partial factor, but also a systemic criterion of social disharmony, disproportion and the imbalance of spheres and spherons of social production.

          But this is a very complex theoretical and epistemological task requiring large collective efforts in the long run, the details of which we can not touch in a brief review, but for which conceptual supports have been created.

         Another limitation of the SIHD is its narrow, non-systematic definition of its "denominator", which amounts to the number of weapons, but which does not take into account other important aspects of militarism: military science, military specialists, the number of armies and military bases, the scale of military education and military budgets, the number of wars, aggression and armed intervention, etc. It is well known that the production, export and import of weapons have two fundamentally different dimensions: violence / aggression and defense / protection against violence / aggression; or for peace and war.

        The weapon does not have a single and all-encompassing dimension, therefore it is hardly correct to use it in o­nly o­ne sense. Everyone and every society has the full right to protect their lives with any weapon other than the prohibited, in the face of deadly aggression from someone, it does not come. This makes the weapon ambivalent in its axiology, from which it is impossible to abstract. Violence against a rapist and an aggressor is always justified and moral. Therefore, the export and sale of weapons is not an absolute criterion of evil and violence in human society. It can become an absolute evil and violence o­nly in a harmonious civilization that has universal non-violent means of preventing and resolving any conflicts [10].

        But the modern industrial civilization is still very far from it, especially as it hinders and impedes the development of any instruments of peacebuilding, the first of which is GPS, whose creation for more than 200 years lags behind the creation of military science in all countries in thousands of academies and colleges. In this regard, it seems more justified to search for a truly systemic "denominator" for the SIHD in the form of integral disharmonies in which the production and export of weapons for aggressive purposes is undoubtedly very important, if not crucial part. But o­nly in a system with other disharmonies: social, political, demographic, economic, etc. The development of the SIHD in this epistemological perspective seems to us to be the most effective and effective.

 

References

 

1.Francisco Parra-Luna (2018) BEFORE THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS, A SYSTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: EN SEARCH OF WORLD PEACE

2.Semashko Leo and 173 coauthors from 34 countries. Global Peace Science…Joint publication of GHA and IASE University, India. World textbook. The first publication in English, Smaran Publication, New Delhi. 2016. 616 p. ISBN 978-81-929087-8-6: http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf

3.Global Peace Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

4.Michel Chossudovsky (2016) The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=682

5.James A. Lucas (2015) US Has Killed More Than 20 Million In 37 Nations Since WWII: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=641

6.Semashko, Leo (2002) Tetrasociology: Responses to Challenges. –St Petersburg: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=145

7.Leo Semashko and Olga Kashina (2018) Global Peace Genetics: Structural Harmony of Russia’s Spherons in their Statistics for 2010, 1996 и 1991.

http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836

8.Leo Semashko (2018) The ABC/Paradigm of Tetranet Thinking for "New Women" harmonious feminism: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=824

9.Henri Poincare (1913) The Foundations of Science:

http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=766

10.Leo Semashko and 119 Participants from 34 Countries (2009) Harmonious Civilization: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=379

 

Leo M. Semashko, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Education: Moscow State University, Philosophical Faculty, “History of Foreign Philosophy” Chair; RANH Professor; Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005; GHA Honorary President since 2016; State Councilor of St. Petersburg; Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony; Author of more than 600 scientific publications, including 18 books in 1-12 languages; Author of Tetrism/Harmonism as the unity of Tetraphilosophy and Tetrasociology as third order Sociocybernetics – science of social harmony, global peace and harmonious civilization; Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia; Honorary Member of the RC51, Sociocybernetics, International Sociological Association; Director, GHA Web portal “Peace from Harmony”: http://peacefromharmony.org; Initiator, Manager, Coauthor and Editor in Chief of the book project “Global Peace Science” (GPS): http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf.

Address: St-Petersburg, Russia; Phone: +7(812)-597-6571;

E-mail: leo.semashko@gmail.com

Personal page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253

03-08-18

------------------------------------------------------

DEAR LEO:

        THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INTERESTING COMMETS FULL OF USEFUL INSIGTS AND INFORMATION, AND ABOVE ALL BECAUSE THEY ARE CRITICAL, SINCE I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT o­nLY THROUGH ACCEPTING CRITISIMS WE CAN PERSONALLY PROGRESS.

