JC2. How the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity corrects errors...
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JC2. How the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity corrects errors of an old concept of
monopolar gravity

In chapters H and I of this monograph, a new scientific theory is presented, formulated in 1985, which is called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity. The rather extraordinary history of the development of this theory, together with manner it gradually evolved, is systematically explained in subsection L4 /?/. In the initial stage of development, this concept was formulated as a correction and rectifying the to-date (wrong) understanding of polarity of gravitational field by our science. (This wrong understanding of polarity of gravitational field by our science is called here the "old concept of monopolar gravity".) As it is commonly known, our science to-date insists that gravity field is a static monopolar type of field - similar to electrical field, or to pressure field. In turn the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity has proven conclusively, that the gravity field is a dynamic dipolar field, similar to a magnetic field, or to a field formed by circulation of air through a vacuum cleaner or through a propeller. The formal proof for the dipolar character of gravity field is presented in subsection H1.1. After the dipolar character of gravity field was formally proven, the newly formulated Concept of Dipolar Gravity rapidly transformed itself from an insignificant scientific theory, into a so-called "theory of everything", meaning into the theory, which explains all aspects of the universe around us, including into this also such matters as the existence of the universal intellect (God). The reason for this rapid transformation was, that by explaining the dipolar character of gravity field, meaning the fact that gravity contains two poles (i.e. "inlet - I" and "outlet - O"), this concept was inspired to carry out a discovery, that independently from our physical world, another parallel world must also exist, into which this second pole of gravity emerges. This in turn caused, that the newly born Concept of Dipolar Gravity identified and described attributes, phenomena and laws of this another world. The consequences of these descriptions were, amongst others, that the new concept constructively explained a whole range of phenomena that previously remained unexplained, although empirically they were known as existing objectively. These phenomena could not be explained by the old, faulty, although stubbornly adhered by our official orthodox science concept of monopolar gravity. Their examples include telekinesis, telepathy, magnetic interpretation of time, or the operation of our brain as an input-output device. After these phenomena were explained, the newly developed concept started to provide principles of operation for numerous new technical devices, described in subsections H6.1 to H6.2, and JD9, of this monograph. Their examples include free energy devices, telekinetic propulsors, telepathic telescopes and transmitters, time vehicles, etc.
The next accomplishment of the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity was that it proved the existence of the universal intellect (God), discovered the existence of moral laws, derived the philosophy of totalizm, and also discovered the existence of the opposite to totalizm philosophy (which also is a deadly moral illness) that in chapter KA /?/ is called "parasitism". This moral illness of parasitism has this to itself, that everyone who refuses to obey moral laws in his/her life, naturally falls into it - similarly as into a biological illness falls everyone who refuses to obey laws of hygiene. Unfortunately, one of consequences of the discovery of parasitism was, that the theory of this moral illness proves to us logically, that every technically advanced cosmic civilization, which fall a victim of this illness, with the elapse of time must transform itself into the so-called "evil parasites" described in subsection KA2 /?/. These evil parasites do not create anything by themselves, so they exist only because they rob other civilizations, which are technically less than they advanced. Thus, they are kinds of inter-galactic robbers and bandits, which live out of parasitism that is extended to other civilizations. They continue this robbery until the time when, as all those infected with the deadly moral disease of parasitism, they serve justice to themselves by causing a self-destruction. Because of the process of transforming into "evil parasites" is fully natural, this - in connection with the fact, that there is a lot of planets in the universe, which support the evolution of technically advanced civilizations, leads to a very shocking finding. This is because it forces us to logically discover - as this was systematically deduced in subsections OC1 to OC3 of this monograph, that every primitive civilization, including into this also our own civilization from the planet Earth, is the subject of an invisible robbery by some sort of technically advanced, but morally decadent, "evil parasites". Because of the reaching of this shocking conclusion, the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, together with totalizm which was derived from it, both earned a very strong hostility from these evil parasites, who currently in the manner unnoticeable to us, are robbing our civilization. These parasites from UFOs issued a sentence for the concept: in spite that it is a "theory of everything" so needed by our civilization, it must not be disseminated amongst people. The total blockade over the dissemination of the Concept of Dipolar Gravity, imposed by the evil parasites from UFOs who currently occupy and rob our civilization, was also extended to totalizm, which was derived from this concept. After all, the natural consequence of learning totalizm, is the subsequent asking a question: "what actually happens to all these people, and whole civilizations, who do not obey moral laws". In turn asking this question, and providing a correct answer to it, leads directly to the discovery of previously unnoticed activity of "evil parasites" on Earth. But in the vital interest of these evil parasites is to rob us for as long as it only is possible, without being noticed. Thus, in spite of the enormous potential of this "theory of everything" and totalizm, an effective blockade, which was imposed by "evil parasites" on their dissemination, causes that they can spread only in a full conspiracy.
