Is there such a thing as English (British) and English (American)?
Britain is composed Wales, Scotland and England. In Wales the official language is Welsh, and while the official language of Scotland is English there is a language of Scots which might have a revival. English is a common folks language of England which came to prominence after the division of England from Normandy. It is a hybrid of Latin, Old German and French, but it is the language of the English, who are the people who come from the land which is called England. There is only one English in this country English(English) not English(British).
The colonial period spread this language around the globe and the various English colonies which include Northern America came to speak this language.
English is a free language which is not governed and does change, but at the same time there are standards of grammar and spelling which gave come to define the language. Certainly we are not free to just make it up as we go along... unless we do so knowingly of the incorrectness for "aeffect".
Now I sense that the Americans probably are not too happy about speaking a language names after their founding nation. I imagine a brief history of America goes... first there was Adam and Eve - or Dinosaurs depending upon your taste - and then soon after there was the Wild West a lawless time from which emerged the true American - firm jutting jaw, drooling accent, horse (or car) driving and faster than the next man at the draw. I don't suppose that colonial history enters into history classes much despite this being the foundations of American Law, constitution, economics, science, language, music, religion and customs - at least the route by which they arrived (e.g. Christian, Christmas, Halloween, Harvest festival i.e. thanks giving). Not much stems from the American Indians who have been pushed aside and murdered - except maybe the character of the cowboys if you follow Pirsig.
So why do they call their language English (American)? An oxymoron if ever there was one. This is getting into the same weird territory a people calling themselves Italian-Americans or American Jews.
Does English (American) follow the same rules as English (English). If it does then it it is English(English) i.e. English if it doesn't then why not call it American?
Then the on going issue - which the blogger spell checker is certainly confused by - of whether things are colored or coloured is solved.
This blog is in English. So things are coloured. The spell checker (it being a .com site) is actually for a different language called American. The proper spelling of coloured in that in this language.
Worth noting that linguistic evidence points to sudden changes in language when societies split. It is natural for the American peoples to start speaking their own language, so recognise that now and stop the confusion.
Simple - problem solved.
Thursday, 8 May 2008
A picture the Earth. Which way up is it?
Picture the Earth.
Which way up is it? Is the North pole at the bottom or the top. Usually we picture it like this picture from Apollo 17 which Africa tapering downward, with Europe and USA in the top half and S.America and Australia in the bottom half.
Now imagine the Solar system with the planets orbiting the sun. Which way around is it? I imagine we continue the orientation and have the planets going clockwise around the sun, and the top of the Sun being the same half at the top of the Earth.
And the galaxy how do we orient that? And the Universe?
Actually it is arbitrary. There is no "way up" in the universe. It is a convention with no real part.
So why is the Northern Hemisphere Up and the Southern Down? Up is the direction of Sky and Sky is where the Gods live in space, light and brightness, while down is the darkness of the ground and the low creatures and the bad things. Naturally when European explorers drew the maps they put themselves at the top. The same way as Greenwich claims the Zero meridian which is also unreal and arbitrary.
This has no reality, it is all imaginary, but it is suprisingly robust in the mind and creates what looks like a reality, that the Earth should be this way not that.
This is what illusion looks like! It infiltrates everything, it is the source of all Evil, it is the work of devils and it is what causes suffering. There are three things which cause illusion: anger, greed and ego. The orientation of the Earth illusion arises from European greed and ego.
Likewise companies have an orientation. I notice when jobs become available it is usually at the bottom, people get promoted up and leave places at the bottom. Salaries rise upwards. People look upwards in their careers. But it is illusion.
When you look at it the work is done by the lowest paid - the sweat shops, the factories - and the pen pushers and management who do progressively less get paid progressively more. They argue their responsibility is greater - but look at the hyperbolic positions of top executives who can completely destroy companies get massive pay outs and the boys network looks after them and gets them new jobs.
There is no up and down in companies. It is illusion created by greed and ego.
So much of our lives is dominated by such illusions. Government being only one I have attached recently.
