Category: English

The Individual

 

1.1           Individual

 

The nature of individual

 

A human being is a part of nature. Nature contains an infinite quantity of matter charged with energy which creates an endless multitude of forces, actions and reactions, tensions and equilibriums. The nature of an individual is a living part of nature; they possess the sensory ability, thoughtfulness, and the ability to act consciously. By moving, nature creates sensorial advantages and disadvantages for the individual. The sensory difference between the advantages and disadvantages forms the individual’s needs.

 

The individual defines their needs through thoughts. Through thinking, the individual creates and accumulates the consciousness of the advantages and disadvantages of their relationships with nature. In different conditions, thoughts form different emotional states. When the state of nature does not suit an individual, it creates a sensory and emotional tension that concentrates energy towards finding an appropriate condition. 

 

Individual mostly meets their needs by conscious action. The intensity of their efforts depends directly on the degree of the disadvantages. Minor disadvantages induce small action energy, while significant obstacles that also bring into question their survival accumulate the entire individual’s strength in their struggle for survival. The process of activity lasts until the individual satisfies their needs.

 

Satisfaction of the needs brings advantages proportionate to the intensity of surpassed disadvantages. Advantages appear in the form of relaxation from the inconvenient tension and sensory and emotional fulfillment. This process results in saturation. The relation of the needs and saturation change periodically, with the intervals dependent on the nature of the needs. The period of saturation relieves the individual of their needs. 

 

The individual depends on nature; therefore, they are not entirely free. In its broadest sense, freedom represents a state of complete independence and does not allow the existence of needs, either. The individual with vital needs does not need freedom in the broadest sense. In a narrow sense, freedom should be a state that allows the satisfaction of needs because individuals who cannot meet their needs are not free. Such freedom is a condition for accomplishing the individual’s subsistence and developing their abilities, powers, and cognition. Therefore, the individual can and needs to have such freedom.  

 

Nature has unlimited power compared to the individual; however, thanks to their biological development, the individual adapts to the movements of nature and develops their abilities so that in normal, natural conditions, they can meet their genuine needs. As a result, the individual can be free. Their freedom is based on their ability to do what they want; however, such freedom depends on their cognition that they want what they can do. 

 

During their lifetime, the individual acquires many favourable and unfavourable sensory and emotional states arising from relations with nature. By controlling and arranging their reflective determinations regarding the sensory and emotional aspects of the life practice, they create knowledge. With knowledge, individuals develop notions of the conditions that bring them advantages and disadvantages. Knowledge formation is the individual’s most remarkable ability. Knowledge implies forming objective definitions of the laws of movements in nature, the definitions that under identical conditions form equal reactions irrespective of the degree of advantage or disadvantage that such definitions create for people. Objective definitions present the laws of the movements in nature as they are.  

 

Knowledge gives power to the individual to meet their needs through conscious and organized work. The individual opposes the disadvantages in nature with conscious work. With their work, individuals produce the means needed for their survival and create more significant advantages. The working ability gives the individual a high power in nature. 

 

Anything that creates benefits has its value. The individual accepts the value in cases where differences may exist between advantages and disadvantages, where needs are not satisfied or may not be satisfied. The value is proportional to needs. 

 

The work output has its value in use or natural value. The natural value of the products of labour meets the individual’s natural needs related to survival and living standards. The work brings advantages by itself to some extent so that it has some usable value as well. The individual’s bright future lies in finding a job that brings more benefits in its duration because, in that way, the individual reaches more existential conveniences. As a general rule, such conveniences last longer and may also be more intensive than the conveniences arising from consuming work results. 

 

By using knowledge, the individual defines the rightness of movements in nature, and the more deeply they reveal them, the more broadly they can apply their regularity. Knowledge gives the individual the power that is, in its form, unlimited to nature. The more individuals develop understanding, the higher the needs they can create and meet, and the more control over the conditions forming their sensory and emotional states. “The individual who knows” can discover and build their progressive orientations, live in harmony with their nature, rely on their forces, and believe in their power and themselves. Such an individual can understand their relationship with nature, develop love with nature, develop a constructive relationship with nature, and find pleasure in connection with nature. Such an individual necessarily lives in harmony with nature.