        NEVERTHELESS, LET ME TO FORMULATE SOME COMMETS TO YOUR CRITICISMS o­nLY IN ORDER TO CLARIFY WHICH ARE THE LAST ENDS OF THE SIHD.

I WILL ANSWER SOME OF YOUR PARAGRAHS IN YOUR OWN TEXT USING THIS TYPE OF LETTER TO FACILITATE LECTURE.

Francisco

04-08-18

 

Leo Semashko (2)
Systemic Index of Human Development: Dignity and Limitation
Review


         The proposed by Dr. Francisco Para-Luna "Systemic Index of Human Development" (SIHD) [1] is of considerable scientific interest with its own merits.

        The first of them, from our point of view, is the demand for a systematic approach as a holistic vision of human development and its holistic statistical index. The author analyzes many attempts to create such an index and quite rightly critically concludes that all of them do not meet the requirement of integrity/holism/system and are insufficient.

        The second of them is that a SIHD is intended by the author to solve equally systemic / holistic "world problems and search of world peace". It is quite obvious that the world system problems, especially the maximally systemic problem of global peace, can not be solved without adequate integral statistical indices, among which SIHD is supposed to be the most satisfactory. This index grows in author's thinking and imagination from a high degree of civic concern over a multitude of unsolvable and escalating global problems: the arms race, environmental destruction, gender inequality, corruption, a crisis of democracy and economy, an increase in crime, and so o­n.

The third merit can be called the requirements of integrality to the criteria and principles that determine the SIHD. The author states: "it is necessary to consider at least three systemic principles generally little or nothing applied in the formulation of the indexes reviewed, namely: "Purpose" (what is pursued?, "Epistemological totality" (are all the variables?), and "Transformational maximization" (what effort does it require?):

Principle of Purpose. What is pursued when building an index of human development? It is supposed to improve the lives of all the inhabitants of the planet. Then it will be necessary to start from a theoretical reference about the human needs to be met."[1] This is the highest and o­nly adequate level of the requirement for integral indices.

        These are the three most important and fundamental, from our point of view, dignity of SIHD, which make it o­ne of the best integral indices of our time. The review short volume does not allow disclosing them in more detail. Nevertheless, this is enough for his appreciation.

         At the same time, SIHD demonstrates a limitation in many aspects from the point of view of formulated system requirements, the main part of which relates to the general depressive state of the social sciences, especially traditional statistics, demonstrating virtually complete fragmentation and unsystematicity in hundreds of its partial, branch and virtually incoherent disciplines, testifying to the extremely low level of systemic scientific thinking in them. Unfortunately, SIHD remains within these traditional, limited partial approaches that do not meet the requirements of the integrity of human development, the knowledge of which lags behind for 1-2 centuries.


I CANNOT AGREE WITH THE LAST SENTENCE, SINCE THE NUMERATOR OF THE SIHD TRY TO COVER THE GLOBALITY OF HUMAN NEEDS…..THAT IS TO SAY, ANYTHING THAT A PERSON COULD CONSIDERED AS A HUMEN NEED TO BE SATISFIED BY GOVERNMENTS , SHOULD BE INCLUED IN o­nE OR SEVERAL OF THE NINE UNIVERSAL VALUES REGISTERED IN THIS NUMERATOR (FROM HEALTH …….TO MORAL PRESTIGE). (SEE MY REFERENCE PATTERN OF UNIVERSAL VALUES(RPUV) (Health, Wealth, Security, Knowledge, Freedom, Distributive Justice, Conservation of Nature, Quality of Activities andMoral Prestige) IN THIS SENSE MY NUMERATOR ISSOMETHING EQUIVALENT (SIMPLIFIED) TO THE FORMULATION OF YOUR TETRASOCIOLOGY:

TO REGISTER ALL POSSIBLE HUMAN NEEDS IN AN INTEGRATED WAY

 

