In common parlance, the level of well-being of a person or a group of people is described primarily with quality of life. Material prosperity is a factor, but there are a number of additional factors such as education, employment opportunities, social status, health, nature, and others. The prosperity is important to the people: ‘Without Moos nix los.’ In addition, we can apply the Maslow’sche pyramid of needs. The definition of WHO is: quality of life is the subjective perception of a person about their position in life in relation to the cultural and value systems in which she lives and in Reference to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns.”on the issue which include quality of life, there are differences of opinion. Quality of life based on health includes a basic definition of WHO”the physical, psychological and social welfare of an individual (WHO 1949). Several authors emphasize that less quality of life comprises the objective availability of tangible and intangible things, but, with a desired by the individual State of physical, psychological and social welfare is actually achieved the degree.” In the assessment of the quality of life and satisfaction of the people, the Switzerland stands on number 3 and the Federal Republic to place 35….

The problem is the evaluation. In multidimensional subjective indexes need to soft facts in an objective scale hard facts are converted. There are various theoretical approaches to the measurement of quality of life. The Objektivisten bureaucrats, Technocrats, controller assume the fundamental assumption, that there are identifiable needs, its satisfying determines the well-being. The observed living conditions to outsiders after scientific or assessed moral standards are Cybernetics, Hartz 4.” This theory has found its way into politics of the so-called welfare States Federal Republic of Germany. The subjectivist, however, emphasize the individual perception of one’s own life situation. The American quality of life research believes that the quality of life in the course of social development is determined increasingly by intangible assets.

We live in two global worlds: real (bio Physics) and IR-real (meta Physics). In addition to the conscious digital neuro physiological true perception of space-time dimension (= matter = energy information) we live constantly in the first, un-ter conscious analog dimension. These are the two worlds of subjective meta Physics (Plato, Lao Tzu) and objective Physics (Aristotle, Confucius). Our high active world (DRE, transcendence) is the first and the second quantitative passive world (creation, ratio, immanence). Even today, during the globalization phase of Western knowledge societies, there are still massive misunderstanding between the West and Asia/China. Despite such as common Charter of human rights and the joint Internet, despite intense trade relations and joint Olympics. Many German companies have failed two decades ago with their companies and free provided you know how.

Today, Chinese companies come to us and buy up successful companies and move complete manufacturing equipment to China. Meanwhile, China gives credit to the heavily indebted United States. We look at the causes: our bodies are notoriously self-organizing (nature: 1 conversion circuit with a pos./neg.) Feedback, evolution) part autonomous, natural open sub systems (Management 1st order) work that holistic and sustainable manner. We live with that in cultures created by human beings (innovative value chains, closed systems, Cybernetics 3rd order). People work Psy: soul (DRE) and somatic: body and soul (psyche, emotions, transcendence) and spirit (ratio, matter). So, we humans (mammals) are very successful in the evolution and are available at the end of close runs chain. We can feel and thinking holistically analytically, and act.

We can’t much but really good. But we could use the natural and industrial develop our cultures. Cultures are differentiated on the basis of different used human two brain Hemmispharen, the US people controlled analog (semi-autonomous body and soul, instinct Heart ‘) and the following her controlling digital (autonomous spirit, intuition (heart and mind) brain ‘) part.

The controversy over the reform of the law 30 highlights the importance of having ambitious frames of reference in the context of which can understand the secondary proposals. In my opinion, the discussion that is occurring do not touch the essence of the theme, which diverts attention to matters which, being sensitive, they conceal the essence of the problem.To begin with, higher education and University (capitalized) are not exactly the same. While higher education understood as a public service for the training of technicians, technologists and professionals oriented to economic productivity is evaluated according to parameters of coverage, efficiency and quality, the University, in its social function, it should be assessed according to the production capacity of science, technology and understanding of social and cultural phenomena of humanity. While one of the functions of the University is the training of professionals, not all institutions forming professionals can call universities.The University, in the context of the history of culture, is a space for the utopia. For her it traverses the great adventure of modernity and in their cloisters large discussions on philosophy, economics, politics and law have been forged. The Nobel prizes in science have matured in the research groups of these centres of knowledge, are reservoirs of memory and agitators of the discontent that drives innovation and the search for new human horizons. At large universities, conceived as an essential public good for civilization, are housed libraries, museums, schools of art, orchestras, Olympic athletes and an intellectual elite without age limit.The question, then, is if the country deserves to wear out discussing if any private developer interested in exit to sell education to the poor, because the rich already have it in abundance and of very good quality (in Colombia and abroad), or if a serious reform must begin with the need that we have at least three or four universities of truth, in which the State and individuals are willing to invest in the future in the long term to the national culture.

This is a discussion that cannot give the technocrats and administrators of precarious short term budgets.The proposal of the Government is short-sighted and petty. It does not contain a single ambitious idea. You are outside issues that matter to a country that has to survive in the knowledge society. It does not address the public University as the only possible social articulation of space, and that route private centres will assume to the rich, and the officers, to the poor, which will deepen the social distances. So that a society is equitable, not enough desk there for everyone: must have desk for many in the same place, in the same class, with the same teacher. That means that there must be truth colleges, large, with capacity to accommodate greater diversity around knowledge, to science, to culture.If the proposal of the Government is poor, the reaction of activists is very poor: how to defend the University if those who assume the? spokesperson of the students were encapuchan and change the word and knowledge by stone and gunpowder?, do I tell it is public when his space has become a closed by walls ghetto?, how can mature public knowledge, culture and universality in spaces closed by railings, as if they were private enclaves?There is still a slight hope that, from the induced chaos, serious Academy representatives to draw a rabbit hat and begin to discuss what is urgent to discuss.