|
|
|
|
CIAO DATE: 07/05
A Global System Management Theory for Sound Development
Takashi Fujii
The nearly universal awareness of the current environmental crisis has given rise to a Global System Management Theory intended to build a cosmic “ecosociety”. The principles and implications of this scientific and spiritual revolution are meant to ensure humankind’s optimal coexistence with its home planet.
Since man became able to view the earth from outer space, the vision of the world and society has evolved in leaps and bounds. This has often been referred to as the Second Copernican Turn. At the same time, this has led to a recognition that the issue of global environment must be tackled by all bearing upon it the total power of human society, going beyond governments, corporate groups, racial and social differences, in order to protect the earth and its environment for the existence of humans and their society.
We recall afresh the Kyoto Conference (COP-3), followed by various conferences initiated by the United Nations; industry is also in the midst of reorganisation, seeking a structure and a system of recycling, of assembly and de-assembly. Urban life is fostering reforms in our ways of thinking and organising toward a new social system, referred to as “cooperative life with the environment”. Under the name of integration of knowledge, human sciences are all in a great transition leading up to the management of the global system, the ecological synthesis of every living organism—human beings, animals and plants. This translates into a theory of cosmic ecology based on the familiar eco-society theory extended to the fluid cosmos, incorporating ideas of natural flows, the ecological understanding of the circulation of energy and matter in the universe, the use of plasma currents and the force of gravitation for propulsion.
On the other hand, the awakening of the self and assertion of one’s identity in this era of communication, through the information revolution also heralds the dawn of the age of enhanced awareness of relationships with others. The order of power and obligation rooted in utilitarianism is evolving toward a new stage built on respect, based on reliable information and the distribution of responsibility. The religious sphere is not immune to this trend. The spirit of the times is reflected in the many world con-ferences on global environment as well as those on world religions, acknowledging their common roots. Human society, which holds innumerable cultures and communities, is now about to re-examine the conditions of its existence, its own creation and development, as its composing elements mutually discover each other. We have entered the global era, as human beings and members of society who compete and cooperate, within the global environment. On this path we discover a new human science, which may be called the culture of human ecology. At the same time, it is the way to a new academic integration embracing religion and philosophy.
Findamental Problem of Our Age: The Global Environment
Through stages of conflict and fusion human history has developed in correlation to the environment. Therefore, the history of tackling environmental problems is not altogether such a new one. All civilisations, all religions, have risen from this relationship. Then why take up environmental problems of the earth now? An understanding of this question is very necessary before going further. Without the examination of present conditions one cannot speak of a contemporary fundamental problem. By contrasting the contemporary with the fundamental problems of our ancestors, the success of a science which brings classic research alive in today’s world, is established. This is to say that the efforts to modernise and actualise classical thinking and ideals through the examination of current conditions pave the way for a new science that can be called the culture of human ecology which extends from religion to science.
With the rise of the West man found himself placed in a triangular relationship of subject, environment and resources. As long as the environment was positioned within this correlation modern science was inclined to deal with these three factors separately. We may say that it was the controversy on pollution (kogai in Japanese) which first broke this tradition. Well-intended but self-centered human efforts were destroying the environment, the natural resources and man himself. When this recognition disturbs the balance of the triangle, the position of human beings comes under review. Conflict arises between environment and man. Environment here does not refer to nature alone. The atomic bomb, the victims of pollution, and the claim of Afro-Americans and South Americans are connected to it. It is an awakening to original sin, or gou (kalpa in Sanskrit) in Buddhist terminology. Environment came to be perceived not only as one side the triangle, but a basic condition for the existence of the triangle itself.
Yet, the fundamental problem of our age does not immediately connect to the revival of religion. Whereas the development of medicine was intended for the individual and seen solely in scientific terms, religious salvation and the idea of spiritual peace on the other hand were kept outside the pale of learning and modern science. In other words, to survive in the world today, religion needs to become commercial, “funeral” or ornamental but is not seen as a fundamental human need, though the environmental problem on a global scale is about to change this situation. Religious thought in a new form will graduate into a culture and a science of human ecology.