         As an example of unsystematicism and substitutive subjectivism, we can refer to our criticism of the branch narrowness of the "Global Peace Index" (GPI) from the systemic positions of the spheral integrity, which is presented in the GHA fundamental book "Global Peace Science" [2, 134-154]. GPI covers 162 countries of the world and compares them according to the degree of "peacefulness" and "non-violence" in the framework of several, subjectively selected partial criteria, according to which the most aggressive and militaristic countries are among the most peaceful [3]. These include the United States, which for all decades after 1945, carried out 37 wars in which more than 20 million people died [4; 5], which has more than 800 military bases that occupy 170 countries [5] and which has the most colossal military budget. All these facts are discriminated in GPI, which in the end becomes fake propaganda cosmetics of the most double militarism. This indicator is created for the needs of the world hegemon and its policy of violence, in propaganda of which "war becomes peace" [5]Therefore, it refers to a cluster of militaristic cosmetics, rather than scientific value.

I AGREE
         
The fundamental unsystematic limitation of traditional social science, including statistics of different indices, is overcome by tetrasociology [6], which is defined as third-order sociocybernetics, i.e. as sociocybernetics of spheres and spherons of social production [7]. This approach defines the paradigm of holistic system thinking - the tetranet paradigm of thinking spheres and spherons [7]. Within the framework of this paradigm, the sociocybernetic genome of structural harmony of global peace [8] is constituted, which embraces the integrity of human development not in terms of constantly changing subjective needs and values, but in terms of 16 fundamental, stable in all changes of objective resources, processes, structures and actors.

I AGREE. THE UNIVERSAL NEEDS CAN NOT CHANGE, WHAT CHANGES ARE THE COMPARATIVE LEVELS TO WHICH EACH HUMAN NEED IS SATISFIED.

        
Traditional fragmented and unsystematic social science remains at the level of partial thinking, which, in the final analysis, created all the world's problems and can not be resolved without any solutions for more century. Albert Einstein long noticed this fundamental danger and risk of humanity, having formulated the requirement of replacing partial thinking with a new, systemic and holistic: "We shall require substantially new manner thinking if mankind is to survive." Unfortunately, mankind still does not show a strong desire to survive without changing the old unsystematic thinking and pandering with it the rampant arms race that is leading humanity to imminent death.

I FULLY AGREE


Therefore, from our point of view, the overcoming of this system / integral limitation of the SIHD is possible o­nly within the framework of sociocybernetics of spheres and spherons, which, by definition, excludes any partial narrowness and ensures the formation of statistical spheral indices in the interests of all humanity, all people, and not the interests of militaristic hegemons. o­nly this third-order sociocybernetics (spheres and spherons) provides a fully scientific systemic approach for a holistic vision of human development and its holistic statistical indicators.


I AGREE. BUT THE PROBLEM IS HOW TO OPERATIONALIZE THIRD-ORDER CYBERNETICS IN ODER TO ACHIEVE THE BEST POSSIBLE BALANCE BETWEEN THE NINE VALUES OF THE RPUV. WE WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF SYSTEMIC INSTRUMENT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO CHANGE PROCEDURES EACH TIME WE NEED TO MODIFY THE FINAL LEVELS OF THE NINE VALUES. AND HERE WE HAVE A TECHNICAL PROBLEMS WHICH SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING: A) THE UNBALANCED (NON-EQUILIBRATED) LEVELS OF VALUES ACJIEVED; B) THE ECONOMIC COST OF MODIFYING THESE LEVELS; AND C) THE POLITICAL PROBLEMS PRESENTED BY GOVERNMENTS AND GROUPS OF INTERESTS.

 

The core of this vision is "the inner harmony of the world as the o­nly true objective reality" in the opinion of Henri Poincare, who was forgotten under the pressure of Marxist and liberal partial ideologies [9]. In third-order sociocybernetics, it is transformed into the principle of "structural holistic and genetic harmony of spheres and spherons of o­ne social production in all its infinite forms" [7].

 

Structural spheral harmony is a true synonym of social system and integrity/holism in this sociocybernetics, in which any array of "human needs" is o­nly its very narrow and limited part. It is the structural spheral harmony, which must be the true "numerator" in o­ne form or another, indeed the "Systemic Index of Human Development", and its downward "denominator" should not be any partial factor, but also a systemic criterion of social disharmony, disproportion and the imbalance of spheres and spherons of social production.