The analyses of the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity reveal, that it represents much more then just a strict scientific theory, type "theory of everything". The Concept of Dipolar Gravity introduces also a completely new understanding of reality around us. Thus, it opens a new philosophical outlook at the universe. This outlook repairs a whole range of philosophical errors that humanity committed through a blind following of an old (although stubbornly adhered by our orthodox science even today) concept of monopolar gravity. After all, this old concept turned out not only to be completely wrong, but also dangerously cunning. To learn deviations to which it led our civilization, see subsection H1.2. Totalizm, which was derived from this new Concept of Dipolar Gravity, assumes now also a significant dose of responsibility for correcting the whole range of these errors, that our civilization directly committed in the to-date philosophical approach to reality around us. So let us list here the most important out of these philosophical errors that together with the new Concept of Dipolar Gravity, totalizm now is trying to correct:
#1. Ignoring the morality in our lives. The philosophy that is prevailing in our civilisation to-date, recognizes and considers only the physical outcomes of all our activities. But it completely ignores the moral outcomes. If one considers the history of any possible discovery, then it becomes obvious, that on the occasion of this discovery, two lessons were served to our civilization: one moral and one physical. The moral lesson resulted from the circumstances and complications in which a given discovery was made, and from the moral truth that we supposed to learn from them. In turn the physical lesson that we learned, stated whatever new was actually discovered. For example, when looking at the history of discovery of meteorites, which is presented in subsections O2.12 /?/ of monograph [1/4], and is mentioned in subsection JB7.3 of this monograph, one of numerous moral lessons, which originates from the self-inflation of the former president of the USA, Thomas Jefferson, states that "the evil which you do to others through unjustified scoffing at them in public, is going to be paid back to you to each single cent, when others are going to finger-point you as the example of a scoffer, who had no right, logic, or knowledge". In turn a physical lesson was: "stones/meteorites in fact can fall from heaven". In spite of this, from every event, which composes a history of science and humanity, our academic textbooks "distilled" and subsequently rejected, the moral lesson which emerged from it, and only concentrated on repeating the physical lesson. Thus, in spite that - as totalizm reveals this, "morality is the key to everything" (see subsection A2), our civilization always has ignored the moral component of every lesson that was given to us, thus wasting the countless number of chances for creating in people the awareness of the existence of the moral consequence in every human action. This in turn made impossible the earlier accomplishing by someone the analyses similar to those presented in subsection JB6, and arriving to the conclusions to which I arrived when I formulated totalizm. In the result of this rejection of moral truths, the everyday philosophy of our civilisation has been increasingly unreal, unfertile, and the increasingly less understanding the moral laws that rule this world. Also it increasingly faster goes towards the moral "black hole", which currently threatens the whole our civilization. Simultaneously grows the gap between our technical level and our moral state. Thus, according to totalizm, remembering only the physical outcome of every our experience, and ignoring or rejecting the moral lesson that this experience supposed to give us, slightly resembles this sarcastic joke from Poland from communistic times, which was informing about some country that used to buy Polish pianos, in order to throw our their content and use only their packing. At this point, in the name of totalizm, I would recommend to accept moral lessons from this everyday philosophy of our civilization, and to stop ignoring the moral component of every experience that affects us. For example, when lecturing or discussing about any of the events described in this monograph (e.g. in subsection JB7.3), perhaps lecturers should mention to their listeners also the moral lesson that stems from this event. In turn, observing in future a fate of Magnocraft described in subsections OC3.2, or the fate of person who invented it (me), perhaps we should also try to notice and understand the further course of the current "moral lesson" that the universal intellect (God) is serving to all of us during the current development in our sight of the complex moral situation that is addressed in this monograph.
