Applied Personal Science APS® Deutsch: Lebenspraktisch Angewandte Persönlichkeits-Wissenschaft ermöglicht weiter führende Hinweise als es nationale Geschichtsbilder zu geben vermögen...

 ©Copyright 2010, Dr. Peter Meier, Zürich, Switzerland Feedback and passing on is welcome, mail to pm()think-systems.ch

Literally interpreting Bible passages, beginning in Genesis, do we have the divine permission to use nature as we please? Is it even wrong to preserve the planet Earth since God is supposedly going to destroy the old Earth anyway as American fundamentalists conclude to feel justified in cannibalizing it for their hidden agendas? God said: Slaves obey your earthly masters (Ephesians 6:5) - does that mean that we have to give in to the worldly hierarchies, as if that is our unavoidable destiny - instrumentalizing each other without respect for any substance? The consequences of Option I's eight steps to mass-attractivity are demonstrated to make people aware of the need for a reframing towards Option II. The latter is based on relating to the substance of participants, their perception of what is, and the inner access they have to what should be.

Science assumes mutual openness in exchanging forms of meaningful expressions of forms of content towards a basic understanding of how to reach a desirable end. Then the corresponding practical follow-up must entail the continuous verification of the meaning of the process of generating accordingly as expressed with agreed upon and transparent principles in view of reaching the desired goal in the most lifefulfilling way. Thus capable, the "homo sapiens sapiens", the consciously knowing individual human being, can only be understood in terms of the highest qualities humans are capable of, e.g. as the innate open-ended generative principle which does justice to each individual's lifefulfillment by using the relevant science#3. And that defines the ultimate purpose of what deserves to be called science! Therefore scientists themselves, (up to) managers and all individuals who no longer want to be part of the problem, need to be obliged individually to fulfill the following basic three requirements:

1) As a precondition, a scientist has to be able to consciously abstain from the temptation to think and act in non-scientific ways, that is to regard forms as idols to merely impress people with their appearance, to promote their insubstantial hidden agenda or the interests of those in whose service they happened to be  self-, or other-determined...

2) Knowlege- und information workers, scientists and  managers - must make a common effort to cultivate a common language to express the relevant reality as it is; perceived objectively, measured, or assessed and verified in some relevant way to create the necessary scientifically relevant information about what is within human reach to change in a desirable way, or what needs to be understood and considered as immutable such as the laws of nature, life and innate causes, about real human systems (individuals, their relationships, teams up to cultures and humanity as a whole).

3) A scientist must be personally be prepared to think and work out insights sufficiently beyond what is non-scientific in changing reality towards what it should be such as in chemistry: "First the water, then the acid, otherwise disaster strikes..." This requires a scientifically evolved and proven measure stick that allows a scientist to compare what is, with what should be. And for that purpose scientists need to have understood their own methods and the impact of their tools, and their limitations where they no longer serve a lifefulfilling purpose, where they are misused to amplify thinking towards human catastrophes.

In short real human beings and above all scientists with their leading examples and guidelines, need a proper sense of how to use and apply themselves with their materials and methodological resources. And that until something really more lifefulfilling is created which requires unlearning the outdated and learning from new insights, experiences as well as experiments; with or without mere opinions. Thus a scientist must be more open to the chance of a surprise than to the seeming end imposed by an imagined threat, and be able to remain generative with integrity in regard to his or her conscience, truthfully (1) to the best assessment of reality, (2) and dedicated to (3) the path that in truth leads to life- through scientific task-fulfillment! This is the bottom-line that should be lived by at least a critical number of real people beyond any non-scientific temptations for a magical short-cut, such as of an apple which comes with the sneaky promise of becoming "God-like" by simply eating it.

On the other hand, the seeming genius of non-scientific intellectuals, is that they never make clear-cut stupid moves. In covering up their non-substantiality, they only make complicated stupid moves which make normal people wonder if there is a  possibility that there may be something which they have missed. And that kind of temptation leads real people hoping for non-life-fulfilling, fake fame with an aura, that suggests that if they are lost, the world is lost. And for that usurped position they claim benefits for themselves which go beyond those ordinary people can expect under them. Then man-age-rs follow that pattern eagerly. But in fact you cannot be on their, and on God's side, as much as you cannot serve God and Mammon as a philosophy, the seeming "love for truth" suggests, as well beyond any intellect, common sense...

Please, beyond just reacting with the usual stereotypes and prejudices, become personally aware of the above content and its meaning for yourself in our, humanly critical time. Then you can realize that I use

• the red coloring to highlight personally-neutral meanings, usually expressed with words which carry only personal neutrality, e.g. such as the humanities (philosophy-psychology-law-sociology-politic), which I am referring to as science#2, "2" because it entails the agreed upon meaning of at least two people as the smallest collective.

• the pink coloring indicates creating anything goes forms to express something to lead or mislead somewhere, or to seduce and confuse, at best please people in order to enthuse or open up people for the usually hidden agenda. The impact of appearances and events are more or less designed to target groups, beginning with idols in heathen religions. This is practiced in the arts - its history, marketing, rhetoric, in the event-management, in the latter field even mere entertainers can now get a PhD. To all this I refer to as science#0, "0" because of its lack of intrinsic substantiality.

• the forest green coloring refers to the hard, basic, content-free sciences#1, based on measurements that can be expressed with numbers and mathematics, based on physics and chemistry.

In the still prevailing Option I world, these three sciences are the only ones publically organized and recognized. At best they allow the above, necessary but obviously not sufficient requirement (2). In themselves they lead to closed systems which in themselves are self-destructive such as what happened in the financial crisis, then in North Africa, and among others, at the end of our Florida trip on March 11, with the earthquake/tsunami, then the nuclear disaster in Japan. So to do better, we have to work out why so far, in each generation young wippersnappers and intellectual ankle-biters get tempted to follow these man-made Option I systems with the illusion they can easily do better with better technology than their fathers have done...

Therefore you find, beyond what the education systems world-wide so far allow

• blue colored hints to Applied Personal Science APS® that point to how the personally-relevant science#3 allows for Option II with LifeFulfilling Platforms, and for and on them,  business with a desirable, e.g. lifefulfilling future. Science#3 is the precondition for democracy with self-responsibility without which no state can function. The Chinese are beginning to realize that, while the west goes demo-crazy...

So after having worked out the precondition for what deserves to be called science, what must follow is a differentiation which allows us to  identify und assign individual rights and duties to implement the above requirements (1), and (2) that can only be done with science#3. Only then can we move from Option I to Option II, beyond the still prevailing suppression of science#3 by the Option I system wardens, the media and most people as long as they are in a seemingly secure job-situation, even if it is managed with outdated mental operation systems grounded in the Antiquity. Let's face it, the mainstream mentality is non-substantial and still grounded in antique philosophy. Despite the incredible technological progress human interactions have even degenerated from 1968 onwards according to the Boiling Frog Syndrome:

[Getting practical by Differentiation]

The author is responsible for your Option II not for links out-side "think-systems.ch"