THE NUMERATOR OF SIHD TRIES TO FULFILL THESE REQUIREMENTS. I REPEAT IT SHOULD REGISTER THE LEVELS OF SATISFACTION OF ANY KIND OF NEEDS THE POPULATION CAN DEMAND..

ON THE CONTRARY, THE DENOMINATOR OF SIHD IS o­nLY A CLEAR SIMPLIFICATION CENTERED o­n THE EXPORT OF ARMS, THINKNG THAT IT IS o­nLY A FIRST STEP TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY GOVWERNMENTS.. HENCE, IT WOULD BE THE STRATEGY OF THE POSSINBLE JUST NOW IN 2018.


But this is a very complex theoretical and epistemological task requiring large collective efforts in the long run, the details of which we can not touch in a brief review, but for which conceptual supports have been created.

I AGREE


Another limitation of the SIHD is its narrow, non-systematic definition of its "denominator", which amounts to the number of weapons, but which does not take into account other important aspects of militarism: military science, military specialists, the number of armies and military bases, the scale of military education and military budgets, the number of wars, aggression and armed intervention, etc. It is well known that the production, export and import of weapons have two fundamentally different dimensions: violence / aggression and defense / protection against violence / aggression; or for peace and war.


I AGREE.BUT THE PURPOSE OF THIS DENOMINATOR IS TRYING TO OPTIMATE WHAT IS POSSIBLE TODAY WITH THE LEAST EFFORT. TO TAKE STATISTICAL DATA ABOUT EXPORTATION OF ARMAMENTS (QUANTIFIED IN USA DOLLARS) IT IS EASY BECAUSE THERE ARE AVAILABLE STATISTICS. . BUT EVEN WITHIN THIS SIMPLICITY, THE IMPACT COULD BE HUGE: FOR HUNDRESS OF GOVERNMENTS AND GROPUS OF INTERETS BECAUSE THEY WOULD SEE THEIR INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPEMT AT A LOWER LEVEL THAT THEY WERE EXPECTING. IN OTHER WORDS: THEY WILL BE SURPRISED AND SHOCKED

BUT IT IS JUST THE PURPOSE OF THE SIHD: THAT GOVERNMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL AGENCIES (F.I. THE UNO) BE CONSCIENT THAT THEY CANNOT PU BLISH AN INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPORTATION OF ARMNS. SOMETHING THAT SHOULD DECREASE IN A CERTAIN DEGREE THE INDEX.


The weapon does not have a single and all-encompassing dimension, therefore it is hardly correct to use it in o­nly o­ne sense. Everyone and every society has the full right to protect their lives with any weapon other than the prohibited, in the face of deadly aggression from someone, it does not come. This makes the weapon ambivalent in its axiology, from which it is impossible to abstract. Violence against a rapist and an aggressor is always justified and moral. Therefore, the export and sale of weapons is not an absolute criterion of evil and violence in human society. It can become an absolute evil and violence o­nly in a harmonious civilization that has universal non-violent means of preventing and resolving any conflicts [10].


YOU ARE RIGHT. THAT IS WHY THE DENOMINATOR OF THE SIHD DO NOT REGISTER THE FABRICATION OF ARMS FOR INTERNAL USE OR FOR ITS OWN DEFENSE, BUY o­nLY THE EXPORTS OF ARMS SO THAT SOME POOR OR LESS DEVELOPED PEAPLE KILL THEMSELVES. . THIS IS THE ETHICAL ASPECT THAT UNDERLINES THE SIHD:IT WOULD BE AND ABOSLUTE SEAN FOR THE HUMANITY..


But the modern industrial civilization is still very far from it, especially as it hinders and impedes the development of any instruments of peacebuilding, the first of which is GPS, whose creation for more than 200 years lags behind the creation of military science in all countries in thousands of academies and colleges. In this regard, it seems more justified to search for a truly systemic "denominator" for the SIHD in the form of integral disharmonies in which the production and export of weapons for aggressive purposes is undoubtedly very important, if not crucial part. But o­nly in a system with other disharmonies: social, political, demographic, economic, etc. The development of the SIHD in this epistemological perspective seems to us to be the most effective and effective.