The world population has multiplied fourfold in the past century. However, at the centre of the problem is the explosive growth in population in the Third World and the increase of CO2 in the developed nations. In addition to this the balance of food supply, the issue of the “gas balance” arising out of the simultaneous spread of urbanisation, industrialisation, flow of industrial waste has brought the world to a monumental crisis. Water and air go beyond borders to cause a climatic change on a global scale. Naturally, the reduction of carbon dioxide becomes a strategic index. The fundamental problem of the times, arising out of the global environmental predicament has triggered an all-out war for humans which they have to fight if they want to avoid extinction.
Can Man and Earth Live Harmoniously?
If man is the cause of the present predicament, then man must do something about it. This aspect has been raised by the United Nations, in particular, by UNESCO in its “Human Dimension Programme of Global Change”, (HDP). As a member of the Planning Committee of the International Social Science Council (ISSC), UNESCO Committee representing the humanities and social sciences, I am also involved in this study.
The fundamental problem of the survival of the human species is not merely an ecological issue for humankind. It is not just a conflict between the natural environment and the social environment. After the collapse of the Berlin Wall, people spoke of a beginning of a global age. It goes without saying that the discussion then focused on the culture of human ecology, transcending research in the natural sciences at a time when the conditions for the existence of human beings and human society were being re-examined. Civilisation, in its current form, was indeed the defendant. This is not the first time that mankind recognised its own civilisation as an offender and attempted to question its validity. At the conclusion of the Nuremberg War Trials it was thought that perhaps what should have been judged was “human civilisation itself”.
The goal of the UNESCO-sponsored discussion was to act on the results of a scientific and phenomenological study of the survival of mankind as a species, in the context of the global environmental problem. Even before speaking of the survival of the species, it was not easy to accept that such a recognition was “a fundamental problem that had been forgotten by modernity”. Before going into a discussion on the essence of the social sciences, the issue of the “original sin” caused by human activity, has now become the fundamental problem of the species, or of civilisation itself. The issue of the global environment is, first of all, a fundamental problem for the humanities and social sciences, involving the survival of the planetary system, which enshrines humankind.
Whether humans are able to build and maintain a culture as an ecology that guarantees its own survival is the goal of scientific research aimed at the construction of a new civilisation. When the goal of learning is to discover the “culture of human ecology”, this then becomes the “global systems management theory”, the “eco-society theory” or the “eco-social management theory” that re-examines the Buddhist idea of finding a “divine nature in all things”. This was exemplified in the Ecology and Development Programme (EDP) beginning with the Manaus Conference in Brazil organised by UNESCO. Yet the UN itself is also an institution organised by modern civilisation. Although perceptions may be broadened, there is a limit to the amount of reflection a civilisation can conduct into its own original sin. Within the International Social Science Council (ISSC), the International Federation of Social Science Organisations, IFSSO, encouraged the following academic policy: to mutually discover “wisdom as culture” held by the civilisations of innumerable societies; to come up with policies that would contribute to the “construction of a sound human society and the promotion of learning that contributes to its permanent development”. This conclusion was conveyed to other academic circles under the heading: Social Sciences of the World Point to Sound Development. Japan, as apparent from the Kyoto Conference, is still far behind in this area, and its level of perception needs to be enhanced.
Conditions for Existence of Humanity and Human Scoeity
Humankind is at the crossroads when it must re-examine its existence and that of human society. We may say that this perception has now become common to the world. Here, you may ask, “we realise all that, now do you have something new to tell us?”
We must identify, “the fundamental problem of our age”, and find out how it differs from the task of our ancestors. In order to research a new fundamental problem, a verification of “the provisional conditions of the age” is necessary. I consider this to be the work of the “internal apprentice”, uchideshi, who co-creates with his master. On the other hand, it is the “external apprentice”, or sotodeshi, who inherits the fundamental problem of the master as well as his attainments as they are and works to pass them on to his successors.