#2. Missing out on the non-physical mechanisms of reality. The everyday philosophy of our civilization that prevails so-far, recognizes and considers only the physical mechanism of all events, completely ignoring the consequences of simultaneous operation of other mechanisms. An excellent illustration of such mechanisms ignored by it, could be various non-physical methods of healing explained in subsection I7 of this monograph, or consequences of karma that result from the Concept of Dipolar Gravity and from claims of totalizm - as explained in subsections I4.4 and A3. In the result, the everyday philosophy of our civilization distributes numerous untrue doctrines, including pushing on people wrong believes of the type that "accomplished can be everything that we know how to accomplish, that we have resources and verified in practice techniques of realization, and that we are determined to accomplish", or that "there are goals, which never can be accomplished". For example, according to the believes to-date, if someone has a gun and ammunition, and decides to shoot an other person, then with a bit of determination and precision of action he/she must be successful with this shooting. Simultaneously there is no even a single textbook, which would suggest that e.g. there is a possibility that on some planets people may live 50 000 earthly years, and still carry out a normal lives (however, see subsection G9.1 /?/). In turn totalizm states that "everything is possible - including also the appearance of unexpected obstacles in accomplishing goals that we considered to be completely banal, guaranteed, sure, and almost accomplished" - see subsection JB7.3. Therefore, according to totalizm, our intensions, capabilities, and means do not guarantee a final success, because "outcomes of our actions are coinciding with our intensions only in cases, when they do not stand in opposition to return of someone's karma, to moral laws, when they are in the range of someone's moral energy, etc.". In the above example it means that even if someone pushes a barrel of gun against someone's head, and pulls the trigger, still the final effect is defined by the karma and by other moral factors (actually I personally know a case, when a bandit missed in spite that he pressed a barrel to the victim's head - see item E2 in chapter H of monograph [5/3]). Simultaneously, according to totalizm, the goals that seem to be absolutely unattainable - if someone considers them only from the physical point of view, with a bit of dedication and perseverance sometimes can be quickly accomplished for nonphysical reasons.
#3. Unbalanced living. Our civilization indulges in extremes. For example, individual people lead either a life, which is fully religious, or they lead a life, which is almost atheistic. If they lead a religious life, they concentrate only on "spiritual" matters (in the incorrect understanding of "spirituality", that does not fulfil the totaliztic definition provided in subsection A9), and forget about physical aspects of life, and frequently also about feelings. In turn in atheistic life, they concentrate exclusively on physical aspects of their existence, ignoring spiritual aspects, and sometimes also feelings. It took the Concept of Dipolar Gravity and totalizm, to start emphasising the need for a balance between all three components of our lives, namely for a balance between our biological life, our feelings, and our spirituality. This is because these two disciplines established that we live simultaneously in three components (namely in our (1) biological body, in (2) counter-body, and in (3) registers/soul). Therefore in our lives we need to obey morally the laws, which are concerning all these three components. The model of life, which they postulate, is called here the "balanced secular life". In such a life, an equal attention is given to physical matters, as well as to feelings and to spirituality, so that none of these three aspects dominates over others. Simultaneously our spiritual aspect is treated as our personal and intimate manner of relating to the universal intellect, so that a given person does not manifest it publicly.
#4. A wrong approach to learning. The everyday philosophy of our civilization assumes in the theory and actions, that "everyone is constantly lying or is at wrong, unless he/she is able to conclusively prove that the statements that he/she makes are truthful, or that he/she is right" (see the parasitic doctrine #8 in subsection JB6 of this monograph). Therefore, in the process of teaching, and also in all activities of orthodox scientists, all facts, phenomena, or claims, the existence of which no one undoubtedly proved yet, are completely ignored. The effect is, that some phenomena of a random nature (e.g. all paranormal phenomena), or phenomena that purposely hide from us (e.g. UFOs, and the hidden activities of evil parasites on Earth), or that are included into the canon of ambiguity described in subsections JB7.4 and I3.5, never are going to be considered by the official orthodox science. Furthermore, every new theory, concept, or device, are rejected until the moment of time, when someone conclusively proves, that they are absolutely correct. Because, together with the progress of orthodox science, the capabilities of people to oppose and to disprove, are continually on the increase, in the present times we reached so paradox situation, that no new idea of a breakthrough nature can be proposed, because for every such an idea orthodox scientists find some excuse to reject it. The only exit from this situation is to accept the principle of totalizm, which states that "all claims of other people are true, unless it is conclusively proven that they are untrue" (see the principle '8 in subsection JB6). Acting according to this principle, each new idea is correct, until someone proves that it does not agree with reality. (E.g. in a way as in chapters HB and H it is proven that the idea of "antigravity", and also the "concept of monopolar gravity" adhered until today by our orthodox science, are totally contradictive to the reality around us.) So it is not necessary to prove all statements before they are noticed, and it suffices to put them forward and to take on ourselves the responsibility for their truthfulness. In such manner classical scientists were working, when over two centuries ago they formulated foundations of the today knowledge (although today scientists seem to forgotten about this), in this way an old concept of monopolar gravity was formulated, and so-far was considered to be one of the basic pillars of our science - means no-one ever proved that the monopolar gravity is correct, but simply it was introduced by someone and then was "accepted" by everyone. Due to such an approach, countless areas of scientific searches and empirical observations, which so-far were rejected by orthodox science and textbooks because no-one was able to prove that they do exist, can be saved from being ignored.