THE PRESENTATION OF THE SIHD UNDER THIS EPISTEMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE SHOULD, OF COURSE, BE SOMETHING DESIRABLE AND MUCH MORE PERFECT.

BUT IN SPANISH WE SAY …..(“Lo perfecto es enemigo de lo bueno”) “THE PERFECT IS THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD”. AND I HAVE BEEN ALWAYSOBLIGED TO CHOOSE AMONG WHAT IS THE “IDEAL” AND WHAT IS THE “POSSIBLE”, OR BETWEEN THE “PERFECT” AND THE “GOOD”. AND IN MY HUMBLE OPINION THE PROPOSED SIHD IS o­nLY A FIRST VIABLE STEP TOWARDS A BIGGER END…… FOR THE MOMENT IT MEANS TO OPTIMIZE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE OUTPUTS ACHIEVED (THE INFORMATION OF SIHD) AND THE INPUTS USED (PERSONAL AND INSTITUTIONALEFFORTS), OR BETWEEN THE BENEFITS AND THE COSTS.

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU CAN SHOCK WITH LITTLE EFFORTS ALMOST 200 GOVERNMENTS IN THE WORLD FORDECREASING THEIR LEVELS OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENR BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EXPORTATION OF ARMS. AND THIS IS THE FIRST GOAL OF THE SIHD TO SHORT TERM.

 

References

 

1.Francisco Parra-Luna (2018) BEFORE THE WORLD'S PROBLEMS, A SYSTEMIC INDEX OF HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: EN SEARCH OF WORLD PEACE

2.Semashko Leo and 173 coauthors from 34 countries. Global Peace Science…Joint publication of GHA and IASE University, India. World textbook. The first publication in English, Smaran Publication, New Delhi. 2016. 616 p. ISBN 978-81-929087-8-6: http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf

3.Global Peace Index: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Peace_Index

4.Michel Chossudovsky (2016) The Globalization of War, America’s “Long War” against Humanity: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=682

5.James A. Lucas (2015) US Has Killed More Than 20 Million In 37 Nations Since WWII: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=641

6.Semashko, Leo (2002) Tetrasociology: Responses to Challenges. –St Petersburg: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=145

7.Leo Semashko and Olga Kashina (2018) Global Peace Genetics: Structural Harmony of Russia’s Spherons in their Statistics for 2010, 1996 и 1991.

http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=836

8.Leo Semashko (2018) The ABC/Paradigm of Tetranet Thinking for "New Women" harmonious feminism: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=824

9.Henri Poincare (1913) The Foundations of Science:

http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=766

10.Leo Semashko and 119 Participants from 34 Countries (2009) Harmonious Civilization: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=379

 

Leo M. Semashko, Ph.D. (Philosophy), Education: Moscow State University, Philosophical Faculty, “History of Foreign Philosophy” Chair; RANH Professor; Founding President, Global Harmony Association (GHA) since 2005; GHA Honorary President since 2016; State Councilor of St. Petersburg; Philosopher, Sociologist and Peacemaker from Harmony; Author of more than 600 scientific publications, including 18 books in 1-12 languages; Author of Tetrism/Harmonism as the unity of Tetraphilosophy and Tetrasociology as third order Sociocybernetics – science of social harmony, global peace and harmonious civilization; Director: Tetrasociology Public Institute, Russia; Honorary Member of the RC51, Sociocybernetics, International Sociological Association; Director, GHA Web portal “Peace from Harmony”: http://peacefromharmony.org; Initiator, Manager, Coauthor and Editor in Chief of the book project “Global Peace Science” (GPS): http://peacefromharmony.org/docs/global-peace-science-2016.pdf.

Address: St-Petersburg, Russia; Phone: +7(812)-597-6571;

E-mail: leo.semashko@gmail.com

Personal page: http://peacefromharmony.org/?cat=en_c&key=253

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 








 



Up
© Website author: Leo Semashko, 2005; © designed by Roman Snitko, 2005