 

The more individual knows, the more they meet their natural needs, the more balanced they are, the more they believe in conveniences, the more optimism they build toward life, and the more relaxed, content, joyful they live. This is the presentation of an individual who lives a naturally productive life and, as such, can be easily recognized. 

 

Wisdom is the highest level of knowledge. It is acquired by the experience gained by healthy, natural living. The wise individual continually satisfies their natural needs and therefore experiences significant satisfaction. They have everything they need, irrespective of the quantity and quality, and consequently, they are satisfied. A satisfied person is a good person. This simple claim is so significant for the development of humanism that it should be accepted as the natural law of human beings.

 

By overcoming the inconveniences, the conveniences also lose importance. In other words, when differences between the possible conveniences and inconveniences get smaller, the needs also get smaller. Therefore, the more the individual knows, the less need they have, which means that by living, they come closer to freedom in its broadest sense. 

 


Dilemmas

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

 

Dilemmas

 

Three or four Christian believers wrote to me that Jesus Christ would never ask whether He is Jesus Christ, because He would know the answer to this question. Well I asked them how do they know that, and of course, I did not get any answers.

 

Jesus Christ became aware He was the Son of God at the age of twelve. I have read it a long time ago somewhere. Excuse me if I am mistaken or if the source was unreliable. Is it possible that I am a little bit stupid now, and need more time to become aware of who I am, than Jesus Christ needed when He appeared the first time?

 

Jesus Christ had worked hard for 18 years until He succeeded to be recognised as Jesus Christ. Well, the Son of God should be able to do it fast but He didn’t. Why? If Jesus Christ was powerless for that long, then I am good so far. I have not been successful in promoting my new system, which will make Heaven on Earth, only fifteen years so far, and only four years passed from the time I asked whether I was Jesus Christ.

 

I have one more interesting question. If Jesus Christ sits on the right-hand side of God the Father (Col 3.1), then He should know God the Father very well. Why has no one from the apostles asked Jesus Christ to tell him something concrete about God the Father? Isn’t it the first logical interest and the most important question? Or why has Jesus Christ not said something exact about God the Father in order to bring people closer to Him? I don’t see any reason why He would keep knowledge about God the Father for Himself. Is it possible Jesus Christ did not give any description of God the Father because He did not know what to say? Is it possible that the relationship between Jesus Christ and God the Father is so inconceivably spiritual that even Jesus Christ Himself could not clearly feel, imagine, question, understand, or explain it well enough? If that is the case, then I would be able to answer the question whether I am Jesus Christ just based on what I have done. When Jesus Christ returns He is supposed to present the way that would make heaven on earth. I’ve done it

 

 

Question

Translation from the Serbo-Croatian forum:

 

Duška wrote:

In your articles, you wrote that you have never seen nor heard God but also you claim that you might be Jesus Christ, isn’t it a little bit unbelievable? Your writing does not sound bad, but how can we know that behind it the evil Satan does not stand who just tries hard to seduce us?

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

This is a very good question. As much as I know, nowhere in the Bible is defined when Jesus Christ will return and how to recognise Him. Hundreds of different interpretations of Bible’s parabolas exist and consequently it has made hundreds of independent Christian Churches that follow the same God and Jesus Christ in different ways. However, there is one understanding of the Bible that is more or less the same for all of the Christian Churches, which irrefutably presents Jesus Christ in our world. Jesus Christ is supposed to make Paradise on Earth, where wars, crime, corruption, hunger, fear, will not exist any more, where harmony will be among the people, abundance, where people will love each other, where all of the people will be more satisfied and happier than they can imagine today.

I’ve accomplished to define such society in my book “The Humanism”. That should tell you at least, there might be some possibility that I may be Jesus Christ. It is possible that God has chosen me and lead me even though I am not aware of it. If you believe in Jesus Christ, you have an obligation to investigate what I’m talking about. I know that you like at least some of my ideas but hesitate to accept them because you are not sure what they would bring.

Open your heart and soul, and if you feel it, allow your heart and soul to accept me. When you do accept me, I am fully positive that you will be able to make this world a wonderful place to be. I cannot imagine any harm that might come from it, just extreme good. If anyone can see any damage that my work might make let him speak. This forum is opened to all people with good intentions.