#5. Ignoring the folklore and folk wisdom. The everyday philosophy of our civilization ignores the folk wisdom and folklore, and forces into our youngsters the believe, that everything stated by legends, sayings, or by old people, is simply creation of imaginations. But it only takes the content of this monograph to realize, that almost all new discoveries that it presents in a scientific manner, in one or the other form were already known to folk wisdom for centuries, if not for thousands of years. This in turn reveals that the folk wisdom and folklore is in fact incomparably deeper and more correct than our today scientific knowledge, only that it is deprived the formalism, strictness, and terminology of the official science. Also it accumulates in itself over forty thousands of years of traditions and accumulation of empirical observations, while our current scientific knowledge is only several hundred years old. (Some our folklore probably even originates from sources much older then humanity itself.) Thus instead of scoffing at folk wisdom, our science should show respect towards it - which a small kid should display towards someone who reached a mature age. Instead of talking about it with the lack of respect, scientists should utilise it as a source of inspiration about ideas and phenomena, which normally are unnoticeable. Instead of finger-pointing at it, as at an example of superstition and imagination, science should recommend it to everyone to study it carefully and to learn from it. This is because we should not forget a moral lesson which is repeated over and over again, and which states that "whenever a collision takes place between statements of our science, and claims of folk wisdom, at the final count it always turns out that the science was at wrong".
#6. The lack of readiness to study all areas of unknown. The everyday philosophy of our civilization claims that "in the universe only some accomplishments are possible, out of which almost all we managed to learn, master, and now we teach in our schools and universities" (see the parasitic doctrine #5 in subsection JB6). In turn totalizm states that "in the intelligent universe, everything that is possible to think about, is also possible to accomplish". Therefore the process of our gradual discovery of the increasingly extensive capabilities of the universe is going to last infinitively long duration of time, and practically never ends. Thus, the knowledge that is already learned and taught in our schools and universities, is just an insignificant introduction to a huge ocean of knowledge, which still awaits to be discovered in the future."
#7. The lack of awareness of the infinity of knowledge. According to the current philosophy of our civilization "knowledge is finite and in some areas we already know everything for sure and with all details". For example, according to this philosophy our lecturers and teachers act as if the Newton's laws describe the motion of objects absolutely precise and as if any more precise manner of describing this motion does not exist. In turn totalizm states that "knowledge is so infinite, that never and no-one can manage to learn everything. Therefore the reality which surrounds us can be described on infinitive number of manners, while each one of these descriptions, from the definition must be only approximate and must hide in itself many simplifying assumptions and gross inaccuracies". Thus in relation to the above example totalizm states that: (1) Newton's laws capture only a rough approximation of motion of objects, (2) the motion of objects can be described much more precisely than Newton's laws do it, (3) the motion of objects can be described in practically infinitive number of completely different manners - Newton's laws are only one of them, and (4) every description of motion of objects is going to hide in itself some inaccuracies and simplifying assumptions, which people that use this description should be aware of, thus which should be clearly outlined in textbooks and during teaching.
#8. The lack of openness in various disciplines. The major error of many formal philosophies and religions of our civilization to-date, is that with the elapse of time, and with the growth of our knowledge, they become completely outdated. This is because their development was frozen and stopped hundreds or thousands of years ago, just after they were formulated, and ever since they do not develop at all. In order to repair this error, the Concept of Dipolar Gravity and totalizm recommend that "absolutely every discipline of human activities must remain open at all times". It must assume its own imperfection and the need to constantly improve and extend itself. Totalizm tries to follow up this own recommendation, and it remains a discipline, which is completely open all the time - see subsection JB8. Thus, totalizm itself is not a closed, finished in the development, hardened, and pretending, that it already is perfect - as other philosophies and religions do, but it assumes the constant improvements of itself, as our knowledge makes further progress. This also means that a number of totaliztic rules and tools, as well as their content, simplicity, level of generalization, efficiency, and the level of perfection, are constantly increasing with the progress of our knowledge. (For this reason, the reader is encouraged to look again at the future formulation of totalizm, after some time elapses, because a number of issues, which in this edition of totalizm still remain unexplained, underdeveloped, or described in a clumsy or unclear manner, in the next editions are going to be presented much better.) In this aspect the Concept of Dipolar Gravity and totalizm remind a building, which in spite that is utilised and highly useful, never receives the final form, because every new accomplishment in research may fruit in the addition of further rooms to it. The readers are invited to add their own contribution to the further perfecting of this new, moral, and progressive philosophy of everyday life, the foundations of which are presented in this monograph (this contribution could be excellently started from forwarding to me the constructive comments that the readers may have about the present formulation of this philosophy).
