The four terms of “world”, “coalition”, “political steering”, and “agencies” are distinct in meaning; but in the context of this work of mine these four terms are mutually corroborative. This means that world coalition political steering agencies constitute an intrinsic whole, which is an entity encompassing (1) an executive system composed of one government and seven organizations, (2) a legislative system composed of a parliament and three houses, and (3) a judicial system composed of a judicial commission, a supreme court, a prosecutorate, a police general headquarters, and a lawyers’ administration.
That so many disparate organizations can be woven into one piece of fabric is due to the fact that they share some basic concepts and strive for the same goal as specified in their common programs. Whether has an entity fortified itself with appropriate operational programs? What kinds of programs has it adopted? Are its programs optimally shared by all its integral parts? On answers to these questions hinges the fate of the political steering agencies which would be responsible for managing the world affairs on behalf of the world population of six billion. Common programs would serve to orientate, give momentum to, and instill ideals into these agencies.
Now let us examine the essence of the goal, point of departure, guideline, and method that are set forth in the common programs.
(A) The basic program of a world coalition government: “liberty multiplied by unity”
Establishment of a unified global constitutional democratic
system that is expected to guarantee liberty to the world population
and sovereignty to all countries
“On producing a coin from your pocket, your attention would be drawn to the facts that Madison’s chief concern was liberty and that Washington’s chief concern was unification or unity. How could these two ideas run parallel to each other? After you have studied closely a silver quarter and a silver dime and then a nickel, you would notice that the word “liberty” appears in bold type. That is quite all right, because what our nation has experienced points to the fact that liberty stands out in high relief in American values and is her ultimate destination. And probably you would notice the legend in Latin on a coin: ‘E PLURIBUS UNUM’ (meaning: ‘identifying affinity in the midst of discrepancies’, or ‘seeking to unify the discrete’).”
--quoted from Government by the People
The inscription of the two words, “liberty” and “unity”, on a coin tends to induce Americans to believe that the two disparate ideas can be joined together in parallelism. To put the two disparate ideas into effect in everyday life calls for—just as the author of Government by the People points out in page 5 of the work—“the establishment of a constitutional democratic system fit for putting the two great ideas into effect simultaneously”.
How to handle the relation between liberty and unity has been a headache for politicians for many thousand years, because the two ideas appear to be mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.
In the history of man, there have been four major kinds of political systems: (1) monarchy established on the basis of a throne-abdication, (2) democratic system, (3) monarchy, and (4) political-party dictatorship.
“Monarchy established on the basis of a throne-abdication” should be counted as the best political system, so far as the relation between liberty and unity are concerned. Not long before an aged monarch was going to pass away, he summoned all his people to a magnificent altar, sincerely asking them to elect a new monarch to replace him. On such an occasion, everybody at the altar would honestly act as his conscience would dictate. They would, out of their deep pious respect for all deities, nominate a candidate who, they honestly thought, would be worthy of the throne and whom, they would believe, deities would truly trust. Such a political system as was based on abdication of throne by an aged ruler and acceptance of the throne by a young and virtuous new ruler should be counted as an ideal one. But as civilization progressed and as influence of deities on man decreased, such a political system receded into oblivion. And in its place have emerged the other three political systems.
The differences between the other three political systems can be indicated in terms of the differences in the way they handle the relations between liberty and unity. Therefore “democratic system” can be expressed in the formula of “liberty minus unity” or “unity divided by liberty”. The political systems in the countries in West Europe and North America and all the government systems that are created by means of democratic election are countries following “democratic system”. As the political systems in these countries all adopt the formula of “a proper type of liberty minus another proper type of unity” or “a proper type of unity divided by another proper type of liberty”, such a type of “democratized political system”
is inevitably impregnated with “liberalism”, “anarchism”, “individualism”, and some negative lines of conduct as characteristic of “egotism” or “materialism” which are derivatives from “individualism”. But history has indicated that such a type of “democratic system” actually preys on nothing but ordinary people, democracy, and liberty.
“Unity minus liberty” or “liberty divided by unity” is the characteristic of monarchy or political-party dictatorship. Monarchy is a rule by men. Political-party dictatorship is a rule of minority over majority. Under a monarchic system, the destiny of a nation hinges upon the intellect and personality of a monarch. More often than not a nation suffers because of its bad or incompetent monarch. A political-party dictatorship fares little better than a monarchy, because the destiny of a country under political-party dictatorship hinges overmuch on the intellect and personality of the top leader of that party and also on the party’s capacity for correcting its own mistakes. Of course, more often than not a country suffers awfully under political-party dictatorship. Both monarchy and political-party dictatorship are crippled by their failure to handle properly the relation between liberty and unity. History has convincingly proved that countries plagued by monarchy or political-party dictatorship have to often be rocked by coups d’etat, revolts, or armed uprisings. In such countries disturbances and “political earthquakes” happen almost periodically. Consequently only ordinary people, nation, and unity are victimized.
Some countries—for example, some countries in North America that follow “democratic system” and some countries in East Asia that follow “political-party dictatorship—have awakened to the harms inflicted upon their countries by disturbances or upheavals taking place in the past and are now seeking to avert such harms by changing the formula from “unity minus liberty” (or “liberty divided by unity) into “enlarged liberty plus diminished unity” or into “enlarged unity plus diminished liberty”. To tell the truth, liberty and unity, two indispensable elements in human nature, would tolerate no tampering, in whatever form—a plus sign, a minus sign, or a division sign—the tampering may assume. Whenever the two indispensable elements in human nature are tampered with in a country, its government would be in trouble soon. The two elements are inseparable, because liberty is lost if it is not safeguarded by unity, whereas unity is impossible if it is not helped along by liberty. Therefore liberty should be borne out by unity; and unity should be embodied in every instance of liberty.
Based upon the reasoning given above, I would offer to define the basic political system under the leadership of world coalition political steering agencies as follows: “It is only under a unified global constitutional democratic system that liberty to the world population and sovereignty to all countries can be safely guaranteed.” Befitting such a basic political system would be the following formula: “liberty is multiplied by unity.”
“Liberty” is by no means a highfalutin and hollow idea. Answers to a lot of questions connected with the idea of liberty constitute the solid content of the idea of liberty—questions such as “What is the basic definition of ‘liberty’?” “Whose liberty are we now talking about?” “What kind of liberty do we desire?” “How can liberty be safeguarded?” “Who should be held responsible for safeguarding liberty?” “How can liberty be enhanced or elevated to a higher level?” If we would delve deep into the answers to these questions, it would be revealed to us that liberty, as an important basic right of man, interconnects and interacts with other rights of man. In the first place it interconnects and interacts closely with unity. For example, the answer to the question: “What kind of liberty do we desire?” can only be that “liberty that rests on the basis of unity is the very kind of liberty we desire.” Again for example, the answer to the question, “how can liberty be safeguarded?” can only be that “it is only by dint of a political system based on unity that liberty can be best safeguarded.” Again for example, the answer to the question: “Who should be held responsible for safeguarding liberty?” can only be that “the World Constitution which symbolizes the unity of the world should be held responsible for safeguarding liberty”.
The formula, “liberty is multiplied by unity”, actually means that all kinds of liberty which all world citizens need can be multiplied or amplified by unity. Here, “all kinds of liberty” refers to such kinds of liberty as liberty of creating, liberty of pursuing happiness, liberty of speech, liberty of the press, liberty of conscience. It is only by adhering to the formula, “liberty is multiplied by unity”, that liberty can be truly upheld, amplified, and elevated. And it is only by putting the formula into effect that unity can become an indispensable prerequisite to safeguarding, amplifying, and elevating liberty. Take liberty of conscience for an example. It is only when a devotee of a religion would assimilate his religious faith with the unity of his religion, the unity of his nation, the unity of all religions in the world, and the unity of the universe that his right to liberty of conscience can be upheld to the utmost. The tunes of liberty and unity so lustily strummed by some “liberal” rulers or “kindhearted” gentlefolk in the history of our civilization were mere pretensions. However the ideas of liberty and unity mentioned in this treatise are qualities intrinsic in human nature; and the definitions given by me to the two of them are based on their real interconnection and interaction.