 

Response

Aleksandar Sarovic wrote:

 

I have received the first letter from one big Christian organisation that did not deny me a chance for being Jesus. They found what I wrote interesting and asked questions. Well, they have not accepted me as Jesus. However, I consider it a huge success. If one Christian organisation publicly announces there is a slight chance that I might be Jesus Christ, I would get millions of very curious visitors here. They would investigate me by reading my book. That means the world would start to change. Unfortunately, after two weeks I still have not received permission from this Christian organisation to publish it’s letter here. I think that does not prevent me from presenting my response, which is by the way the best short description of the book I have made so far. Here it is:

 

Dear “Representative of Christian Organisation”,

You are the first representative from a religious organisation who has not denied me a chance for being Jesus Christ. Thank you for that. I do not know whether I am Jesus Christ but I am positive the system I have proposed could save 6 billion souls on the planet Earth from the social evil.

It is not easy to answer your questions because my whole book talks about that. You may find some kind of the answers to your questions in the articles here: Humanism Shortly and here: My Thoughts and of course, in the whole book here: Downloads. Now I’ll try my best of the best to give answers on your questions in a few sentences:

Selfishness, greed, sin, strife, oppression in today’s society are the result of man’s ignorance. The system offers the solution to these problems through the truly equal rights among the people. The people will be free to follow and protect their interest everywhere. However, they will not be able to do it on expenses of other men any more, because the system will not allow it.

In the new system each man will have the equal right to evaluate any other person and that will bring some very important awards and penalties to the evaluated person. That means no one will be able to make any profit by hurting somebody else. Or in other words, the people will get the profits only through producing benefits to the society. By the time the evaluation among the people might fully replace all of the existing state laws. The reminding will be only the Law of God, defined in the Bible and performed through the exercise of direct democracy and the system of evaluation.

Besides that, in the new system not one job will be privileged any more and that will eliminate those kinds of negativities you mentioned. In the new system, each man will be able to choose any public work post he wants by offering the best productivity for the desired work post. The private companies will not be able to follow such a big productivity and therefore capitalism together with all its negativities will be sent to history.

By the special regulation of workers’ responsibilities and income compensations for work, all public work posts will be equally desirable to all. The system will give the people security and freedom to follow their productive interests in the manner that is unthinkable today. The life in such a system will enable the people to demystify the alienated values of today’s society and to find where the real values are. In this way, the people will achieve the knowledge to get a wonderful life, love, peace, joy, stability, and harmony of the society beyond the wildest dreams today.

Finally, the system will be accepted voluntarily. A few tens, hundreds, or thousands of people somewhere around the world may try the system and prove what I just said. They will make Heaven on Earth and then the rest of the world will certainly follow in the same direction. Those who have all of the power today probably will not like the system at the beginning but would not have other choices than to join others because they would not be able to live alone.

I did my best but also believe you still have many whats, whys, and hows? The point is nobody is able to understand the system without reading the book. After that I would gladly explain everything that is not understood.

Also, I kindly ask you for the permission to publish your letter together with my response in the discussion forum at my web site here. Your name would be appreciated as well.

Sincerely,

Aleksandar Šarović

 

Observation

Aleksandar Sarovic wrote:

 

Well, it seems that people hesitate to discuss the Christian religion here. However I’ve exchanged a large number of e-mails with Christian authorities. They were all fast in denying me a chance to be Jesus. Of course, I asked why? One Pastor wanted me to prove I am Jesus by a miracle such as “making a building rise up a hundred feet in the air, spin around, and then gently come down in a different location”. Another person wrote to me: “Just die on a cross, descend into hell for three days, come back from the dead, and then descend into heaven and you’ll have it.” The third person wanted me to be modest and to call upon God in everything I write. Another Pastor pointed on Matthew 24:23 “if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or, ‘There he is!’ do not believe it”. And so on, and so on. Sometimes when their responses are interesting I continue with logical questions. Here is a sample: “If Jesus Christ has seen, heard, or felt God Father, why has He never given the description of God Father? His height? His shoe size? The colour of His eyes? And if that does not exist, then the deepness of His voice? Lightness or warmth He radiates? Anything?” After these questions all the authorities leave the discussion.