#9. The placing of authorities on pedestals. The everyday philosophy of our civilization to-date, created various structures, which raise so-called authorities, above average people. For example, at universities there is a strict hierarchy, while someone's position in that hierarchy decides about the influence and power of a given person. Similarly is with governing, controlling, social structure, etc. In turn totalizm states: "do NOT trust blindly any person of authority, because every authority is a human, and thus by the definition must be erroneous". Therefore all accessible knowledge, and also all decisions, judgements, or situations, always treat as containing some level of error (but also a remaining percent of correctness). Only that at a given stage usually we do not know, which part of them is that one that carries an error. Thus every knowledge, decision, or situation that you encounter, always treat only as a starting point for further improvements and verification, although simultaneously relay on it, because in a given moment of time there is nothing else that we would know as more verified and perfect.
#10. The pushing down creators and oppressing creativity. The everyday philosophy of our civilization to-date introduced numerous traditions, which significantly limit the development, and which suppress creativity. In order to provide here a representative example, one of the very paralysing limitations, which has grown from the parasitic philosophy, is the requirement of a narrow specialization of scientists. It is commonly known that in present days the construction of even a smallest machine, or the development of even the least significant project, requires the converging into a single system of the knowledge that originates from at least several different disciplines. Therefore no complete project can presently be done by a narrowly specialized expert. Also a folk wisdom for a long time tries to realize to us that people who are highly specialized, are unable to carry out creative activities - the popular saying directly states that they have "blinkers on eyes" (i.e. the same "blinkers" that people use for horses to disallow them to look sideways). But in spite of this, whenever for example someone wishes to find an employment on any university, he/she has no slightest chance for a success, if is not able to document that is a narrow specialist in some discipline, and that his/her mental horizons in no way extend beyond the limitations of this discipline. If a potential scientist admits that is interested in several disciplines at the same time, then no university wants to employ him/her, explaining that the need for a specialization requires to employ a narrow specialist. In the result, our universities are gradually staffed up with narrow specialists with closed minds, who managed to learn a lot about a small topic, but who are not able to see this topic in the proportions and prospective of real-life requirements. Thus practically so-called "specialization" at universities, gradually becomes a cover behind which scientists are practising parasitism, and also a smoke screen, behind which close minds hide their lack of competence and ignorance. Totalizm in definition recommends to break this specialized infertility of creators and creativity. After all, itself (means the totalizm), it would never be able to be formulated if it would be created by narrow specialists - see the explanations about the origin of totalizm provided in the introductory part of subsection L4 /?/. If the reader still do not believe me, that a narrow specialist never would be able to formulate totalizm, then I would recommend to undertake a deep discussion about a vital details of totalizm, with a nearest narrow expert, and with his/her own eyes discover, how large part of the knowledge, which is composed into this philosophy, such an expert managed to accumulate. This realizes that just only because of the history of origin, totalizm must suggest requirements regarding creators and scientists to be completely opposite from those used to- date. What these requirements should be, of course is quite easy to establish even without totalizm - i.e. through combining together the characteristics of knowledge of known people, who already proved in action to have highly efficient and creative minds (unfortunately, the exact description of the requirements that must be fulfilled by someone's mind in order to become creative, would reveal the complete incompetence for performing their job for the majority of to-day scientists). Even without a long-term requirements, and only by a brief discussion with such people, it immediately becomes obvious that their knowledge is moral, as well as both wide and deep, namely that their view of the world includes strong moral foundations, and also that they have mastered the knowledge from several different disciplines, and that each one of these disciplines they mastered reasonable deep (i.e. they do not master it just on the surface, but also learned all these small details, which make their knowledge practically useful). Exactly the same is stated by the folk wisdom, the popular statement of which claims that creative people are those ones, who are able to accomplish correctly and completely everything that they lie their hands on. In turn people with "blinkers on eyes" (means close-minded, narrow specialists), according to the folk wisdom are not creative at all. Also are NOT creative all those people with a wide but shallow knowledge (means those who know a lot in a general manner, but do not get familiar with these small details which make this knowledge practically useful), or people unable to carry out their intensions to the successful end (means people with a low responsibility and a low moral power - see popular English saying "success is 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration", or similar Polish saying "in order to have results, one needs to have oil in the head and led in the bum"). In order to express this in other words "creativity is growing from a combination of moral motivations and the ability of someone's mind to deeply encompass tiny practical details in very large span of different problems; therefore neither an immoral altitude, or a narrow or shallow thinking, by the definition is unable to give out a creative product".
