d'Altariva

I finished to write a teological essay (ndt: I'm not a priest) just few days ago about these themes: I think relativity is the main thing we must consider in this kind of reflection, in fact, you already said, for A an event may seems "good" and for B the same circumstances may seem "evil", so apparently it seems not to be a conclusion of this mechanism... But, and this is my opinion, I think the only think which can be defined as "evil" is the corruption of liberty: now the problem is to understand what is "liberty" and what does mean "corruption"... I've a theory about this, but I need more time to translate my essay in english: resuming, I think it is not a problem of defining "good" and "evil", but a needing of specify how a (specifical) "liberty" become a "fool being". I will answer again to this topic, I just need more time to translate and resume 89 pages of essay.

I'm not marking electricity as a "bad idea", because of some details you underlined and emphasized: my reflection was directed to specify that basing life only on a cetrain "essence" could be a strong chain to our life, in fact (and there is the ethical meaning of this discussion) a person who lives only on A or B may be not able to have a complete and pure relationship with the universality of Life, or better, may be impossibilitated to give a coerent interpretation about some arguments. (My thought about electricity addiction was related to the fact that is not a problem of ways of producing electric energy, but that it may be useful to foresee and search different "type" of energy (I'm not a scientist so I cannot give you a specific answer about "what" energy we must consider).

ELECTRIC ENERGY ADDICTION Risk of Epilogue: what should we do? Nowadays people are addicted to drugs, alchool and tobacco, but all of these kind of addiction are not so diffused as the electric energy addiction: the great majority (some 90%) thinks that the use of electricity makes life easier... isn't this approach like the junkies' one? Well, it is extremely similar, in fact the only difference between electricity and drugs is that the first is deemed legal and Governments improve on it, and the second are banned by the same Governments. This article doesn't ask Governments to consider Drugs as legal substances, nor to ban the use of electric energy, but to make people reflect on the current lifestyle: our community is based on the use of electricity in almost all areas, the current studies are concerned in finding new ways to produce this kind of energy (just think about studies on renewable energies), but if all these efforts come less, what will happen to us? Probably this is a distant future risk, but... Without the possibility of using electricity, people, realizing that their life depends on it, will begin to fear the worst, will become unsure of their own abilities: this will make us fall into a crisis of apocalyptic proportions. The Technique will make us fall into oblivion: our ignorance and our stubbornness will lead us to this epilogue. So, what should we do? Well, we are at a crossroads that needs deep reflection... the choices are mainly two: first, we can remain in the current situation (studying new methods to survive); second, we can engage in research of new types of energy. This second way is more difficult than the first one but, in sight of the Epilogue, we cannot permit the Technique to overwhelm us: surely, looking for completely different types of energy than electricity, is something enormous but, if we want to survive, the choice of searching for other kinds of energy is the best one. d'Altariva

THE TWO FACES OF EDUCATION SYSTEM Civility and Theoretical Culture in the Schools It's very difficult to explain what the Education System "should" do because, in particular for a student, the information heard about school, its rules and news, are modified by political influences, and also (I think this is the main problem) these rules don't permit students to be what they are, to become what they want, to think about what should be better for themselves, to say what is important for them, to ask help without the risk of future impacts on the academic performance or, wider, on the thinking of the teachers. Surely, a school where students are free to explain their ethical needs is not easy to put in place, because of economical and, mainly, administrative and managing risks and problems: a lot of people (teachers, but also normal people of our community) consider the act of changing, of alterating modifying the system as a risk, in fact they prefer to stay in the current situation rather than strive for the accomplishment of an Open-Minded System. But what the World needs is not the "A-to-B" teaching type (the one applied nowadays), but the "A-to-B/B-to-A" one: if a student could vocalize (within the parameters of civil coexistence) his thought, his vision, the teachers would better understand the nature, the needs of that student. The solution is an Open-Minded Education System. It remains the question: "Why all these concerns to improve the School System?" Well, because of our conception of "school": we consider it as a system that should provide education to our children, but this is not totally true, in fact the purpose of "schools" is to teach, to give a culture to the students, and only if there are the possibilities, to help students in the establishment of their education. Resuming, the families (and others) have the goal to educate, in sense of "civility", and the schools have the scope to give "(theoretical) culture". In conclusion, we can't retreat from our conception of "school", and this because we must abide by we have done within today, and this because the idea of a pluri-educative (civility, theoretical culture) system is the best way for the realization of a situation of equilibrium and peace. The solution is simple: the Open-Minded Education System. d'Altariva