In general, I did not get two similar explanations why I cannot be Jesus Christ. Does it say something? Nobody knows anything for sure about the return of Jesus Christ but that the above mentioned Christian authorities have given themselves the rights to know enough about that. Those people remind me of a crowd that was permanently unsuccessfully seeking Buddha in the book “Siddhartha” from Hermann Hesse. Incidentally, Buddha was just a ferryman who rode them many times across a river. Christians might have built unrealistic expectations about Jesus Christ through centuries and that might make His recognition difficult when He returns.

To be honest it is not important to me to be Jesus Christ with all due respect to Him and to God. I am simply not used to it. Also my book will change the world without matter whether I am Jesus or not. I am using the name of Jesus Christ to get more attention for my book “The Humanism”. However, I am certainly not doing it on purpose to cheat on people. I cannot possibly gain any profit from promoting my book out of personal satisfaction coming from the fact that my book will make the world a wonderful place to be. The only thing I want from people is to try to understand what I am talking about. My book cannot produce any harm to society. On the contrary, it will make Paradise on Earth where according to the Bible “lions and antelopes will eat together”, meaning all the people will live in a perfect harmony. We can test the system in a small community and find soon whether I am right or wrong. If I am right then am I Jesus Christ? Let’s suppose Jesus comes after my book will have changed the world. Could he say then: “Sorry I am late, the traffic was terrible, but I would do the same as Šarović did.”? The fact is there is a decent chance that I might be Jesus and one day, maybe it will be accepted.

Translation from the Serbo-Croatian forum:

 

Unknown writer wrote:

It’s a pity that those not bad sequences from the book you destroyed with such a bad, conceited, and heretical thinking. May God be with you on your way, and maybe if you ever perceive God (Not that you are God) in your modesty and through a humble help to your close people, help the whole world.

Glory to Jesus. Me

 

Aleksandar Sarovic wrote:

Why do you think I have not perceived God when everything I wrote is fully in keeping with God’s will defined in the Bible? One day Jesus Christ became aware He was God, and about that all the ways to God Father passed through Him, and He was modest and He was not conceited. I am asking whether I might be Jesus Christ because of the result of my work and that is the reason I am conceited and not modest! Isn’t it strange?

For ten years I was very restrained in my writing and not too many people have read me. From the time I became provocative, much more people have visited my web site and therefore my chances to change the world became bigger, however.

I would like to hear from you very much what is bad with my writing, why do you think I am conceited, and why do you think I am heretic because it is not clear to me! I have to admit that most of the believers who wrote to me do not like me to be Jesus Christ. I don’t know why! If my book “The Humanism” makes Paradise on Earth you will all become good people and believers, and therefore according to the Bible, you would all finish in Paradise in Heaven. If my book could not make Paradise on Earth I am definitely not Jesus Christ and no harm could be made from such attempt. So why don’t you like what I am writing?

Thanks for good wishes. Glory to Jesus.

 

Hierarchy or Freedom

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

We need hierarchy and freedom in order to form the best possible production. The production process is very dependable on technology and that is what we basically cannot change. We can only introduce the best possible co-operators to the production process. Therefore, the new system proposes open competition for all the work posts all the time. When each job goes to the best available worker the best and highest production will be performed.

A good production process requires a fast and effective coordination among production workers. The fastest and the most effective coordination would come from a hierarchical system of making decisions in production processes. The hierarchy in the work process in the new system will not create a non-desirable hierarchy among the people because every worker will be responsible for their actions to every worker at all times. Not one worker will be privileged by any means in any way anymore. The new system of work division and work responsibilities will require cooperation among workers at all levels of production processes. Therefore, this system will make the best production, large freedom of work, and the best relations in the process of production. It would create the association of free producers.

Democracy or Anarchy

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

We need democracy and anarchy in order to make the best social decision making system.

Direct democracy through referendums is a best known system but it is not excellent. It is good because it enables the forming of decisions that a majority of the members of society support. On the other hand, democracy allows the majority to impose their will on the minority which is not good. Besides that, direct democracy may be too complicated because it requires all the people to participate in making decisions and that slows down and makes the process difficult. We need to improve decision making system.

An excellent social system will give more rights to leaders to decide on everything they want but they must not disappoint the people in whose name they made the decisions. Simply, if the leaders know how to make the best decisions for society let them decide in the name of society. The new system will call them very strongly for their responsibilities if they fail in doing so. The new system involves a new measure that gives every individual the equal right to evaluate the doings of every man. If the people decide so, the evaluation right would make a significantly strong impact to evaluated people. The leaders will be very exposed. Making bad decisions in the name of society would result with a large number of negative evaluations which would hurt them strongly, thus, they would not dare to make decisions that confront the wish of the people. Such a system would be fast, just, and effective. That would be the democratic anarchy, the best possible political system.

If the leaders would not be able to take responsibility about what the best choices for society are, they would call for direct democratic decisions of the people through referendums. That would lower their responsibilities but would not release them from it because the people may still evaluate them for many reasons. For example the people may express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction by giving the evaluations about the way how they prepare the referendums. This is very important too. The result of it must be some kind of consensus made through cooperation between leaders and people. This is the best possible political system.

 

Monetary Systems

Jerry LaPlante wrote:

Changes cannot occur unless the power of money creation is taken away from the fractional banking system, by congress. As long as they bankers are allowed to create money at the stroke of the pen, we will remain in financial slavery. We must stop monetizing debt, and start monetizing man’s production. While I applaud your intentions, you are fighting an uphill battle. The driving force behind everything is the money. The banks create and own it all, and you and I just borrow it and pay interest on it. The only vehicle I can think of to get a new system to where it could handle the 10+ trillion economy we have, is our infrastructure. Monetizing man’s production and maintenance of infrastructure would create a wealth money, because it would be earned into existence, then spent into circulation without an interest debtload on it. Please visit www.wealthmoney.org This site has the history of how our money was debauched by the bankers, and the solution to the problem. Until the system is changed, hold your breath, and hope that this system doesn’t crash. Eventually it must. JRL

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Not only do I agree with you, but that is exactly what I have described in my book. I will try to explain the best monetary policy in a theoretical sample. It will require the government of the state to print money and buy all produced goods from producers. As soon as the producers receive money for their goods they become consumers. Then the consumers should immediately by their free will, buy all of the goods from the government so that it can returning back the whole amount of printed money. I have to admit this is an impossible task for the free market economy, but the closer we come to that ideal model the better the economy will be. Such a model would require a super efficient market regulation that will super efficiently balance demand and supply. However, the best result would certainly come from the democratically planned economy. It presents the most stable and efficient production, production based on the orders of customers. No more debt money would be involved and theoretically the problem is solved.

How will we implement such a system? In the beginning, the system will be implemented locally by the wish of the people. There is no better production than the one where each working place gets the best available worker. I call such a company the humanist company and it will be able to accumulate its own money (if necessary it may print its own money) and to fight the rich capitalists and bankers back. Does not matter how much the capitalists and bankers are rich, as time passes, they will be less and less able to compete the humanist companies. Money is worthless in capitalism if it does not bring profits back. Taking into account that the capitalists and bankers are not able to prevent bankruptcies, the economic and political crisis, and that they are rational human beings, they will actually not have any other choices than to join the new system for their own good.

 

Economic Model

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

How well can a model like this be adapted to a low-tech environment, or does it require something as technologically advanced as the World Wide Web to support it. It has been historically shown that Laissez-Faire capitalism functions in any conceivable situation or environment, (this is not to say that it is a fair system), only that it functions. Can you model be adapted to all reasonably conceivable situations that human-kind may find itself in over the next 500 years?

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

Firstly, the model I have developed may be partially or fully realized. Secondly, it may be realized by a few people inside any metropolis and also by all of mankind. And finally it could have been realized hundreds of years ago in a small community partially but the full and wide implementation would not be possible without the information technology we have today. Actually, the system may be adopted let’s say within a year if some community accepts it somewhere but it would be better making a serious study of the system based on a lot of different scenarios than learning on mistakes.

 

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

I was curious, I have always looked at socialist economies as large scale monopolies on a national basis, that still function in a free enterprise arena. Planetary economics of supply and demand will push a socialist economy the same way it pushes any of the bigger monopolies that have grown up over the last 200 years.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

So far, the capitalist company has been more productive than the socialist one because it had a much better allocation of resources. Imagine now, a traditional capitalist company and the same size socialist one where each work place would go to the best available worker highly responsible for his production as the model I have developed offers. The latest would, by definition, have a better allocation of resources, which the capitalist one would not be able to follow. The “socialist” one would be more productive and profitable on the market. That would force this time the capitalist company to join the “socialist” one, otherwise it would face bankruptcy. The “Socialist” company will win as simple as that.

Even if all of the companies in a region, country or whatever merge in one “mega” company and therefore lose competitors from other companies, that would not create a monopoly in traditional sense any more because an open competition for each work place would still exist. The customers would not be able to choose a product among many similar ones any more but high acceptability of the production would be enforced by evaluation of producers by customers. That would make the best economy, the most rational economy, etc., etc.

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

In a capitalist economy, failure to perform has drastic consequences, no matter how big or powerful a company. Pennsylvania Railroad, and Enron are glaring examples of failure of blue chip corporations. What incentive does you system provide to ensure that the “best possible people” are always selected? Remember that the opinion of the many is not always correct, nor is the opinion of the experts. The general population used to think the world was flat, and if you want to get rich ask the experts what is impossible, then find a way to do it. What about small businesses, like shoe repair, TV repair, restaurants, movie theatre, and the like, should these all be centralized? How on earth could there be a reality of who was the best at collecting ticket stubs at a movie theatre? What about the people who don’t want to work and would rather steal or otherwise prey on the system, what is your eutopia going to do for them.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

In the model I have proposed, every worker will be some kind of shareholder of the “mega” company. That means each worker will pay responsibility by his shares for not fulfilling his envisaged productivity and the productivity of the collective. That is something capitalism does not have at all. In Enron’s case for example, the workers lost their jobs and the shareholders money. Shareholders cared a lot but did not have enough influences in the decision-making processes and workers (especially leaders) were not concerned enough about the work. In the new model, a worker and shareholder will be the same person so that he will be much more concerned and responsible for the work.

I believe that the opinion of the many would most likely make the incorrect statement about everything due to the huge alienation of the system of values we have today. Also we have to accept the people’s needs without matter to what extent they are alienated because the people believe those needs are real. The system I have proposed will allow people to find their real needs.

It will depend on owners of small businesses as much as any other company whether they would like to join the “mega” company. If so, they will be welcome.

The most productive ticket stubs collector would probably be the cheapest one, the one asking the lowest price for the present work.

In the new system, each and every inhabitant will receive an income from the day of birth to the day of death without matter whether he or she works or not. The income will depend on the values of previous work, present work, on the realization of envisaged productivity, etc. That should at least diminish needs for stealing. People who make any kind of harm to society will face responsibilities for doing it by losing points of the past work (kind of humanist shares) proportionally to the damage they produced.

 

Electronic Tagging

Peter Nicolaysen wrote:

It seems to me that to make what you propose work would require that every individual on the planet be tracked from birth to death. This would only be possible with massive computer infrastructure and electronic tagging of every person. One single Electromagnetic Pulse could then have the ability to destroy the entire system. In addition with that level of control and tracking of individuals, the people charged with running the system would have almost unlimited power. There is a very old saying in the world “Ultimate Power, Ultimately corrupts” All centralize systems have suffered massively from corruption of those in the centre, the temptation is huge. How will your system address the problem of human nature being less than perfect, and sometimes completely evil.

 

Aleksandar Šarović wrote:

There is not a technical problem to implement such a system even today. Internet server networking with backup servers would perform what ever is needed without problems. If you are concerned about the privacy of information it could be establish the same way as it is today. The people charged with running and maintaining the system will be technicians without power at all. The unlimited power would belong only to the people through the process of direct democracy and democratic anarchy. It should be clear that democratic anarchy would significantly diminish evil. Social evil will be totally destroyed by the system itself through the process of disalienation. That is actually what the whole book is about and it cannot be explained briefly.