In short, that liberty and unity, as two ideas, are disparate but interconnected and mutually exclusive and yet mutually supporting. It is precisely due to the invulnerable validity of the formula, “liberty is multiplied by unity”, that liberty “can serve as key innate element in man’s political life”; and it is also due to the invulnerable validity of the formula that unity “can serve as a favorable environment to benefit man’s political life”. Otherwise liberty and unity would remain mutually hostile, mutually exclusive, and mutually destroying; and they would be bogged down in an everlasting vicious cycle.
A state, as an important political actor, needs “sovereignty”, so that it can enjoy liberty while adhering to the unity called for by world politics. Establishment of a world coalition government is not at all an infringement upon sovereignty of any country in the world. Nor would the said establishment be an encroachment upon autonomy of a country. Actually the said establishment would positively help every country to safeguard its independence and sovereignty. In case a country chose to stay away from global political unity, its independence and sovereignty would certainly become precarious. It is only when a country is under the leadership of a world coalition government that it can secure its independence and sovereignty and be on an equal standing with other countries. It is only when all countries would treat one another with equality that they can complement and help bring prosperity to one another.
I have used the expression “constitutional and democratic global political system” in my definition given to the term “world political system”. Here the epithet “constitutional” is used to signify that the global political system under the leadership of a world coalition government sets the greatest store by the World Constitution. And here, the epithet “democratic” is used to signify that the global political system in question must be one completely under the control of all world citizens. In other words, a world coalition government should be elected by a ballot of all world citizens and authorized by all of them. On the other hand, all world citizens should abide by the World Constitution, all the laws, and the global political system.
(B) The political program of a world coalition government: “The four top concerns”
The interests of all world citizens should be one of our top concerns.
The well-being and security of an individual world citizen should be one of our top concerns.
The issue of human rights should be one of our top concerns.
World peace should be one or our top concerns.
My elaboration on the proposition that the interests of all world citizens should be one of our top concerns.
The interests of a country, the interests of an individual world citizen, and the interests of a world coalition government should not be at variance in the final analysis. The affinity between the three would be embodied in the interests of all world citizens. So it is evident that it is only when the interests of all world citizens would be regarded as our top concern that the interests of an individual world citizen and those of a country can be well taken care of. Some people hold that since to promote the interests of a country would more often than not be tantamount to promoting the interests of an individual citizen, to promote the interests of a world coalition government would more often than not be tantamount to promoting the interests of all countries in the world. This sounds plausible but is not true. A country or an individual citizen does have many sorts of interests to look after. Of them, all are not in keeping with the interests of all world population. Under such circumstances, a world coalition government would have no alternative but to take the interests of all world citizens as its top concern. For example, Climate in the Arctic or the Antarctic would not be a concern for some countries or for multitudes of citizens but does directly affect both the interests of all countries across the world and the life of the world population. In short, “the interests of all world citizens” are actually the basic and long-term interests of all countries and world citizens. To put it another way, it is only by treating the interests of all world citizens as their top concern that world coalition political steering agencies would have all their operation correctly oriented and be in a position to ward off the shady impact on the agencies and their public servants—impact which would come from nationalism, egotism, etc.
My elaboration on the proposition that the well-being and security of an individual world citizen should be one of our top concerns.
In a lifetime, everybody has wishes galore, endeavors galore, and desires galore. Of all of them the most significant one is security compounded by well-being, because without security and well-being his survival would be out of the question. What is the most important for an individual world citizen is of equal importance for world coalition political steering agencies. One can have life only once, so life is the most precious thing for a human being.
But the life of a human being differs completely from that of an animal or plant, because the former is characterized by its plasticity, which means the life of a human being can be molded not only by an external force but by his own volition. Such a quality in man qualifies him to be a higher form of life and constitutes the drive that has caused him to create and then further develop civilization. It is precisely due to the plasticity in man that necessary conditions should be created by the government of a country and especially by a world coalition government to enable man to change for the better by giving free rein to the plasticity in him. In other words, a world coalition government should do everything in its power to enable every human being to enjoy happiness, longevity, and good health and have his mentality richly furnished with truth, goodness, beauty, excellence, and pleasure. Therefore I believe the significance and vitality of world coalition government serving as the emblem of world coalition political steering agencies lies in its taking the security and well-being of an individual world citizen as one of its top concerns. It is only when a world coalition government would adhere to such a course of action that man could be guaranteed a bright future, that the life of all world citizens would blossom in hopefulness, and that world coalition government would prove to be irreplaceable as a political actor.
My elaboration on the proposition that the issue of human rights should be one of our top concerns.
I would offer an analysis of this proposition in its four aspects. (1) For a human being, deprivation of his human rights is tantamount to reducing him to the status of an animal, because an animal is naturally deprived of human rights and can live without them, but a human being cannot. (2) The issue of human rights is now the most sensitive topic in everyday life and one of the knottiest problems of contemporary world politics, since human rights have been warped or alienated by the existing political systems and vile politicians to such a degree that the clownish apparel human rights are currently in not only makes us aware how miserable man now is but provokes us to inquire why man would allow himself to stoop so low. (3) So long as man exists on the earth, and so long as man is divided by different political systems and continues to experience inequality under them, human rights will certainly be alienated from man. (4) The issue of human rights is very complicated and claims much more scholarly attention than it has been accorded so far. For example, owing to limited resources of a country or region, a program of birth control has to be enforced there. But such an enforcement of birth control program might be dismissed as an instance of human-right violation. Problems such as “the advisability of letting mentally retarded parents to procreate”, “serious family dispute”, “what sort of equality between sexes is in line with human rights?” are inseparable from the circumstances, under which human rights are put into effect. In a word, the issue of human rights would assume different forms in different times and places. That is why a world coalition government would have to regard the issue of human rights as one of its top concerns.
My elaboration on the proposition that world peace should be one of our top concerns.
Peace is an indispensable prerequisite to continuum of mankind on the earth and efficient implementation of human rights. War and terrorism would lead man nowhere. Peace in a country is an indispensable prerequisite to its survival. Likewise world peace is an indispensable prerequisite to the survival of mankind. This is particularly evident today when the world is experiencing its diminution into a Global Village and when different parts of the world are being compelled into sharing the same destiny. Being aware of such a worldwide development, even ordinary people are apt to feel overly alarmed about or even a bit oversensitive of an outbreak of military clash in any part of the world. However in the age of Global Village, indifference to an event that might adversely affect peace or security in any part of the world might as well be regarded as an instance of indecent disregard of the actualities of our age. Nowadays it is completely feasible for a tourist to roam about, carrying with him a little parcel containing such a virus as is capable of inducing a severely contagious disease that can bring about a worldwide incidence within a week. Nowadays an exorbitant megaton nuclear test would fatally affect the earth’s atmosphere in a matter of hours. In a word, world peace should be one of the top concerns for the human race, not to say a world coalition government.
(C) The philosophic program of a world coalition government: “The four share one’s”
The world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the universe—All in the universe share one origin.
The world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on values—All humans share one human nature.
The world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the way of life of man—All religions share one godhood.
The world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the significance of life—Matter, Homo, and godhood share one being.