Totalizm does not sets its own rules or laws, but only tries to discover and express in an easy to learn form the laws of the universe that are already working. Therefore, the above finding regarding creativity, according to totalizm could be expressed that before scientists could be employed as scientists, they should be required to be able to document their deep and practical mastery of several different disciplines (e.g. not less then three disciplines), one of which should concern moral foundations of human behaviour (e.g. it should be totalizm). For example, according to my deep believe, during employing new lecturers for universities the most important criterion of receiving an employment, which should be executed independently from the discipline of the applicant, should be a success in the at least one hour long public lecture, which presents, analyses, or interprets clearly and convincingly selected moral aspects of totalizm. If a potential lecturer or a professor, is unable to explain some aspects of morality in a clear and convincing manner, then for certain, such a person does not deserve to receive a chance of shaping the character of future members of our society (surely, I would not like such a person comes anywhere near my own children).
#11. Dividing instead of linking. The everyday philosophy of our civilization to-date promotes and highlights the differences, borders, limitations, inabilities, etc. - means all these divisions which exists between people, as well as between ideas. For example, almost every country puts emphases on a native language, teaches patriotism and nationalism, reassures about the necessity of having country borders, about the need to have our own country, government, citizenship, society, barriers, hierarchy, obedience, limitations, etc. Does not exist in present schools even a single subject, which would teach a totaliztic thinking, showing for example, what would happens if there are no borders, countries, citizenship, ideologies, political parties, divisions, if everyone could go and live wherever would like to, etc. Totalizm recommends a total reversal. It highlights the meaning of similarities, freedom, free will, morality, and puts a significant stress on considering as a whole, on mutual cooperation, on removing differences, on avoiding privileges, hierarchy, divisions, borders, countries, ideologies, citizenship, and other raised by people barriers that limit anyone's moral energy. It also warns that concentration of attention on differences and divisions is a source of a whole range of deviations, evil, and problems, which would not trouble our civilization if people would not be taught in schools and universities to divide instead of linking, if there are not borders between countries, if everyone could easily move and live wherever wishes - not only in the country which is a citizen, if people are not privileged or suppress only because of the place of birth or differences they show in relation to other people, etc. In order to understand how different from totalizm is the approach of present philosophy of humanity, it is worth to consider how would look our planet, if all these artificially introduced divisions and limitations, which decrease our moral energy, such as passports, visas, work permits, etc., are rapidly removed. How would then look the balance of gains and losses in comparison to the present state, and which groups in the current societies would loose, while which ones would gain on such a limitless civilization. Also what percentage of the society would gain, while what percentage would loose on such a change.
While reading this subsection it is worth to notice that every one of the errors of the philosophy of our civilization to-date, in totalizm is repaired itself by the way in which totalizm is formulated. But in order to realize the existence and the need to repair these errors, each one of them needed to be pointed out in this subsection.
The trial of time already managed to confirm that the totaliztic approach, which in the list of items above is revealed in parallel to the errors of the old philosophy, does not hide any serious overlooking or error. Thus it is correct. This in turn means, that the understanding of reality to-date, which is an outcome of the old and erroneous concept of monopolar gravity, represents a faulty reversal of the totaliztic approach. Of course, with the elapse of time we must undertake the effort of eliminating this erroneous approach from our lives. But before time comes that we are allowed to do this, we could keep being aware, that now - when absurdity of the philosophy of our civilization to-date is disclosed, even just the sole fact of exposing this problem, is a positive step forward. Although the old philosophy still lives in our society, totalizm already shows a new picture of the world around us, which is alternative to the old and faulty one that is still being disseminated by current academic textbooks. In turn just the fact of learning of this totaliztic picture of reality, allows the interested people to gain a new frame of references, from which they may start to notice the incorrectness of commonly accepted ways and social structures.

=> JD.
Antworten to top

Gehe zu:

Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste