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.