Here the word “share” in the four different contexts as shown above is intended for connoting:—
(1) one origin shared—(Man can serve as an instance attesting to the phenomenon of “one origin shared”, because all human beings come from one origin—a human zygote.),
(2) one form of existence shared—(All human beings living on our planet, for example, share the same form of existence, that is a life led on the surface of the earth.), and
(3) one quality shared—(All human beings, for example, share one quality, that is human nature).
And here the word “one” is intended for connoting:—
(1) once, not more than once—(For example, the phenomenon that a form of life can live only once is shared by and exclusive to all forms of life.),
(2) only and exclusive—(This is identical in meaning to “one form of existence shared” referred to above.), and
(3) uniform without variation or fluctuation—(This means “uniformity”.).
So it is evident that the two words “share” and “one” are semantically close but different in part of speech. The subject of the verb “share” must be a noun in plural number, whereas the noun “one” implies a situation where ingredients of a noun in plural number have been made to converge, or even an unlimited number of ingredients have been made to converge.
What must be stressed here is that the proposition of “the four share one’s” is a brand-new mode of cogitation, or, shall we say, a cogitative mode befitting the age of globalization. This proposition is actually a philosophic concept, or a mode of intellectual speculation. It maintains that the status of a development, its relations with other developments, its evolving, and the trend of its evolving should be accounted for in terms of its intrinsic qualities. In short, the mode of intellectual speculation defined by this proposition is characterized by a cogitative pattern of “going from the internal to reach the external and interpreting the external in terms of the internal”. Since time immemorial, classical Chinese philosophy has been propagating the theories that “man and nature should be at one”, that “all human beings must live in harmony”, and that “unity always ends in disunity and vice versa”. The desire to seek to be “at one”, the desire to seek “harmony”, and the desire to seek “unity” are all based on a cogitative pattern of “going from the external to reach internal and interpreting the internal in terms of the external”. That is why man and nature would never be at one for all the strenuous efforts classical Chinese philosophy has been making for millennia, trying to exhort man and nature to become harmonious with each other. Man and nature would not be at one so long as the effort to unify the two into oneness originates with the external, instead of the internal. Take a family consisting of three people—husband, wife, and a child—for example. To make the three people in a family at one, in harmony, or in unity by following the cogitative mode peculiar to classical Chinese philosophy of “going from the external to reach the internal” would lead nowhere because harmony in a family of three can never be achieved by the intervention of any external force. But the cogitative pattern of “going from the internal to reach the external” is adopted for bringing the three people in a family to unity compounded by harmony, the outcome would necessarily be that everybody in the family would do what he or she is expected to do and be the complement of each other. The three of them would in that case “live with the differences between them and become united in spite of the differences between them”.
In short, the theory of “the four share one’s” provides us with a sharp insight into the actualities, so that we would be enabled to detect the “absolute fundamentality”, “absolute exclusiveness”, and “absolute cardinal importance” hidden behind the kaleidoscopic panorama which the universe presents to us.
My elaboration on the world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the universe—All in the universe share one origin.
At the close of 1980s, I advanced my philosophic theory of “the four share one’s”. Here I should like to add that the word “one” actually means “sameness”. The term “the four share one’s” refers to the following four propositions:
(1) “All that have emerged in the universe share ‘sameness’ because they all assume a form of existence”. This is a philosophic proposition.
(2) “All human beings share ‘sameness’ to some extent in the matter of values”. This is a human-science proposition.
(3) “All deities share ‘sameness’ in the matter of how to deal with mankind.” This is a theological proposition.
(4) “There is ‘sameness’ shared by matter, man, and godhood.” This is a life-science proposition.
Albert Einstein was a great scientist. He formulated the special theory of relativity when he was less than thirty and the general theory of relativity when he was under forty. The latter half of his life was spent making researches into the energetic unity of the universe. I should like to point out that actually his special theory of relativity and general theory of relativity are respectively a simple version and a complicated version of my theory of “the four share one’s”. His proposition of “the energetic unity of the universe” is actually identical with my proposition that “all that have emerged in the universe share ‘sameness’ because they all assume a form of existence”. Einstein consistently believed in the reality of the universe, the reality of all forms of existence in the universe, and the existence of the four kinds of interaction. (Perhaps beyond the four kinds there are other kinds of interaction of interaction such as the spiritual dynamic, the dynamic of practice.) He also believed in the existence of unity in everything in the universe and the existence of unity between all things in the universe. Why would he adhere so firmly to these beliefs of his? It is because he was convinced that all things in the universe share “sameness’ because they all assume a form of existence. Viewed in the perspective of physics, the “sameness” shared by all things in the universe is, in essence, the intrinsic quality of fundamental “energy”.
Judging from the forms in which energy manifests itself, energy falls into the following categories:
(1) Matter energy (such as basic-particle energy, substance energy, and all forms of body energy).
(2) Field energy (such as energy generated by relation, alternate energy, energy of human emotion, energy of human cognition).
(3) Intellectual energy (such as “the black hole in the universe” as mentioned by Stephen Hawking, “absolute idea” as mentioned by Hegel, “categorical imperative” as mentioned by Immanuel Kant, “cosmic consciousness as mentioned by Anilk Rajvanshi, “the soul of man”, “intellectual awareness”, “inspiration”).
Of any of the three categories of energy, all ingredients share “sameness”. For example, all forms of matter energy have the inherent capacity for doing work and being converted. Again for example, all forms of field energy have the inherent capacity for resonance and interaction. Moreover matter energy, field energy, and intellectual energy share “sameness, too.
Some people may be tempted to pose to us the question: Are there some innate qualities in energy? Or, “On what does dynamic potential rely to make itself into “energy” as well as an “essence” shared by all forms of existence in the universe? To answer this question, we have to revert to a philosophic proposition I raised in the middle of the 1970s; and the significance of that proposition has become even more pronounced today. And that proposition concerns “the nature of determinism-anti-determinism”, which is not only the structural essence of everything in the universe but the essence of all kinds of relations in the universe and not only the essence of universal momentum but the essence of universal tendency. Quoted below is a passage from one of my papers addressing that proposition:
“The term ‘determinism’ connotes that existence, development, and nature of an object ‘A’ combine to exercise a decisive influence on existence, development, and nature of another object ‘B’. By ‘anti-determinism’ is meant that while ‘B’ is being determined by ‘A’, ‘B’ exercises in turn a decisive influence on ‘A’. By the term ‘the nature of determinism-anti-determinism’ is meant that throughout the course in which ‘A’ is determining ‘B’，‘B’ is in turn determining ‘A’. Here the underlined word ‘throughout’ is of overwhelming importance in the sentence and is intended for laying stress on the fact that the process of ‘determinism’ and that of ‘anti-determinism’ take place simultaneously and without any interruption. The intensity of anti-determinism exercised by ‘B’ on ‘A’ can never exceed that of determinism exercised by ‘A’ on ‘B’. In the final analysis, determinism cannot occur unless anti-determinism begins to operate, though the intensity of anti-determinism must stay within the bounds acceptable to determinism. However determinism of ‘A’ would be improved or elevated because of anti-determinism; and so would anti-determinism.
I believe ‘determinism-anti-determinism’ is the most important essence of the universe. By ‘essence of the universe’ is meant the quintessence of energy permeating the universe, or the inmost secret of the universe. It is due to the existence of determinism that not only the universe but everything in it is endowed with certainty, sameness, orderliness, systematism, orientation. On the other hand, it is due to anti-determinism that not only the universe but everything in it is endowed with vivacity and novelty. All the motivations, momentums, and orientations are generated at the intersections, convergences, or points of operation, where determinism and anti-determinism meet. The structure and sameness of the universe and that of all things in the universe emerged in that way; and their emergences brought about movements and processes. Thus, in due course time and space were created. Time and space are two enigmas in the universe, to solve which man has cudgeled his brains for several millennia in vain.”