The above distinction can be likened to the difference between the creator and the propagator, or the scholar and the instructor. Regardless of whether it is Buddhism or any other system, if we continue to use imported learning in all fields, it will turn into blind faith as time passes, and we will grow oblivious of its meaning. Imports will also take part in the creation of a new culture or civilisation, as a new learning within the culture of the new society. No matter how many imports we may collect, they will not sustain a sound and permanent development of human society. Only when an academic society or a religious order or denomination, cultivates the trinity of development and progress, development and progress in learning and development and progress of academic institutions, can it maintain a sound, long-term growth and development.
The spiritual peace of the individual is the spiritual peace of society, and today, we must question the significance of the existence of humankind as a species in order to support the sound and sustainable development of human society.
Hence, securing the conditions for the survival of humankind becomes a central task of scientific research, and the basic problem for the global systems management theory, which encompasses human society.
In addition to the new developments in the humanities and social sciences, there are developments based on new knowledge in the area of the natural sciences. Whether it is in social sciences, or the world of religious studies or philosophy, many of these advances have originated in the world of thought. The advances in experiments with thought (gedanken) and scenario-simulations based on demonstration allow the socialisation of such results. The globalisation of this discussion on the evolution of norms and research continues. Ecological research has become universalised, extending beyond life forms on earth. We view the discussions on water, air, the global climate as the frame of a kaleidoscope representing a mandala-like cosmic view, leading to the discussion of the fluid cosmos theory extending to plasma currents. In the field of energy resources, there is talk of chemical decomposition as well as fluid dynamics, or the utilisation of the gravity of other astronomical bodies. It was in 1967 that the Planning Agency of Japan declared this to be the age to “think on one’s own”; the borderless network society removed the fences between nations and industries. The exchanges between cultures fostered in diverse environments are leading to mutual discovery. The age of eco-society is promoting the formation of a new human civilisation founded on plural values. While humankind as a species is developing from self-awareness to the awareness of relationships, the world of religious relations has already been actualised, socialised, universalised to a great extent.
Human Society and Its Creations: Securing Operational Conditions
We must now consider again the conditions under which “a culture of human ecology” will be created. The object of study of the social sciences, in particular, economics, was firstly, the fact of living. One must first be alive to question its significance. What does it mean to live? Economics first sought to define this. The object was to escape from poverty and reach economic self-sufficiency. There was a way to economic independence, from private management to public management. Outside of that, “to live free” in terms of social science, political science or law and administration meant freedom from control of power or money and freedom from confinement—under the control of one’s free will. This was the establishment of a “subjective subject (identity)”. This was the common “democratic” character that was finally being sought and formed among diverse political cultures.
Some argue that it was difficult to separate the two subjects (the economic and the “subjective” or political) clearly in the past; so let me explain by using a model. In the age centered on agriculture when human survival ecology was dependent on that of plants and animals, the human ecology and the two aspects of production and consumption also involved a struggle with nature. This relationship hinged on the productivity of the land. Authority, which was equivalent to military might, was what supported the order of human society. In the age of capital following the Industrial Revolution, economic circulation replaced military mobility as the agent of mobility for development within a social system that had changed from land to financial capital. Authority was then equivalent to financial power. Morals and values of religious systems were forgotten in this transition to power in human society. We see then the emergence of the funeral industry or religious businesses. With everything being dependent on money religion could no longer be a driving force in society. In order to restore religion’s full meaning, man had to wait for the Information Revolution or the Sensitivity Revolution.
The second great shift occurs after the arrival of the communication society following the Information Revolution, the age of knowledge economy, in which the formation of subjective values precedes economic circulation. “Subjectivity” which becomes the subjective identity—the sender and receiver in communication—must include “economic subjectivity” as well as “subjective subjectivity”. It is a subject with a will. This new view of society sees every identity as a legal entity and is perceptible in the discussion on NGOs today. Whether an entity is a corporation or not, what circulates in the knowledge society is unique information and not mass-produced goods. Communication changes subjective values and promotes demand. Consumer power is sought to create demand. By supplying power to satisfy this, demand is created. The closeness of demand and supply creates a market and produces autonomy of economic circulation. This is called a “takeoff”. The way in which man exerts subjective effort up to this point is the development policy, and its mechanism is the development theory before takeoff (kaihatsu). The autonomy of this economic circulation is the moving power of an economic system. The way in which it is used amounts to a development policy while the mechanism of operation informs the development theory after takeoff (hatten). The integration of living as an individual, and living as a society in a web of relations, establishes the motive power for the development of an economic society. The cycle of kaihatsu-takeoff-hatten constitutes the mechanism of continuous innovation in the living dynamism of human society.
When the moving power of the operation develops in this way, the subjective effort of human beings and the moving power of the economic social system are integrated so that there is a continual process of takeoff and growth. Here we can see the birth of “policy science”. This means that the social sciences have come up with a method of social management or public management in which all identities comprising a society can make policy decisions. This promotes the survival of the society and its self-management, as well as forming policy identities in order to escape from poverty and oppression. A comprehensive science policy for human social management has taken shape through the integration of economics and management, politics and law, and the social sciences. This has led to a resurrection of the identity of human beings. The emergence and growing awareness of the environmental problems have come as a result of this evolution.
Even if economic circulation is the moving power for the exchange of values, the allocation of resources and energy for living corresponds to the allocation of the material flows due to investment. The optimal allocation of resources has always been a major theme of economics. The results of economic circulation were also expected to be the optimal distribution of commodities and income. In addition, man-made material circulation caused by the survival activities of humans themselves, became tremendous, leading to huge changes that cannot be absorbed completely by the natural material circulation. These changes in the global environment go beyond causing local pollution problems and destroy the conditions for the survival of the ecosystem. This is the global environmental problem. We must anticipate the results from the area of the natural sciences in order to obtain accurate information on this fact. The primary response to this development is a shift in subjective values and the creation of new demands integrating the perceptions of change in the value circulation. There is a creation of supply in response, so that not only are new efforts toward development made, but also the structure of the economic circulation itself is altered.
This response may be described as a shift to a recycle-based industrial structure, or a shift to a fluid-type economic social system, likened to the circulation of bodily fluids. At this stage, the third important theme in economics, the theory of location or position, experiences a major transformation, becoming the theory of network location and system space. It develops from the issue of allocation of social capital related to transportation and communications, encompassing urban planning, urban location and extending to the formation of environmental assets, location of environmental capital and the restructuring of the economic and social system. We finally come to the understanding that an economic-social system with an intense circulation that can coordinate the circulation of values with the economy of material, has to be built, and that the dynamism of human development must be managed according to those imperatives. This dynamism develops on the basis of the respective cycles of development arising from the megacycle theory, describing the megacycle of human history—from agriculturalism to capitalism (land to capital), capital to knowledge, knowledge to sensitivity. What is important here is to remind ourselves that, as we understand the tasks of the contemporary age, the academic world, which has fallen behind in this major shift, has been forgotten in the belief that such shifts have already been analysed in the history of theories. It is true in any age that only a science that can help to create the future and not just look at distant history is valuable to the present.
Beginning with the development of the human ecology theory and the endeavour to harmonise it with the theoretical development of human economy and society, we ought to recognise ecosystems not only in the living world of plants, animals and other organisms, but in the world in general. The argument developed here is that, unless we do so, we will not be able to seek a path of cooperative existence with these systems. In the Manaus Conference, following the Rio De Janeiro 1992 Summit, human ecology and plant ecology were studied in parallel to the local context of rain forests and human society. By understanding that the plant society of the forest has its own development theory, just as human society has its unique development theory, we attempted to consider the resource balance and gas balance based on a model of two countries. Although this requires indulging in conjecture, the concept was to place the identity of plants and their ecosystem on a level with human identity and its society and to view ecological development and social development together as forming an eco-society. It was also an attempt to design an eco-social space encompassing the development processes of plants and humans. Animism and early philosophical thought are being revived to help form a management theory for the global system. Today, this is sought not only in Buddhism but in all religions since they have largely created the norms for human ecology. If the examination of our contemporary structures is neglected, we cannot build a comprehensive science to guide us into the future.
If we wish to create the operational conditions for the management of the global system as an eco-society, the conditions for the development of the human society must be reviewed next.
Securing the Conditions for the Development
If humans and their society were to create and secure the conditions of existence on their own, they would have to ponder the question of how humans should live. It is natural to go from living as an individual, to living as a society, as a species, and as human society at the top of the ecological system. If there is a foundation for the permanence of human society, the condition for existence and the condition for operation are two requisites. We often hear conflicting arguments regarding development and economy, economy and welfare, economy and the environment, which tend to negate each other; nevertheless, these arguments were based on misunderstandings and vested interests. In this age of communication following the Information Revolution, the development of the ability to survive in the knowledge society amounts to enlightenment. One reason why the introduction of this “holistic” concept of development in the West did not take place easily is that it seems difficult to distinguish between the terms “development”, “growth” and “enlightenment” in the English vocabulary.
Now that we face the Revolution of Sensitivity, of voice and visual images, which has thrown up questions on the content of information and knowledge, no one will doubt the importance of intellectual enlightenment (keihatsu, a new concept of development after the Sensitivity Revolution) based on a two-way exchange. The megacycle has shifted from industrialisation toward knowledge and sensitivity. Economic circulation is carried through continuous development; however, where does human effort originate?
What must be questioned here is the sufficient (or minimum) condition of development. In seeking for the source of human effort, it is clear that some have invoked an “animal spirit” (Jean Robinson, professor of growth theory at Cambridge University) or, in more contemporary terms, have sought the answer in biological and ecological backgrounds, while others have looked at religious ethics (Max Weber) and human spirituality. Professor Robinson attributed the growth impulse to instinct, Max Weber to Protestant diligence, while Confucianism attributed it to discipline arising from piety. In the eco-society development theory today, both instinct and spirit are regarded as equal components in the culture of human ecology. I will conceptualise this source of human effort as “human soundness” at first. Let us understand it as the modern expression of the notion of sound harmony between mind and body advocated by the ancient Greeks, or the human sentiment which seeks the prosperity and welfare of one’s family and descendants.
Today we must seek both enlightenment (keihatsu) and development (kaihatsu, hatten) in society. This process starts with issues of human rights and individual and local identity. In an age where land amounted to productive power, the social order was determined by control over land and water. In the age when productive power was capital, the hierarchy was dictated by monetary power. When productive power became tantamount to knowledge, disputes about the system arose. However, the changes in the moving power of a social system that supports development, accelerated its obsolescence, partly through advances in science and technology; that revolution made land, capital and knowledge less essential while the speed of development increased. Services began to play a larger role in the economy, the economy moved towards “higher” knowledge, progressing further to sensitisation, to more abstract assets such as rights, as human beings became more independent of material things. The assessment of human values is now given greater emphasis while management ideals of efficiency and fairness asserted from the ruling position have begun to lose their absolute value.
In a development model based on human effort, unless “human soundness is secured”, intellectual production cannot be maintained. After the takeoff we must take into account scientific rationality through concepts such as efficiency and fairness as the moving power of the system. The emotion behind human effort does not originate out of efficiency or fairness. The feeling that drives human effort seeking to achieve soundness gives rise to innovation and sets forth a new order. In the social management of humans, the securing of soundness in scientific terms, and its harmonious coordination with economic growth is the first condition of development. This leads to the enhancement of biological or ecological motivation, or spiritual motivation as a source of human effort, which gradually spreads to areas where the concept of human soundness is not yet respected. As this new way of thinking becomes accepted in the less developed areas, a subjective effort for reform arises. It is evident that the trends towards abolishing discrimination, limiting state authority or curtailing monetary power are born out of this process.
Just as we discuss the culture of human ecology when recognising subjective will in plants, animals, all living forms and the natural circulation itself as an individual, and as a group, we cannot conceive coexistence with them if we do not realise that they also possess ecological cultural identities. This is the theory of global system management beginning with the Ecology Development Programme. It starts with the idea that, if humans as a species at the top of the food chain are to achieve the conservation of diverse species, they must naturally take the above into consideration, with regard to the balance of oxygen and carbon dioxide. Human society is now being confronted with a “Magna Carta” by the plant world. How to conjecture the will of other species, how to communicate with them, are some of the numerous questions arising in this area. Setting up several corporations which take the indirect productivity method with the goal of preserving forests and rivers in this industrial society (going beyond mere recycling processes) is also an approach being undertaken today.
The second condition for growth is the attainment of ecological coexistence. If it is human society which stands at the peak of the eco-society management system, these first and second conditions of development must be created and maintained. This means that, after the rise and fall of countless cultures and civilisations owing to the geographic and historic conditions, our unified world order must necessarily be based upon a culture that includes far more diverse and multi-dimensional, societies and environments. The International Federation of Social Science Organisation’s (IFSSO) call to promote the sciences that contribute to the permanence and development of a sound human society is upheld here as well.
What Drives the Choice of Development as Progress?
As explained in the section on the establishment of science policy, economics points only the way to escape from poverty, and cannot provide a social management system for the present or future. The unit of communication is human subjectivity. The receiver and consumer of information are, at the same time, the sender and producer of the information. This two-way setup is rapidly closing the gap between the social classes of producer and consumer, capitalist and worker, the ruler and the ruled. The concept of rich and poor cannot be reduced to an income or asset standard. The recognition that wealth is productivity and the active power (moving power) of society is leading to confidence in the “intellect” as the active power of a community rather than knowledge. Development efforts expressed as human efforts motivated from above are driving back the rule of vested interests. The idea of borderlessness has penetrated the academic world as well. Internet communication is cutting across the fences between academic societies, leading to new developments. We are literally “talking with the world”. The perception that the power of development lies in the moving power of a social system such as economic circulation, whether the circulation is at the level of bicycles, or of motorcycles, is giving rise to view that GNP is not the main criterion for being “advanced” or “developing”, but rather that vitality is equal to wealth. In the response to carbon dioxide emissions as well, we can see the mentality of those who consider themselves “advanced”. Regarding the evaluation of living standards, “quality of life”, QOL is the goal and the standard of action. Its contents are now shifting from the “quantitative standard of daily life” to the “qualitative standard of life”, so that today in corporate and community level discussions, people speak of MOL, “meaning of life”. The quest for development transcends the individual level to lay out guidelines for the revitalisation of local areas or the national economy. Seeking the “meaning of human existence”, which used to be solely a religious concern is now a theme in election speeches, even questioning the characteristics of “our town”, or the identity of a local community, including its natural and social environment.
Throughout the world, we hear similar discussions about how to move from quantitative to qualitative development related to the cultural norms, as well as the traditions and religions of an area. We may say that such discussions, going beyond racial or national boundaries, are laying the ground for a new civilisation.
From a Comprehensive Synthesis to and Integrated Synthesis
We ought to aim to ensure the sound development of human society through the study of a science that can be called the management of the global system, ecosociety or the culture of human ecology. If a new paradigm is to be created through a quantum leap in the traditional sciences, a comprehensive policy for the management of the global system must answer the question: “What is Synthesis in Science?”
Statements of purpose within the departments of general science policy, general human sciences, as well as for the policies, measures and plans related to government administration, similar to discussions at the UN or the World Bank, begin with a comprehensive synthesis. Starting with how to systematise a comprehensive taxonomy, they move to the level of integrated synthesis in policy planning research. The same process takes place in the respective sciences, and develops into an integrated model after separations are removed through interdisciplinary synthesis. The transition from a complex system to systems integration is one of these operations, partially introduced in Japan as a mathematical model for complex systems.
This is a synthesis that does not exclude anyone of the identities comprising a society. This is possible when a social system is viewed from every aspect, such as the economic circulation, mechanisms of production, exchange, distribution and consumption, as a general model. When the creation of demand, creation of supply and the closeness of supply and demand are achieved within a theory of market creation, it becomes possible to generate the moving power that includes all living things without exception and to expand cognition. This achieves the open universal synthesis in the subject and function. It gave rise to a new temporal-spatial design including abstract spaces such as legal space and incorporates the eco-society design, which makes possible the coexistence of diverse species.
A. Synthesis of Mutual Discovery
With regard to all of the identities comprising society, the number of systems or objective worlds will be equivalent to the number of subjects who claim they see others from an objective viewpoint. This is true of IFSSO’s stance, which holds that a mutual discovery of cultures and civilisations is taking place among all societies and environments, giving rise to a new era. What was termed as objectivity in the natural sciences has now been recognised in human society as well. The values recognised by human beings can also be sublimated as social values in an eco-society. This leads to a great shift in theories of international relations and social relations, and also among the various sciences. The goal of humankind must be to subordinate one’s subjective values to the social values of the eco-society and act as a species on the top rung of the ecological ladder.
B. Synthesis of Dynamism
In deciding upon an evaluation option, based on cognition or sensitisation, even if the majority principle of fifty-five per cent were attained, it would be difficult to attain eighty per cent support. The principle of anti-principle operates in such a way that the reaction becomes union and union triggers a reaction, each offsetting the other. In the world of sound human effort, through the synthesis of the anti-principle with the principle, continuous development, stemming from the dynamism of continuous reform, is established. In a revolution devoid of a reaction or alternatively being suppressed, there can be no regeneration. Any policy plan must possess a dynamism permitting continuous development in its administration. Otherwise it will be difficult to continue winning the support of many.
C. Holonic Synthesis
The result of this is systems integration from the infinitesimal upto infinity. This idea was arrived at largely through the research on DNA and the brain. The infinitesimal cannot be recognised, but it “exists”. The quantity, or the solidity and content of this existence, determines the content and standard of response, or the potential to induce human efforts or emotions. The idea that a cell has a brain, or that the entire universe has one, is no longer just an abstract hypothesis. Including all of the different kinds of synthesis mentioned thus far, the relationship between a will and a system is called a total synthesis, or a holonic synthesis; research using this relationship as a principle for explaining the conditions of existence, operation and development in an eco-society has also progressed. Principles to explain events traditionally referred to as supernatural phenomena are now being sought. Yet, in order to provide a platform for experimenting upon thought, there must be contributions from the area of religious studies and philosophy. The response produces the change of mentality (recognition and will), and turns human effort toward development.
The synthesis of such learning as a whole must aim at designing a human civilisation capable of living together with the earth in harmony.
Research goals such as the permanent and sound development of human society, and the creation of a global civilisation illustrate the very real fundamental problem of whether humankind can indeed survive together with the Earth. My position is to convey the fact that this fundamental problem is closely related to a Buddhist philosophical question. Yet the science that may be called a culture of human ecology is not limited to Buddhism but is implict in all religions.
I regard the Buddhist leader, Nichiren, who promoted the search for inner peace and peace of the nation through righteousness, as one of the great pioneers in the social sciences. The global system management theory for an eco-society addresses the fundamental problem of bringing all human societies together to reshape a common world through their mutual discovery of each other.
The reason I came to Rissho University was to take up the legacy of Professor Tanzan Ishibashi, one of its founders and a former prime minister of Japan; he advocated the “theory of founding Japan” as a small country, thinking independently in more modern and practical terms amidst the difficulties of the post-war period.
The Global System Management Theory for an eco-society evolved out of the worldwide environmental crisis. I have tried to provide a summary of the model based on Ishibashi’s national reconstruction theory.