Dr. Velemir Radovan, Project coordinator.
Rachel Baron, Consultant, innovator, strategist, entrepreneur , philanthropist.
The phrases “movement of the world” or “ways of the world”, even if they are not identical in content, have minimal chances of being conceptually operationalized in a certain type of analysis. In real terms, they represent a state of affairs that affects man, nature and human societies. Two common words seem to give meaning not only to an apparent simplistic perception of „everything that moves” around us, but they also introduce a deeper subtlety of the understanding, for many people, of our existentiality. The coexistence of the three reference vectors, Man, Nature and Human Societies presupposes concomitant and instantaneous movements, in different forms of expression. The gnoseology of the whole will allow the development of some elements specific to the sequential approach.
Planet Earth, in a multiple permanent motion, is the one that created optimal conditions for the evolution of the species and of the human societies, and of the animal and plant biodiversity. Earth is not an amorphous and static planet. It has its own life, its own „feelings”, sometimes with catastrophic effects for people and communities. I am thinking of Noah’s Flood… Human societies appeared; human societies disappeared, according to historical and biblical accounts. Generations after generations have followed their destiny according to DNA programs.
Today’s human society is about six thousand years old. Without digressing into various theories about our evolution and the adjacent human societies, we can argue: we are white Caucasians (a majority) and belong to the Indo-European peoples. Therefore, man is not a product of the celestial mind, but a part of the fundamental universe, the three-dimensional level. Throughout this time, the divine spirituality, polytheistic or monotheistic, accompanied man’s ways, regardless of their social status. From ancient mythology to modern monotheistic religions, there has been a continuous process of adapting and changing the divine approach to the needs of the people and societies they represent. It was a long, contradictory, contentiously contested process, resorting to any means to impose a dogma. History, according to the typology of the great philosopher Hegel (lived, reflected, philosophy of history) has many known events and phenomena. Certainly, for the unknown part of history, the reference coordinates are missing. Is there a secret history of the world coexisting in parallel? It remains a rhetorical question.
We are at the beginning of the third millennium. A complex and complicated world, diverse and strongly stratified, hierarchical and polarized, with multiple values and unequally developed, with extreme phenomena (absolute poverty, extremism, religious conflicts, human rights violations, drug addiction and human trafficking, etc.), but also with obvious technological performance. The rapid evolution of human society imposes new rules and values, new behaviors and attitudes.
In line with these new realities, formal or informal institutions have been forced to adapt to new existential coordinates.
It is not irrelevant that we tried to put multiple concerns in the same online space without resorting to divergent connotations. They are components of the same human and societal space, they participate in understanding the whole. Our collaborators are competent and with different specializations.
I believe in this approach, perhaps unique in its proceedings, and with quality information. There is nothing incongruous, nothing accidental, nothing incisive, nothing conflictual about this project. We try to place ourselves, with the knowledge and the life experience of each one, in a certain normality, generated by the real history of our becoming.
I would end with a paraphrase of a famous question. After discovering the Higgs particle (European Accelerator at CERN), one of the researchers asked a question. If this is the answer (Higgs particle, God particle – a metaphor) then what is the question?
We presented our intentions. What are the questions?
The last added articles
THE WALLACHIAN PRINCE VLAD ȚEPEȘ, NICKNAMED DRACULA The Wallachian Prince Vlad Țepeș is one of the most famous Romanians in the world. We call him
Russia: The Identitarian Bogey Man of American Politics The country has gone mad for Russia. That is, American has gone crazy mad in fear of
From „The Earth at the Crossroads” to „Rise and Shine” The unleashed creative laboratory that was from the very beginning, from the first edition, every
PERSPECTIVE: A Five-Point Strategy to Oppose Russian Narrative Warfare Abstract Influence, done well is a complex and intricate choreography of sustained actions, words and related
KISSINGER’S DIPLOMACY, THE COLD WAR AND THE EASTERN EUROPEAN REVOLUTIONS The evolution of post-war Europe, generated also by the appearance of the spheres of influence,
All Too Little, All Too Late: On the Open Letter ‘It’s Time to Rethink Our Russia Policy Agroup of 103 international relations scholars has come
Military Collector, Curator, Historical Consultant and Advisor; The Sinclair Collection. Author; World War II Parade Uniforms of the Soviet Union, Volumes I and II
The white dragon, the black dragon, recently and … the red dragon. Who „manages” the blue dragon?
“If a philosopher reaches a conclusion that explicitly or implicitly contradicts a Christian dogma, it is a sign that his premises are false or that his reasoning contains an error somewhere. In other words, theology plays the role of an external norm or that it is a kind of indicator of directives, warning the philosopher when he is about to enter a cul de sac or a dead end. But the philosopher must not try to substitute the data of revelation with the premises of philosophical reasoning. Nor can he use dogma explicitly in his arguments. Since philosophy is intrinsically autonomous. „
Frederick Copleston (Professor at the University of London, Theologian, Philosopher, member of the Jesuit Order – he declares his affiliation), Istoria filozofiei ( A HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY)
„The whole interest of my reason, both speculative and practical, is contained in the following three questions:
- What can I know?
- What should I do?
- What am I allowed to hope for? „