In a word, the proposition that all that have emerged in the universe share sameness because they all assume a form of existence actually means that all things in the universe share sameness in nature. In other words, since all things in the universe share the sameness in the form of “determinism-anti-determinism”, and since such a form of sameness is inherent in everything in the universe and present throughout any process in the universe. All things in the universe are endowed with the capacity for interacting with one another and mutually conditioning one another. This is how the universe works. Our outlook on the universe should be based on our knowledge of the way the universe works. The theory of “the four share one’s” is based on our knowledge of the way the universe works and therefore should be adopted as the contemporary human race’s outlook on the universe. In the theory of “the four share one’s” are incorporated the rational elements of various versions of classical determinism and various versions of modern anti-determinism.
The issue of outlook on the universe is of fundamental importance to man’s survival in the universe, because outlook on the universe is the conceptual basis on which the correct guideline for maintaining and improving man’s survival on the earth can be formulated. So long as a world coalition government would adhere to, as its outlook on the universe, the proposition that “all that have emerged in the universe share ‘sameness’ because they all assume a form of existence”, it would certainly attach great importance to earth’s ecological environment, balance between botanical life and zoological life, protection of the atmosphere, outer space, and the entire universe.
My elaboration on the world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on values—All humans share one human nature.
The proposition that all humans share one human nature is a specific version of the proposition that all in the universe share one origin. However even though you can comprehend the proposition that all in the universe share one origin, that does not mean that you can readily comprehend the proposition that all humans share one human nature. It is very difficult for man to know himself thoroughly.
The proposition that all humans share one human nature dose not at all mean that all human beings are of the same sex, color, physique, physiognomy, temperament, etc. The purport of the proposition lays emphasis on the following three points: (1) All human beings live on the same earth and belong to the same universe. (2) They are the same in that they can live only once and that they cannot survive without air, water, and food. (3) They have the same human nature.
(1) and (2) are not difficult for us to understand and remain self-evident. But (3) may be a controversial point.
As a matter of fact, all the calamities in the history of man sprang from human beings’ having remained divided on the fact that all human beings share the same human nature and the same values. Christianity upholds the idea of “chosen people”. Islam advocates the idea of “jihad”. Buddhism clings to the idea of “the multitude”. Confucianism is obsessed with the idea “filial piety”. All these ideas contradict the proposition that all human beings share the same human nature on such primordial grounds as congenital proclivity, gift, God’s will. Even such ideological trends as social Darwinism, bacchanalianism, heroism, hegemonic dynamism, despotism strive to defeat the proposition that all human beings share the same human nature from the perspective of scientism or empiricism.
What is more saddening is that suchlike unscientific approaches that are totally antagonistic to the proposition that all human beings share the same human nature still reign supreme stubbornly over the mentality of the world public and can even enslave the subconscious of ordinary people. The moment a white gentleman watched TV and saw a black athlete from his country win a gold medal at an ongoing Olympiad, the former might get excited in front of the TV in his parlor. But in the depth of his heart he looked down upon the black people. Some from countries in the West of Europe or the North of America sonorously claiming that they uphold egalitarianism and altruism are in the habit of disdainfully referring to Asians as “yellow devil”, to Africans as “Negroes”, or to natives of Oceania as “aborigines” or “savages”. Do all human beings really share sameness in the matter of values? That is an important question I concentrated on exploring for its answer in the closing years of the 1980s. My findings in this connection are presented in the following writings: (1) the chapter entitled “Needs-The Theory of Genesis—an introduction to my outlook on the human species” in Book 4 of my work entitled A Serial Written Discourse on My New Reflections, (2) the chapter entitled The Second Manifesto of Man—an introduction to nature-humanitarianism which overlaps volume I and II in Book 5 of my work entitled A Serial Written Discourse on My New Reflections, and (3) The Book on the World which was published later. Quoted below is a passage from my work The Book on the World:
“As man was born into nature, is living in nature, and will disappear in nature, he is endowed with qualities intrinsic in nature. This is too plain to confound anybody. Man was evolved from animal kingdom. Therefore animal traits are inherent in him, become part of human nature, and constitute part of the basis on which his survival depends. Since man shook himself free of animal kingdom and became superior to animal kingdom on the strength of his intellect, he has been struggling to purify himself of the part of his traits, which he inherited from animal kingdom, by taking advantage of his intellect. To curb the animality in him, man has created for his benefit deities according to both his own conception of the Creator and his own ideals of a decent life. Thus God’s whereabouts and identity have been revealed to him. This was an invaluable discovery for him, because since he succeeded in identifying his Creator, he has become mightier by far than he was in deterring the animality in him. In short, human nature is nothing but deified animality. Or, to put it in another way, human nature is nothing but animalized deity. To put it still another way, the trinity of animal, human being, and deity is exactly what human nature is. To borrow parlance prevalent with philosophy, social sciences, humanities, and natural sciences, “human nature is nothing but the ‘properties peculiar to nature and humanity’”.
The properties peculiar to nature and humanity is actually a real manifestation of the cosmic spirit in the form of human nature. The way the cosmic spirit—when it has infiltrated the existence of mankind—would manifest itself in the form of human nature is quite the same as the way the cosmic spirit—when it has infiltrated the texture of a stone—would manifest itself in the form of ‘simple existence’ or as the way the cosmic spirit—when it has infiltrated the existence of a plant—would manifest itself in the form of ‘still growth’, or as the way the cosmic spirit—when it has infiltrated the existence of an animal—would manifest itself in the form of ‘corporeal activity’”.
The sentence that all human beings share sameness in the matter of values is tantamount in import to the sentence that human nature in one human being is the same as that in another, or the sentence that everybody possesses the properties peculiar to nature and humanity. Therefore it is possible for a human being both to have human nature as his sole motive for doing anything and to do everything from the motive of paying respect to and improving his or her psyche.
That all human beings share sameness in the matter of values should be the outlook on values adopted and adhered to by world coalition political steering agencies. Such an outlook warns us that we should stay away from animality and the law of the jungle, because we are all human beings and that as human beings we are mortal, not immortal like deities free from earthly passion or desire.
To sum up, there is only one human species in the universe. All human beings share only one kind of human nature. A human being has only one life. And a life lasts only one short span of time. Therefore a human being should believe that all human beings share sameness in the matter of values.
My elaboration on the world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the way of life of man—All religions share one godhood.
To interpret the import of the sentence “all deities share sameness in the matter of how to deal with mankind as epitomizing an outlook on the way of life sounds rather far-fetched. But in fact such an interpretation is not at all far-fetched. If looking only at the surface of the phenomenon of man’s survival on our planet, we might be tempted to think that survival of a human being depends only on material things such as food, clothes, shelter, transportation. As a matter of fact, material things serve only as a “visible carrier of life” but are not in a position to bolster up the quintessence of life. Only belief, faith, or conviction is the quintessence of human life and can dictate how a human being conducts his life. When one has faith in Christianity, he would of course adheres to egalitarianism and liberty, though in some circumstances he would allow the idea of “chosen people” or “forsaken people” to play havoc with his liberal or egalitarian mind. A Moslem would place his life completely at the disposal of Allah, because he would never look at his life in any other light, though he would never withhold himself from “jihad”.
A lot people are wildly acclaiming atheism. To tell the truth, the only difference between an atheist and a theist is the difference in the forms of their beliefs. So the difference between an atheist and a theist is the same as that between a Christian and a Moslem. Belief is exclusive and can make people blind to reason. Atheism and theism are similar in that they are equally exclusive and equally energetic in driving people blind to reason.
So theism and atheism are two beliefs, after all. Atheism has faith in the proposition that there is no deity; and such a proposition actually plays the role a deity for all atheists. In other words, an atheists has his own deity in the form of atheism, just as a Christian has his deity in the form of God or Jesus, or just as a Moslem has his deity in the form of Allah, or just as a Taoist has his faith in Lao Tzu, or just as a Buddhist has his faith in Siddhartha Sakyamuni.
An outlook on the way of life is a system of ideas and principles one would observe or adhere to in dealing with various issues such as marriage, death, courting, career, offspring, dignity, hardship, family life, faith. The most important element in a system of ideas and principles that forms a person’s outlook on the way of life is his faith or belief.
The import of the proposition that all deities share sameness in the matter of how to deal with mankind is that all deities do differ from one another in godhood, deity, or divinity. They differ from one another only in name and assume the same attitude in their dealing with mankind. Very instructive is the ancient Indian saying that “There is only one truth but it has many aliases.”
In the middle of the 1990s, I published a work entitled The Cosmic Spirit which contains three volumes. It is a long treatise dealing with the proposition that all deities share sameness in the matter of how to deal with mankind. Some important ideas advanced in that work are as follows: (1) Deities of different religious faiths do exist in the universe and have the same deity, godhood, or divinity. (2) All religious faiths are identical in dogma but different in the way the dogma of each faith is represented. (3) The ultimate goal of any of the existing religious faiths is invariably instilling into the minds of all its followers the belief that the Creator of the universe is almighty and must be obeyed completely. Then may we ask who the Creator of the universe is? I believe the Creator is none other than “the cosmic spirit”. The following passage is quoted from my work The Cosmic Spirit:
“The cosmic spirit is an embodiment of (1) integrity and unity generated by the universe’s own determinism,(2) a display of novelty and enhancement generated by the universe’s anti-determinism, and(3) an exhibition of both the existential form of the universe and the spirit of ‘determinism-anti-determinism’ (or the spirit of ‘supra-determinism’) inherent in its order of evolution which are generated by a unity of determinism and anti-determinism.
It is the cosmic spirit that causes every development to take the form of a process, encourages different evolutional processes to interact with one another, and makes the interacting evolutional processes exhibit ‘the evolutional spirit of evolutional processes’ or ‘the supra-evolutional spirit’.
It is the cosmic spirit that manifests itself, after it has infiltrated man’s life, in the form of ‘the spirit of nature-humanitarianism’ (or ‘supra-animality spirit’) that reveals itself in the form of nature-humanity.
The cosmic spirit has engendered intellect in man and then impelled man’s intellect to develop. Furthermore the cosmic spirit stimulates man’s intellect into developing a sort of spontaneous creativity, so that his intellect develops into ‘the spirit of engendered intellect’ (otherwise called ‘supra-intellectual spirit’) which is to progress from a lower stage to a higher stage.
The cosmic spirit is leading mankind to willingly negate itself on the strength of the feeling man has acquired in following the cosmic spirit and by dint of his mental and manual labor in order that the evolution in the universe would enter ‘the spirit of the supra-human stage’ which is ‘the supra-mankind spirit’. ‘The spirit of ‘supra-determinism’, ‘the supra-evolutional spirit’, ‘supra-animality spirit’, ‘supra-intellectual spirit’, ‘the spirit of the supra-human stage’, and ‘the supra-mankind spirit’ are all mysterious existences in the universe, the sacred forces in the universe. They are engendered and controlled by the cosmic spirit. In short the cosmic spirit is actually ‘the super-mystery spirit’.
To sum up, the cosmic spirit is the only Creator, Master, and Conductor in the universe. In other words, the cosmic spirit is actually the deity whom mankind has been talking about for millennia.”
That all religious faiths in the world are in the habit of using their own religious languages to describe their own deities and tenets and call upon all their followers to worship their respective deities piously is completely normal, indispensable, and correct. They are expected to persist in doing that. Awe, admiration, and understanding have contributed to the creation of both mankind and deities who are superior to mankind and have formed the mightiest and the most penetrating force to impel mankind to go forward. To show contempt for the Creator is the motivation to drive mankind into degeneration, whereas to have faith in the Creator is the momentum to bring about mankind’s elevation. Most villains are irreligious people or people devoid of conscience. A great number of fanatics are people straying from religious orthodoxy.
But the trouble is that deities of different religions are mostly mutually exclusive. Therefore the relations between religions have been for millennia repeating the vicious cycle of “mutual alienation—mutual intolerance—armed clash—mutual intolerance—mutual alienation”. It is time that such a vicious cycle stopped. In other words, mankind needs to understand and uphold the proposition that all deities share sameness in the matter of how to deal with mankind. Mankind has to correctly understand man and his life. In other words, mankind must have a correct outlook on the life of man; otherwise religious wars, religious barriers, religious confrontations would never come to an end. Since all followers of a religion would love one another like brothers or sisters, can’t such fraternal love be extended in the age of Global Village to cover all the other human beings outside their religion? Many religions categorically ban the killing of any animals. How come some religious sects would still engage in terrorist activities or religious wars?
My elaboration on the world coalition political steering agencies’ outlook on the significance of life—Matter, Homo, and godhood share on being.
There is sameness shared by matter, mankind, and deities, because all kinds of materials in the universe are the same in essence, because all human beings have the same human nature, and because all deities have the same godhood. The tenet of trinity is central to Christianity. The core tenet of Both Taoism and Confucianism is that heaven, earth, and man form a trinity. The trinity of Christianity and that of the two Oriental religions are two prominent instances demonstrating that all deities have the same godhood.
According to Godel’s theorem of incompletion, man can never have a correct knowledge of himself by staying in the sphere where he lives. That means it is not until after a human being has contacts beyond the sphere of his own life, develops social relationship with other human beings, and moves into a wider sphere of social life that he is in a position to appraise himself in a right way and exercise self-control. A human being needs to make numerous contacts with persons and things in his surroundings and learn to improve himself from such contacts. Of all kinds of relations a human being has established with persons and things in his surroundings, the most crucial are his relations with deities on the one hand, and his relations with material things on the other. A human being can establish a wide range of relations with persons and things in his surroundings, such as social relations, political relations, economic or financial relations, emotional ties, kinship. However they are just various aspects, vehicles, or media of the life of a human being. Accordingly we should say that all the disputes between religions about deities have been inconsequential; and so have been the wrangles over “man” between “social actors” and the squabbles about “wealth” or “money” between economic actors. In a word, so far as his essence is concerned, man is in the “trinity” composed of “heaven, earth, and man”. Or, to put it in plain language, all human beings share sameness in the matter of values. The essence of the relation between Jesus Christ and the Virgin Mary or the essence of the relations between Siddhartha Sakyamuni, his father, wife and offspring is not merely blood tie or marital tie and can be accounted for only by the fact that Christ and Sakyamuni understood thoroughly (1) the quintessence of man’s existence, (2) the quintessence of man’s life, (3) how man should react to deities and material things, and (4) how man should react to material things, man, and deities. It is due to their thorough understanding of the points specified above that both Christ and Sakyamuni became deities worshipped by mankind forever.
In my work The Book on the World there are a few paragraphs dealing with the trinity of matter, man, and godhood. Now I have these paragraphs quoted below:
“When we analyze the three propositions separately, we tend to perceive that the first proposition ‘all in the universe share one origin’ can be interpreted as an indication of the way in which man’s natural-corporeal needs can be satisfied. And the second proposition ‘all humans share one human nature’ can be interpreted as an indication of the way in which man’s social-moral needs can be satisfied. The third proposition ‘all religions share one godhood’ can be interpreted as an indication of the way in which man’s spiritual-religious needs can be satisfied. The demarcation lines between the three propositions are definite; and each proposition has its own jurisdiction. When the three propositions are viewed as an organic whole, they are mutually assimilable in purport and integral to one another. In other words each of the three propositions is independent, but the three share something among them.
It may be a coincidence that some people would refer the civilization of the West as ‘blue civilization’, the civilization of the East as ‘yellow civilization’, and the civilization of the Central as ‘red civilization’. It is true that the ‘three primary colors’ of civilization are formed of the characteristics of the three civilizations.
According to spectroscopy, the light that illuminates the earth is composed of the three primary colors. Analogously speaking, a civilized world should be composed of the civilizations of the three primary colors systematically synthesized.
The blue, vast ocean was the primordial cradle for the human species. In oceans are marvelous and invigorating patches of yellow continents which are habitation of the human species. Staying high above oceans and patches of land is the red sun shining and emitting heat and ushering the human species into its future.
The primary colors of blue, yellow, and red are symbols of the universe. The trinity of matter, man, and godhood serves as a framework philosophy. The trinity of desire, justice, and spirituality works as a guideline for social life. The trinity of intellect, sentiment, and willpower constitutes the basis of mental horizon. The trinity of truth, goodness, and beauty serves as a moral orientation. The primary colors and all the trinities interact to stimulate the essentials of the three civilizations, so that the three civilizations would interact to usher in a new bright and unified world full of vitality. This is a picture—drawn in accordance with the theory of global civilization—of the life of the human race in the 21st century. The picture shows a shining and transparent world impregnated with egalitarianism and love.”
It is evident what the proposition, ‘all religions share one godhood’, signifies is not a localized or partial existence but an existence of “wholeness” or “completeness”. Nor does the proposition signify an existence that is nothing but a phenomenon, structure, form, or process but an existence that is absolute, essential, ontological, or original. What the proposition denotes is a primary existence, rather than a secondary existence; a pliable existence, rather than a rigid existence; and a spontaneous existence, rather than a passive existence. In short what the proposition refers to is a conscientious form of existence, or a form of existence that exists for itself.
Is there in the world such a form of existence as is complete with the five characteristics of wholeness, fundamentality, first importance, plasticity, and existing for itself? Yes, there is. And man’s existence is exactly such a form of existence.
In the universe, the form of existence assumed by mankind is the only form of existence consisting of the existence of matter, the existence of humanity, and the existence of godhood. So far as a human being is concerned, what is indispensable and of fundamental importance for him is none other than his life. What is, for him, the most precious thing is precisely his life. What is, in his eyes, the most susceptible to manipulation still is his life. And what is, in his eyes, the phenomenon that can act for itself in the most conscientious manner? Still it is his life.
Then what an outlook on the phenomenon life on the earth should we adopt? Is materialism suitable for us to adopt as our outlook on the significance of life? Of course not, as it tends to encourage unbridled obsession with material possessions, bodily comforts, and other egoistic yearnings to the rejection of spiritual values. Is humanitarianism fit for us to adopt as our outlook on the significance of life? No. Humanitarianism tends to induce in man the desire of practicing hegemony over other forms of existence on the earth and make him more selfish than he was. Can Supreme-Being cult be adopted as our outlook on the significance of life? The answer still is no. Such a cult tends to land the human race in mysticism or nihilism. Would the concept that each of the three elements in the trinity of matter, man, and deity takes up one third of the universe serve as a good outlook on the significance of life? No, the concept is not suitable for us to adopt as a good outlook on the significance of life, because the significance of life is an organic whole calling for the mutual promotion, mutual infiltration, and exchanges between man’s material needs, spiritual needs, and faith needs. Therefore only the proposition, ‘matter, Homo, and godhood share on being’, can be adopted by us as a correct outlook on the significance of life.
The connotation of the proposition, ‘matter, man, and godhood share one being’, comprises the following four points:
(1) an entity that possesses life must be composed of the three elements of matter, man, and godhood. Since man was evolved from animal kingdom, evolution has endowed him with a corporeal form and physical needs. Both a corporeal form and physical needs are the materialization of the element of matter in him. After having quit animal kingdom, man learned to do productive labor, think, lead communal life, create things, and cultivate such sentiments, sense of responsibility, and sense of morality as are unique to man. These sentiments are exactly what the element of “man” in the three elements of matter, man, and godhood in an entity that possesses life refers to. The universe evolves in accordance with its own “spirit and volition”. Or, to borrow from common parlance, the universe evolves in accordance with its own rules and principles. When the evolution of the universe embarked on the stage of animal kingdom, it endowed the forms of life appeared in the stage of animal kingdom with “the faculty for movement”. When the evolution of the universe reached the stage of plant kingdom, it endowed the forms of life appeared in the stage with “the faculty for growth. And when the evolution of the universe reached the stage of man, it endowed the forms of life appeared in the stage with “natural-humanity” which is a manifestation not only of the cosmic spirit but of an attribute unique to man. To enumerate, “natural-humanity” consists of such qualities as conscience (a quality unique to man), the idea of egalitarianism, the worship of the Creator, extremely penetrative spiritual insight. “Natural-humanity” is exactly what is referred to by the element of godhood in the three elements of matter, man, and godhood in an entity that possesses life.
(2) The three elements in the trinity of matter, man, and godhood are communicable with one another and mutually promoting. Moreover any component part of a human being contains a minor trinity of the three elements of matter, man, and godhood. Take the element of matter in a human being for example. The element of matter in a human being is totally different from the element of matter in the body of an animal. In a human being the element of matter is a human attribute which is a combined structure formed of the quintessence of matter, human nature, and godhood.
The results from a gene order checkout indicate that the constitution of human body ranks much higher than that of a life form in animal kingdom. In human cerebrum there are areas that are unique to the human race for language, sentiment, and skill. Such areas are absent in an animal. Again take sexual activity for example. In man sexual activity is far more complicated than that in an animal. In an animal, sexual activity is simply for reproduction, whereas in man, sexual activity can be emblematic of love, responsibility, equality, morality and pervaded with human nature and even with godhood.
(3) The three elements of matter, man, and godhood demonstrate the characteristic of firmly developing, through mutual activation and promotion, in the fixed direction of matter→man→godhood. In other words, the development of the three elements is characterized by a fresh growth of new substance. Some animal species also demonstrates qualities similar to some the human species has possessed—qualities such as corporeality, sociability, awareness. But such qualities in an animal function simply as some sorts of means for keeping in touch with others of its kind or for exercising some sorts of constraint over others of its kind. It is exactly due to this that various species of animals have been staying unchanged for ever. With the human species, the case is completely different, because in man the three elements in the trinity of matter, man, and godhood have been incessantly and mutually activating, so that civilizations in the world have been incessantly updated. As a result, mankind is incessantly renewing itself.
(4) As the phenomenon of human life on the earth is guided to develop by the three elements of matter, man, and godhood interacting on the basis of mutual activation and mutual promotion, human life on the earth evolves as a life system characterized by a spontaneous initiative, liberty, and purposefulness. The phenomenon of human life differs from that of life of animal kingdom in that the activities of the human race are guided by a spontaneous initiative, liberty, and purposefulness. Because of a spontaneous initiative, man would not live without an aim or a definite pursuit. Because of liberty, man would not stay long in an awkward position without striving to revert it. Because of purposefulness, man would not abandon himself to mercies of ill fate. Man thrives simply because of the magic of the trinity of matter, man, and godhood. Should there be on any other planet a life form existing under the guidance of the trinity of matter, man, and godhood characterized by mutual activation and mutual promotion, then the life form on that planet would surely prosper too and exhibit the same, or roughly the same, characteristics as those exhibited by the human race living on the earth.
That the world population would adopt a correct outlook on the significance of life is of fundamental importance for the contemporary human race. The contemporary world population has not been awakened to the paramount significance of a correct outlook on the significance of life. A number of people still stubbornly stick to those versions of outlook on the significance of life, which have been instilled into them by some politicians. That “nothing is more important than the interests of a nation” and that “you should be always ready to die for your father country” are two examples of those versions. Some religious leaders have called upon their followers to adhere to such versions of outlook on the significance of life as “we want to launch a war that is loftier than all the chief Crusades put together”, “we want to mount jihad to uphold the great name of our Savior”, “to serve our Savior, we would not hesitate to use human bombs”.
To adopt a correct outlook on the significance of life is important for the contemporary world population. Many people are amazingly ignorant of the significance of life. Some would commit suicide because of mere trifles or go so desperate as to lay down their lives just for a modicum of gain. Even some from the elite of society are not so sober as the general public would expect them to be at the significance of life. Every day newspapers and TV programs carry numerous reports on how politicians or religious leaders incite their followers to war, violence, or suicide bombing or on how a movie star has committed suicide or become an incurable drug addict, etc. Even some celebrated scientists or scholars would pay no attention to the significance of their lives by overworking themselves in pursuing their research goals until their health is permanently broken before senility sets in. Some philosophers had been bent on exploring mysteries of life, but before they could fully acquaint themselves with the doctrines on the significance of life advanced by Plato, Nietzsche, or Schopenhauer, they had already accepted without reserve these famous philosophers’ ways of handling their own lives.
Consequently I have come to realize that in formulating the platform of a world coalition government, its formulator needs to take into consideration such issues as “how a world coalition government should encourage the world population to adopt a correct outlook on the significance of life”, “what a correct outlook on the significance of life is all about”, “on what ground the world population is required to adopt a correct outlook on the significance of life”.
(D) The administrative program of a world coalition government: “The four principles of governance”
Below are listed the four principles a world coalition government would put into effect in conducting its governance:
(1)All conventional ideas need to be “sublated” in contemporary wisdom.
(2)All differences between nations should be interpreted in terms of sameness of human nature.
(3)All regional interests should be taken care of from the perspective of justice and equity.
(4)All cultural clashes should be eliminated by upholding civilization-based affinity.
The administrative program of a world coalition government or the governance program of one of the world coalition political steering agencies ought to be different from the administrative program of a nation state. An administrative program is not a skeletonized statement of methodology to be followed for practicing governance but a compendium of key policies and principles that underpin (1) the basic program which proclaims the political goals of a world coalition government, (2) the political program which publicizes the political standpoint of a world coalition government, and (3) the doctrinal program which expatiates on the political views of a world coalition government. An administrative program of a political and administrative entity invariably gives expression to its goals, standpoint. That the contemporary nexus of man’s existence is replete of barbarism, nastiness, and indecency is due primarily to the intense effort on the part of the contemporary generation to develop civilization by resorting to such expedients as war, determent, infiltration, invasion.
Now let me elaborate on the principle that all conventional ideas need to be “sublated” in contemporary wisdom.
Every age has not only wisdom of its own but a plexus of conventions of its own. A body of conventions is, as a rule, very influential and obstinate. People habitually handle convention in either of the following two ways:
(1) The first way is characterized by an irrevocably persistent effort to perpetuate the established convention. An established body of conventions is, as a rule, in the interest of particular social strata such as the ruling clique of a country, the social group of retinues to the ruling clique, social elite, groups or factions with vested interests. Therefore these social strata would do everything in their power to perpetuate or fortify an established body of conventions. Politicians are particularly adept at couching outdated conventions in newly invented terminology in order to clothe them in avant-garde apparel. Thus essentially base and obsolete ideas are coated with altruistic veneer to look divine. Such demagoguery is ubiquitous and in essence a tactic of psychological warfare shrewdly adopted for perpetuating old conventions.
(2) The second way is characterized by a revolutionary approach in dealing with the established body of conventions. Radicals, rebels against an old social system, anarchists, or leftists have been bent on turning our peaceful and stable world upside down and thrown it into turmoil. As among conservatives there have been innumerable sages or persons of probity, so there have been among revolutionists innumerable noble-minded martyrs. But the problem with the revolutionists is that they have been biased and extremist and would resort to only simplistic and cruel expedients to push for their ends. Consequently they have done to the world more harm than good and been rewarded with more failures than successes so much so that they have been regarded as malcontents rejoicing in sabotaging and subverting.
Here, I prefer to borrow the word “sublate” from Hegelian parlance and would put forward the proposition that all conventional ideas need to be “sublated” in contemporary wisdom. I think part of conventional ideas should be negated by dint of contemporary wisdom, but the rest of them should be preserved and “elevated” also by dint of contemporary wisdom, so that mankind can progress on the basis of stability and orderliness.
Now let me elaborate on the principle that all differences between nations should be interpreted in terms of sameness of human nature.
Our ancient sages believed that it would be in the foreseeable future for mankind to realize the dream of uniting the world into a global family. What is the ground for such a firm belief of theirs? I believe the ground for their firm belief is the fact that all human beings have the same human nature. The conviction that all human beings have the same human nature is actually the objective basis of man’s survival, peaceful coexistence, and development. But that all human beings have the same human nature does not mean that everybody has the same personality. Human nature resides in zillion different personalities of zillion different persons. The Cultural Revolution that took place in China more than two decades ago and the Great Leap Forward that happened in China more than three decades ago were campaigns to eliminate individual personality but they could not do harm to human nature, though they were intended to. Personality varies from person to person. A nation differs from another in mental characteristics or psychology.
How can a world coalition government weave human nature which is shared by all human beings, personality which varies from person to person, and national psychology into an organic whole? It is wrong to let both human nature which is shared by all human beings and personality which varies from person to person develop in whatever a direction as either pleases. Or else personality would forfeit human nature; and human nature would become sterile. The conventional policy of unfolding the sameness of human nature in the entirety of human race while personality is being given free rein should be abandoned, because history has repeatedly taught us the lesson that personality when allowed to swell unrestrainedly would readily impose on the human race monsters like Hitler who had forfeited his human nature even before he came to power. Nor should we accept the conventional policy of letting various personalities put human nature under their control, because history has also repeatedly taught us the lesson that personality can expand itself into egotism or anarchism as can be witnessed by suchlike cases having occurred in some developed countries. Therefore the only correct policy for a world coalition government to adopt in dealing with personality of an individual citizen, psychology of a nation, or human nature is that all differences between nations should be interpreted in terms of sameness of human nature.
Now let me elaborate on the principle that all regional interests should be taken care of from the perspective of justice and equity.
With the rapid development of globalization in every sector of life all over the world, the interests of social groups, ethnic entities, and countries, are gradually converging to take the form of “regional interests”. Or the development may be described as this: A region’s interests have emerged as an advocate of the interests of social groups, ethnic entities, and countries concerned. Now the number of political leagues and that of economic cooperation programs, either being formed on the basis of geographical region, are on the rise. Confrontations between regions arising from economic clashes are on the rise, too. Such confrontations are in fact fomenting animosity between a social group, an ethnic entity, or a country in one region and its counterpart in another region. Therefore now bearing down upon us is a new age earmarked for regional conflicts, when regional interests, if mishandled, would threaten to topple the edifice of man’s survival on the earth.
Man cannot avert the advent of such a new age, because it is an inevitable stage where by combining to form regional blocs in the first place, countries are embarking on the incipient stage of a transition to globalization. Such an incipient stage of transition would be an age of horror, because regional conflicts would be inevitably large-scale and extremely violent clashes which would have a terrible worldwide aftermath. But such a new age might also provide opportunities of compromise between regional blocs, though such a compromise might be rather limited in scale and of short duration. Exceptions might occur in such a new age in the form of one or few countries proceeding on its or their own and in disregard of the regional bloc it or they belong in to bargain with one or more countries in another regional bloc. But such exceptions would occur very rarely because of the strict control exercised by a regional bloc over its member countries, not to say that such exceptions do not come in line with the mainstream of the new age. How should a country behave in such a new age? That is where the principle that all regional interests should be taken care of from the perspective of justice and equity comes in.
