I would like to add a couple of annotations. (1) Reciprocity is only possible when all the people conceive they are the same class, not when one tribe considers themselves, unique, say, selected by God to govern the world or to take whatever they want. But due to the natural biological drive, all of us consider "I" to be somewhat different, if not unique. Even a lot of cultural cultivation cannot wipe out that spirit of "I" is capitalized but "you" are not.
(2) Qin Kingdom's low-key rise is possible only because of the unclaimed Sichuan Basin was close by, and its western side nomadic people were weak. Most other countries all face unclaimed territory, but Wei and Han are completely surrounded. You can guess which countries were involved in war most often and suffered the most. At the time of Confucius, or even the 15th century, this earth was still full of undiscovered territories. It is no longer so. Instead, every square inch has an owner, sometimes multiple owners. It is a game of fixed-total, pretty much zero-sum at the margin of change. Although space is unclaimed, military devices have been fully stuffed in the near-earth orbit.
(3) The political ideal of Laozi of small nations, full autonomy, and no interaction, was possible only when a small area is self-sufficient by agriculture. Self-sufficiency is always a critical condition for a stable country. A country not only needs material sufficiency, but also natural geographical borders to help defend against invasions. It was possible when a 300-meter hill with natural forest meant a difficult barrier, but not in the day when your cellphone is designed in US or Korea, assembled in China or India, chips fabbed in Taiwan and Korea, plus all the other misc. materials from all over the world. Modern economy implies the national boundaries have to be larger to include more resources, so as to be more self-sufficient. International trades would have solved the problem, but "unique" people would always want to conquer and take.
(4) Even if international cooperation can totally remove a bad player, like one spending the effort to dig out the roots of a nasty weed from one's garden, the weeds will always come back. There will never be permanent peace as defects in human nature would always exist. Of course, until we are no longer human, and simply fight for biological survival. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Excellent! Informative, deep and very well written! Thank you!
Quote: "In reviewing Qin development, I began to understand why Confucius had failed miserably as a politician. His kingdom wasn’t of this world, like that of Jesus and Socrates...."
Quote: "In the current political, social, and economic conditions, I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order.”
Quote: "Will it happen? Time will tell."
It is happening now, it took a lot of time and at great cost in human lives and misery, nevertheless it is happening, and it will be completed shortly.
Important milestones on this path are: Liberation of China and its phenomenal development, Victory of Cuban, Vietnamese, Iranian revolutions, fall of the USSR and rise of Russia, and most recently we are witnessing Ansar Allah (Houthis) defeating the Empire's navies in the Red Sea.
Key ingredients to success have been:
-Resistance embedded in civilizational heritage of societies.
-Asymmetric Warfare: Confirmed ability of small countries to defeat aggression of great powers.
These developments have allowed China to present the "Global Security Initiative" in 2022, which essentially conforms with the definitions you stated for reciprocity.
Time will tell... Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please share and forward my post to others. I think you will like my next article, which is on the subject of strategic patience.
....In the current political, social, and economic conditions, I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order. .....
...... I enjoy reading the following from the United Nations Charter Preamble:... ..... It’s flattering that they included us in the proceedings, even prior to the fall of their empires. They spoke for us, I suppose. ....
These passages left me puzzled, before shrugging my shoulders. Afraid of the "existing international order" - which one? - being swept? They "spoke for us" ? Who is "us"?
These questions matter little to me as a reader, but may mean something to a writer wishing to perfect their craftsmanship.
Your points are well-grounded. Prior to reading your comment, I wrote a different piece, in which I had the words, we/us again. I decided to change those to I/me, after multiple readings. The piece, then, appeared to be clearer and more effective.
This event points to two different issues, temporal and geographic. On the temporal one, I wasn’t present at those crucial historical times, 1945, for example, when international laws and precedents being set. However, I must live with their consequences. So, the use of we/us, perhaps, might not be appropriate. On the geographic issue, South Asia, Indochina, and the like, were colonies back in 1945. Therefore, it might not be appropriate to use “we” in the preamble since their voices, undoubtedly, were ignored. I see an interesting example of this in US history. Prior to the American Civil War, slaveowners wanted to count slaves in determining voting share in Congress. However, they, rationally enough, didn’t allow slaves to vote.
The issue of "existing international order" is a complicated one. We routinely read about it in various forms, i.e., rules-based order, unipolar order, and multipolar order. So, I deliberately left it undefined, allowing readers to use their own definition.
English is my second language – wasn’t heavily exposed to it until I was fourteen -, and I didn't start to write, leisurely, until last month. Therefore, I really appreciate your time in giving constructive feedback.
I really got a lot of of this article Quan thank you. Wondering of you have any perspectives on how these very good ideas (and constraints) ou have raised are impacting upon the 'theory/hopium' of the UNFCCC nations agreeing on practical , realistic cooperative steps to address actually the global warming dilemma versus the lip service and manipulation / deceptions re net zero 2050 which is unachievable?
And regarding the BRICS and the new Cold War v2.0 we are already in, do these historical perspectives suggest the United nations is doomed to collapse soon - or perhaps be revitalized completely?
Thank you for asking those great questions. On the issue of global warming, I plan to write an article about it later this year. Yesterday, I actually thought about it, while waiting in a parking lot to pick up my daughters from school. So I hope to share my opinion later. On the possibility of the collapse of the UN, I do have concerns about it. Let me quote from my article, "I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order." However, I am kind of indifferent about its implications, since it has both constructive and harmful consequences. On the constructive side, it might make the offspring of the UN more democratic, allowing India, for example, to play a greater role in international affairs. It doesn't make sense that the United Kingdom (with its population of around 70 million people) can veto India (1.4 billion people), if the game is truly about democracy... On the harmful side, the transition from the UN to a new paradigm is full of dangers and destruction (as you can see recently).
Currently, I am working on an article about "strategic patience," attempting to provide a ray of hope in today quickly darkening environment.
Once again, thank you for asking those questions. I might explore those issues on a deeper level in the future.
Since you plan to write an article on global warming within a few months, here are a few sources that, to me, appear worthy of consideration, regardless of whether one is going to conclude they're deceitful, or truthful, or something else.
I will check out those links. However, I have to say that I am not qualified, scientifically, to write about global warming. I plan to write on that subject as a social commentary, from a viewpoint of a concerned citizen.
I would like to add a couple of annotations. (1) Reciprocity is only possible when all the people conceive they are the same class, not when one tribe considers themselves, unique, say, selected by God to govern the world or to take whatever they want. But due to the natural biological drive, all of us consider "I" to be somewhat different, if not unique. Even a lot of cultural cultivation cannot wipe out that spirit of "I" is capitalized but "you" are not.
(2) Qin Kingdom's low-key rise is possible only because of the unclaimed Sichuan Basin was close by, and its western side nomadic people were weak. Most other countries all face unclaimed territory, but Wei and Han are completely surrounded. You can guess which countries were involved in war most often and suffered the most. At the time of Confucius, or even the 15th century, this earth was still full of undiscovered territories. It is no longer so. Instead, every square inch has an owner, sometimes multiple owners. It is a game of fixed-total, pretty much zero-sum at the margin of change. Although space is unclaimed, military devices have been fully stuffed in the near-earth orbit.
(3) The political ideal of Laozi of small nations, full autonomy, and no interaction, was possible only when a small area is self-sufficient by agriculture. Self-sufficiency is always a critical condition for a stable country. A country not only needs material sufficiency, but also natural geographical borders to help defend against invasions. It was possible when a 300-meter hill with natural forest meant a difficult barrier, but not in the day when your cellphone is designed in US or Korea, assembled in China or India, chips fabbed in Taiwan and Korea, plus all the other misc. materials from all over the world. Modern economy implies the national boundaries have to be larger to include more resources, so as to be more self-sufficient. International trades would have solved the problem, but "unique" people would always want to conquer and take.
(4) Even if international cooperation can totally remove a bad player, like one spending the effort to dig out the roots of a nasty weed from one's garden, the weeds will always come back. There will never be permanent peace as defects in human nature would always exist. Of course, until we are no longer human, and simply fight for biological survival. Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Stimulating and captivating observations. And so true.
Excellent! Informative, deep and very well written! Thank you!
Quote: "In reviewing Qin development, I began to understand why Confucius had failed miserably as a politician. His kingdom wasn’t of this world, like that of Jesus and Socrates...."
Quote: "In the current political, social, and economic conditions, I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order.”
Quote: "Will it happen? Time will tell."
It is happening now, it took a lot of time and at great cost in human lives and misery, nevertheless it is happening, and it will be completed shortly.
Important milestones on this path are: Liberation of China and its phenomenal development, Victory of Cuban, Vietnamese, Iranian revolutions, fall of the USSR and rise of Russia, and most recently we are witnessing Ansar Allah (Houthis) defeating the Empire's navies in the Red Sea.
Key ingredients to success have been:
-Resistance embedded in civilizational heritage of societies.
-Asymmetric Warfare: Confirmed ability of small countries to defeat aggression of great powers.
These developments have allowed China to present the "Global Security Initiative" in 2022, which essentially conforms with the definitions you stated for reciprocity.
https://english.news.cn/20240603/ba17628956184c37888bc3ade6ad82b8/c.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Security_Initiative
Time will tell... Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Please share and forward my post to others. I think you will like my next article, which is on the subject of strategic patience.
Quoting:
....In the current political, social, and economic conditions, I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order. .....
...... I enjoy reading the following from the United Nations Charter Preamble:... ..... It’s flattering that they included us in the proceedings, even prior to the fall of their empires. They spoke for us, I suppose. ....
These passages left me puzzled, before shrugging my shoulders. Afraid of the "existing international order" - which one? - being swept? They "spoke for us" ? Who is "us"?
These questions matter little to me as a reader, but may mean something to a writer wishing to perfect their craftsmanship.
Best wishes
Your points are well-grounded. Prior to reading your comment, I wrote a different piece, in which I had the words, we/us again. I decided to change those to I/me, after multiple readings. The piece, then, appeared to be clearer and more effective.
This event points to two different issues, temporal and geographic. On the temporal one, I wasn’t present at those crucial historical times, 1945, for example, when international laws and precedents being set. However, I must live with their consequences. So, the use of we/us, perhaps, might not be appropriate. On the geographic issue, South Asia, Indochina, and the like, were colonies back in 1945. Therefore, it might not be appropriate to use “we” in the preamble since their voices, undoubtedly, were ignored. I see an interesting example of this in US history. Prior to the American Civil War, slaveowners wanted to count slaves in determining voting share in Congress. However, they, rationally enough, didn’t allow slaves to vote.
The issue of "existing international order" is a complicated one. We routinely read about it in various forms, i.e., rules-based order, unipolar order, and multipolar order. So, I deliberately left it undefined, allowing readers to use their own definition.
English is my second language – wasn’t heavily exposed to it until I was fourteen -, and I didn't start to write, leisurely, until last month. Therefore, I really appreciate your time in giving constructive feedback.
I really got a lot of of this article Quan thank you. Wondering of you have any perspectives on how these very good ideas (and constraints) ou have raised are impacting upon the 'theory/hopium' of the UNFCCC nations agreeing on practical , realistic cooperative steps to address actually the global warming dilemma versus the lip service and manipulation / deceptions re net zero 2050 which is unachievable?
And regarding the BRICS and the new Cold War v2.0 we are already in, do these historical perspectives suggest the United nations is doomed to collapse soon - or perhaps be revitalized completely?
Thank you for asking those great questions. On the issue of global warming, I plan to write an article about it later this year. Yesterday, I actually thought about it, while waiting in a parking lot to pick up my daughters from school. So I hope to share my opinion later. On the possibility of the collapse of the UN, I do have concerns about it. Let me quote from my article, "I am afraid that the tears of Jesus on that fateful day, together with those of countless millions, would gradually form ripples around the world. Those ripples eventually might organize into waves, from different corners of the earth, to sweep away the structure of existing international order." However, I am kind of indifferent about its implications, since it has both constructive and harmful consequences. On the constructive side, it might make the offspring of the UN more democratic, allowing India, for example, to play a greater role in international affairs. It doesn't make sense that the United Kingdom (with its population of around 70 million people) can veto India (1.4 billion people), if the game is truly about democracy... On the harmful side, the transition from the UN to a new paradigm is full of dangers and destruction (as you can see recently).
Currently, I am working on an article about "strategic patience," attempting to provide a ray of hope in today quickly darkening environment.
Once again, thank you for asking those questions. I might explore those issues on a deeper level in the future.
Since you plan to write an article on global warming within a few months, here are a few sources that, to me, appear worthy of consideration, regardless of whether one is going to conclude they're deceitful, or truthful, or something else.
https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1131412883669129355
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/25/wheres-the-emergency/
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/11/fake-data-the-basis-of-climate-science/
https://notrickszone.com/2022/02/14/hundreds-more-papers-published-in-2021-support-a-skeptical-position-on-climate-alarm/
I will check out those links. However, I have to say that I am not qualified, scientifically, to write about global warming. I plan to write on that subject as a social commentary, from a viewpoint of a concerned citizen.
Great stuff. Reminds me of Dr. Kwan Lee in the China Writers' Group.
Thank you for your appreciation. I will have to check out Dr. Kwan Lee.
Quan, if you want to get on my podcast show, let me know.
Jeff
Thank you for the invitation. I will concentrate on writing for now, due to some personal issues. But I will definitely keep your invitation in mind.