Hello Vlad...

The film project, Beauty will save the World, sounds like a fun project. To make a project successful for any identified goal, all identifiable contradictions must be resolved.

When a contradiction in a project is identified, most people who create projects ignore the contradiction, and attempt to encourage the project with other words about other things.

But the contradiction is therefore not resolved, and will later defeat the project. Even one contradiction left in place will defeat even empires.

The project is poorly explained, with vague words about how good the project is, rather than precisely what it will do and how it will do that. Therefore it will not interest people who want something done.

The word, "Beauty" does not interest half the people in the world, especially when combined with the words, "save the world". Therefore the title defeats the project for half the people. What is beautiful to some people is not beautiful to others. If the word "beauty" does not have a precise meaning among many people, and you want a precise goal, then do not use that word because different reactions will be created. Many people believe they are already saving the world by starting wars against those other people who are threatening the world. Therefore the words fail the project.

Therefore, the project should be described in precise words about what it will do, not with vague descriptions.

There is a list of contradictions that can be identified in the description of the project, which should have been resolved before the project was described. If a person starts a project before they ask and answer all the questions about the project, they may have fun, but the initially described goal will not be achieved.

But the CONTROLLING CONTRADICTION of the project is that it attempts to educate or convince many people that they should do something different from what they are doing. The process of educating people to stop creating contradictions has failed for thousands of years, for a reason the project does not identify, but is available. The reason Larisa has not resolved the contradictions of her own project, is the same reason the war-makers have not resolved the contradictions of their war projects.

If Larisa resolved her own contradictions, she would learn how the human mind identifies and resolves contradictions, to therefore know how to do so in any human mind, including the minds of the war makers.

If she does not learn that knowledge, her film will not display that knowledge.

I must go back to work at the floating islands now.

 

Keep on having fun.
Doug

A refutation by Dr. Uladzimir Tratsiakou to Doug BUCHANAN reply on the Project

 

Doug, you see, your way how to reveal contradictions asking questions and then answering them has the old pre-history, because Socrates showed more than 2 thousand years ago with help of his dialogues how the truth might be revealed, when he founded contradictions within his opponent's statements. You propose to act as opponent to yourself, revealing contradictions within your own statements. For that you are needed to think in your own way and as if being another, to be yourself and to be another, i.e. to imagine you speaks to an opponent, who is disagree with you and correcting you. But to be another, to see yourself from aside, to evaluate yourself and your own thoughts AS IF WITH HELP OF ANOTHER MIND, that is hard and ambiguous occupation, that is why your way being IMPLICITLY dialogical one is losing in effectiveness to EXPLICITLY dialogical Socrates' way for to reveal the truth.

So, I've revealed contradiction of your technology: you applied it as a monological asking-answering way being implicitly dialogical one.

It is seen from the next your statement: "To make a project successful for any identified goal, all identifiable contradictions must be resolved". First, you haven’t to mean a projecting person only, looking for contradiction in the person's thinking, because a project may be applied by a group of projecting people, who were sharpening formulations and exposing contradictions while discussing one with another. I.e. they were conducting a DIALOGUE!

Your condition, above which you counted as necessary one for a project to be successful, doesn't be the really. You, in particular, didn’t take into consideration the project's price laid. For example, Egyptian pyramids in result were successful projects, but the successes were reached by price of hundreds thousand slaves' life’s. 'Belomor-canal' project in Russia was successful as well -- by price of millions prisoners' life’s. So, your condition is not necessary, and Larisa's project, not answering it, entirely may be successful.

Why you can't admit that any magnate-billionaire will see or even has seen already how insecure is his business in the world going to down, and will get ready to respond to the appeal to change something to a better using mighty means of cinema art and to invest a little part of his capital, even without hope of its full reimbursement? Larisa after all is proposes just this and hopes for this.

You appeared to misunderstand Larisa project's idea, what is seen from your assertion: "If she does not learn that knowledge, her film will not display that knowledge". After "The beauty will save the world" project (BWSW), it is proposed not the only producer Larisa is creating any one film; the project gives organization-subject-financial framework for scenario writers, actors, film-directors and other stage-managers to reveal them their creative energy and proposes to produce not one but 12 films, 10 of which being fiction ones. Only having no notion on films' production, one may be agree with your prediction: "But the contradiction is therefore not resolved, and will later defeat the project". The way from a film plan to its embodiment is very complex and may not be defined and scheduled from the beginning to the end, even if because just mutual contradictions between actors, film author and stage-designers are one of the main forces moving the very process of a film's creation.

Though I am agree that contradictions accumulated of not-resolved problems may destruct whole empire, but I don't believe that ONE contradiction may cope with that. Inside a complex system like a social organism, the very contradictoriness of various social "organs" и "tissues" is moving force of development, and MASSE of not-resolved contradictions-problems only can ruin an empire. The last of known cases in the history, empire of Soviet, 7 decades holding out, is just the same case.

You believe that the CONTROLLING CONTRADICTION of the project is attempt "to educate or convince many people that they should do something different from what they are doing". But humankind's degradation is going really, and even if the re-building of the human mentality and social consciousness would need thousands years, anyone should begin the process.

General assertion may be disproved by a single example. Such the example is drastic changes of human mentality having gone on in my life duration. More than 70 years people in the USSR were educated in the spirit of collectivism and contempt for the personal and private for the sake of the collective, getting used to social inequality in poverty. And now, only about 1.5 decade after Soviet power, in Russia and other Soviet republics, valuables of liberal freedoms and self-value of human personality are quite felt. To that, for Russia, declare coefficient (incomes of 10% of the richest to that of 10% of the most poor) has got more than for some countries of "the first world".

Moreover the appeal to act for the sake the human race's safe is justified because of the near, predicated systems catastrophes. In our joint Declaration, of both Mission Studio and IntelTech, aiming to get maintenance of the public opinion, of top figures of arts and science, the ground of IMPERATIVE NECESSITY to act just now will be done, using the means of the most popular of the arts, cinema art, to try to make positive change to the better in the social consciousness, having created films which might cause wish for revision and revaluation of people's life’s, make them realizing their place in the world, provide positive-creative life strategies' elaboration. As I can see, such understanding of "beauty of the life" appears out of your field of attention. Proposed you correlated your perception of the beauty with art works and consumer things only, otherwise you might not say: "What is beautiful to some people is not beautiful to others". For all that, there is general apprehension of the most people, what is good/ beautiful and bad/ugly even if concerning friendship, love, business and other interrelations between people.

Your opinion is: "the project should be described in precise words about what it will do, not with vague descriptions". But this recommendation is quite not for the most creative part of intelligentsia. The project expresses any SOCIAL ORDER which may be apprehended by people of the arts first of all, those, who would want themselves to have created something similar but haven’t means to realize their ideas. More exact project's formulations aren't good as binding initiatives of film directors, cameramen and other filmmakers. So, it is not truth that the very name "BWSW" may "defeat the project for half the people", moreover, the half the people lost aren't needed to realize the project.

It's going without saying that Larisa as a project manager must not resolve any her own contradictions as for to know "learn how the human mind identifies and resolves contradictions". If film creators will get creative liberty of acting and necessary providing with human, financial and material resources, they cope themselves better with both problems and contradictions. Too reglamented project would be able to involve artisan’s only, not gifted authors, actors, and film directors.

I sum up. Doug, I think you, as having clear thinking, have voiced explicitly what negative relation to the project, like of replying "on the sound", not the essence, Larisa and me might wait, giving us a possibility to be prepared to objections of like kind. I don't know else how think my colleague, but I am thankful you for that.