There still are the assertions that a contradiction in interest can be obliterated only through a redistribution of interest and that disharmony arising from a dispute over rights to material things can be done away with only by an expedient making use of material means. But such assertions are time-honored at best. The age of globalization is such an age when almost all aspects—including political, economic, cultural, science-and-technology-development, moral orientation aspects—of man’s existence on the earth are in a state of globalization. So such an age may also be called “an age of globalization of complete man”. In such an age, rational ideas (such as justice, equity, conscience) have the magic for undoing strife in economic domain, whereas material-based inventions (such as those bred of science and technology) can give rise to new concepts (such as the idea of coexistence of different parts of the human race, the idea of the global village). This serves to enlighten us as to the fact that it is possible for the human race to make use of rational ideas, such as justice, equity, for averting conflicts between regions and for eliminating the possibility of a military clash between regions. Probably that would be the only way to averting regional conflict and regional military clash.
In man, as a result of his evolution, his physical needs have been relegated to a secondary position with his spiritual needs ascending to the primary position, while with animal kingdom opposite is just the case, because reflex-action-based consciousness in an animal is always in a secondary position when compared with its physical needs. In man physical need is servile to his spiritual need and plays the role of the mainstream or essence of his existence. Spiritual needs of man are diametrically different from such reflex-action-based consciousness (such as the sense of companionship, a mother animal’s sense of maternal love for her infant, sense of communal life) in animal. So far as man is concerned, the optimal way for eliminating conflicts arising from physical needs would be by tackling spiritual-need-based complications. The expression, “taken care of from the perspective of justice”, as is referred to in the principle that all regional interests should be taken care of from the perspective of justice, may be in this context comprehended as tantamount in meaning to the expression: “recognized, interpreted, and treated from the perspective of justice”. In other words, this principle requires all the parties involved in a regional conflict recognize and interpret correctly what justice and equity would dictate them to do in the face of the regional conflict in question and treat the conflict in compliance with justice and equity. Only in this way can a regional conflict be dealt with in a way in agreement with the spirit of the age of globalization.
Now let me elaborate on the principle that all cultural clashes should be eliminated by upholding civilization-based affinity.
In the 1990s Samuel Huntington, a famous American scholar, published in the journal of Foreign Policy his article “Clash of Civilizations?”. Later he published in 1996 his work entitled The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. The work has aroused academic circles and political circles all around the world; and a heated worldwide debate has from then on raging centering on the themes of civilizations and new world order.
Professor Huntington can claim the credit of opportunely posing to the world such questions as related to clash of civilizations and tackling the problem of new world order from a fresh perspective. Since the end of “cold war”, clashes between civilizations have been keeping itself in the foreground of the world political arena. Clash of civilizations has an impact on the world as a whole much more destructive, extensive, and serious than military, economic, or political clash.
To respond to the challenge in the new era in the form of clash of civilization, many efforts have been made. The UN declared that the year 2001 be designated as the UN Year of Dialogue among Civilizations. Governments of countries of one civilization have been, in compliance with the guiding principle of affinity among civilizations, formulating new policies intended for developing cooperative international partnership with their counterparts of another civilization so as to erase the political discords that existed between them in the past. A number of countries, China, for example, being one among them, are carefully studying the possibility of persuading the UN to push for realizing the goal of establishing “a new world order of civilization” instead of the old goal of establishing “a new international economic and political order”.
Since there are still ongoing clashes of civilizations in the world, and since now on clash of civilizations are converging very complicated international political, economic, and cultural strife, the world is being confronted with the issue of how these clashes of civilization can be removed. The strategy of dialogue between civilizations has been advanced for settling and preventing a clash between civilizations. The prerequisite to implementing such a strategy is that the parties to such a dialogue must be put on an equal footing. But this is hardly possible given the actualities different civilizations in the world thrive in, because all civilizations are innately autarkic and inveterately mutually exclusive. Therefore another strategy of “pluralistic coexistence of civilizations” has been advanced. But such a strategy is not viable either, because, in the age when nations are being kept in the foreground, civilizations in the world are by nature pluralistic and can only be pluralistic, since each civilization develops, as a rule, independently on its own. In an age of globalization, no civilization can exempt itself from making exchanges with another civilization. Without subjecting themselves of their own accord to some rules that serve to regulate the exchanges between them, multifarious civilizations across the world, which are quite different in nature and engage in making exchanges with one another on an equal footing, would most probably present a scene of scuffling civilizations. Therefore the strategy of “pluralistic coexistence of civilizations” in an age of globalization not only would be infeasible but might induce the danger of armed clash or even worldwide war stemming from clashes of civilizations.
In an age of globalization, man would be faced with an awkward dilemma. On the one hand an age of globalization would call for very extensive and worldwide exchanges between various civilizations. On the other, being autarkic and mutually exclusive in nature, exchanges between civilizations would inevitably lead to warfare.
Having taken into consideration the aforesaid dilemma man is to meet in the foreseeable future, I advanced in 1992 the proposition of “global civilization” and published in the same year my treatise entitled The Second Manifesto of Man. The content of the treatise can be epitomized as follows: Mankind is now proceeding from its evolutional stage of an inter-national world toward its next evolutional stage of a globalization world. It is imperative for mankind in such a transition period to elicit from each of various national or regional civilizations in the world “civilizational sameness” or “elements of civilizational affinity”. And then what are elicited from various national or regional civilizations would be integrated to form a “global civilization”. In my treatise is emphasized that it is only within the framework of global civilization that all national or regional civilizations across the world can be properly interpreted and that clashes between civilizations can be efficiently averted. In 1997, I traveled to more than ten countries expressly for consulting with parties concerned in those countries about the issue of founding the Organization for Promoting Global Civilization (OPGC). In the meantime I addressed myself to drafting The Manifesto of Global Civilization on behalf of the would-be organization. In 1999, scholars from more than twenty countries took the initiative in preparing the foundation of the OPGC. And in the same year the organization was registered with the Australian Government. In July 2001 statesmen, religious leaders, and scholars from thirty-seven countries attended the First World Congress of Global Civilization sponsored by the OPGC. The Manifesto of Global Civilization was adopted at the First World Congress of Global Civilization with one against and two abstentions.
The main points of the manifesto are as follows: Only global civilization can curb the upsurges of “clashes between civilizations” in an age of globalization. Global civilization refers to the new civilization that would be formed of the three parts of (1) the quintessence of the “man—matter civilization” of the West, (2) the quintessence of the “man—man civilization” of the East, and (3) the quintessence of the “man—deities civilization” of the Central. As such a formula for creating a new global civilization presupposes integration into the new civilization of all the fundamentals of all national and regional civilizations in our world, it would readily be accepted by all national and regional civilizations. For that matter such a new civilization would contribute to enriching and improving all national and regional civilizations because in new civilization would be a compendium of all sorts of quintessence of civilizations in the world. Man’s evolution has landed in the transition period leading to an age of global civilization. Therefore both a global civilization which is intended for having all nations or countries share the new and global civilization and a worldwide civilization which is intended for providing all civilizations in the world with a common program on which they can seek recognition from one another and proceed with worldwide exchanges are equally acceptable to all parties concerned. And that is why The Manifesto of Global Civilization was adopted without a hitch and why I am in favor of having the spirit of manifesto included in the administrative programs of world coalition political steering agencies.
