MARIA, on April 13 1998 you wrote,

Jacob, why do you speak as if we, human beings, were not a part of Nature?

Being ourselves a result of the Physical Laws, which determine how energy-matter interact, we are as part of Nature as anything else created by those Laws. The only things that are not intrinsic to Nature are the things that we humans create using our minds and hands, feet, or mouths, be them a chair, a painting, a poem. Because those things are created by us, human beings, being, therefore, artificial. Yet, natural does not mean created by Nature, but being part of Nature, as a result of the ongoing effects of the physical laws, starting from the moment of the Big Bang. Thus, we --or anything else that exists naturally-- are part of Nature, not its creation. Nature does not create, it is continuously being created. Suppose a child grows in a desert, and he has no opportunity to see anything else, including any images of other places. He will come to the conclusion that Nature is mostly sand.
My intention has been to call the attention to the real signification of the name and concept of Nature.

Perhaps we are as selfish as Nature itself, because WE ARE ALSO NATURE.

'Selfishness' is a human concept. The only component of Nature which I can include as capable of acting in a way which we can qualify as 'unselfish' toward man is the dog. We can never attach as deeply to any other non-human creature as to a dog. Dolphins are apparently also capable of empathizing with humans, but it is not possible to have a dolphin around us. Animals in general appear to be 'unselfish' toward their own, specially toward their litter, up to a given age.
Clarifying concepts supplies us with a degree of understanding about ourselves and what surrounds us. The 'Laws of Nature' are actually the Physical Laws . There is only Physics. Anything else is a part of it. As an example, Chemistry, one of the Natural Sciences, is a branch of Physics. So is Biochemistry. But Mathematics is a class apart; it is the core of Physics, not a specific derivative or branch of it. That is why Mathematics is not a Natural Science. Medicine is an Applied Science composed of the natural science Biology (which itself incorporates the natural science Biochemistry), and of diverse technological human inventions, all for a specific application . Natural sciences incorporate no teleological components. Medicine is all teleological, its target being the benefit of man's health.

I think that we have to accept (humbly?) that we are, at least, made as a part of "the system" of Nature and that we are always "trying" to believe that we are different, that we are better than the 'non-intelligent' Nature.

I posit that we humans are entirely different from any other creature because we are capable of meta-thinking. This neologism I coined to name our capacity for thinking about thinking. I'll refer to it on another opportunity. At the moment, I should explain concisely the evolution of philosophical thought, up to now, here, at my page in Geocities.
Thales is considered to be the first philosopher. Parmenides and Heraclitus, as examples, also left their seal. Then Socrates arrives, to become a pivotal benchmark. So we have the pre-Socratic, the Socratic, and the post-Socratic philosophers. Socrates utilizes the "Socratic method." He stops young people in the street and ask them questions. Forces them to think, think, think. He writes nothing that we know of. He possesses or is possessed by an intimate god who tells him when he is right or wrong. Lucky fellow! He drinks the hemlock because that's what his god tells him is the correct thing to do, if his teachings are not to be for naught.
Comes Plato, who invents the Dialogue, letting others express their own ideas-beliefs. Those dialogues are set in writing. Arrives Aristotle, who utilizes a different approach. He wants order, is a taxonomist, looks for convincing explanations. His philosophy now verges on science.
Following these "Socratics" comes a long list of "post-Socratics," the likes of Kant, Spinoza, Nietzche, Wittgenstein, some confusing, some too simple, some mixed-up, none convincing.

Enter Ghitis: he creates and develops the'Interdialog.' Just because now something very unique has been invented and developed. Which is, the Internet. And also because dialogue is the most effective way of communicating with people at large --or at least with other Cybernetizens. As Ghitis starts to dialog, his previously inchoate philosophical leanings start to gather blood and flesh, and the NEW PHILOSOPHY is conceived. Not for the world at large, not for the Western World, but only for select cybercitizens --you, Maria, being one of them.

I hope that IF (and only if!)...

Scientific Dynamic Philosophy does not deal with hopes and ifs, but with the world of ideas: Brain, Mind, Thinking, and Meta-thinking. No metaphysical concepts, no theology, only philosophy, when supported by science, and with science when touching on philosophy.

...(if we) women and men learn to develop our mental powers ('mental' includes the energy of affections, desires...) in the best way, we'll be able to save ourselves --and the next generations-- from disaster.

Who are 'women and men'? Humanity is divided into many cultures, subcultures and mentalities. Individually, perhaps every adult looks for a 'twin soul.' Even for a limited space of time... Because TIME COUNTS! I write 'naturally,' for the benefit of no one, non-teleologically. Just for my own pleasure and just for my Virtual Community.

The New Philosophy offers no counsel. Detachedly, it endeavors to explain the world.

The Interdialog provides an opportunity for the development and advancement of philosophical ideas in a dynamic, scientific way.