Wednesday, 7 May 2008
Daffodil 2008
So like a ghost I returned to that spot where the daffodil had shone in its brief moment of glory two years ago and in its place there stood a new form as marvelous as the last.
So I took a walk through the arboretum of cherry trees and pondered how things had changed in those two years since that fateful day. The huge horse chestnut tree that had towered above the lawns had been felled by the winter winds leaving only a naked scar in the grass of its now sawn trunk. I remembered in part what I had been thinking two years ago, about how then I missed the beauty of the world I had known with "my muse" - simply knowing her had infected all existence with the magic that I known was always there. My bleaker days then lacked that joy, the cherry blossoms fell as beautiful shapes upon my retina but did not stir my soul. I planned as I walked through those trees an escape, to embark on a voyage once again to the heights of celestial beauty and romance that I had known. But the plans of mortals are dreamed in a real world and the sense of freedom that day was from an ironic loss.
Now two years on I am stepping out of the gloom and my heart was remarking upon the beauty of the translucent cherry blossoms and the sky was opening, and I was thinking that these blossoms are every bit as beautiful as the daffodil, but they lacked one thing; they were not the daffodil, that is the rub always isn't it? that in matters like this only "this one" will do - it is no longer a matter of quality, it matters no more about form, this is what they call love. In love we find the waters that we long to drink, that without leave the world barren, make the once warming sun a burning tormenter. But, isn't this what Buddha warns us against? This is not Love, it is for one person above all others, one flower at the expense of the host. I can't see it yet, but isn't this Maya, the illusion of existences. My delusion, a belief in an individual unchanging being: "my muse", who before my eyes has disintegrated and I still haven't seen the weakness of the form I once addressed as "daughter of the moon". Even the moon changes, yet I am stuck in a phase, my foolish heart abandoning all for the one.
It must be the tragic truth I have long avoided that she died the day I met her, because she was never going to be the same again. That day was gone then, I tried to forget then; I remember still. I knew this, I have written this before; why is this so hard to grasp? What is it about this illusion of existence that is so impenetrable? Why do I insist so deeply against all the evidence that the existences that I desire should be so solid and unchanging? I know, I know, but I do not see.
I guess I fear also that when this illusion evaporates in the waking sun my world will be forever changed, and there is no going back. No longer will there be the security of solid, permanent people and places to rest upon, to take refuge in, to warm my heart beside. I and everything in this universe will be here for a day only, and tomorrow we start afresh. This is not how the fairy tales were supposed to be, this is not how I dreamed life would be, this is not what comforted me as I slept as a child: my father dust, my greatest love dust, the past all dust. I know in this lies liberation, but the medicine is a little too bitter just yet... but at least my heart is awakening from its crysalis this spring, clinging to a blade of grass still glistening in morning dew, to unfold its brilliant new wings to the warmth of a new day's light.
So I took a walk through the arboretum of cherry trees and pondered how things had changed in those two years since that fateful day. The huge horse chestnut tree that had towered above the lawns had been felled by the winter winds leaving only a naked scar in the grass of its now sawn trunk. I remembered in part what I had been thinking two years ago, about how then I missed the beauty of the world I had known with "my muse" - simply knowing her had infected all existence with the magic that I known was always there. My bleaker days then lacked that joy, the cherry blossoms fell as beautiful shapes upon my retina but did not stir my soul. I planned as I walked through those trees an escape, to embark on a voyage once again to the heights of celestial beauty and romance that I had known. But the plans of mortals are dreamed in a real world and the sense of freedom that day was from an ironic loss.
Now two years on I am stepping out of the gloom and my heart was remarking upon the beauty of the translucent cherry blossoms and the sky was opening, and I was thinking that these blossoms are every bit as beautiful as the daffodil, but they lacked one thing; they were not the daffodil, that is the rub always isn't it? that in matters like this only "this one" will do - it is no longer a matter of quality, it matters no more about form, this is what they call love. In love we find the waters that we long to drink, that without leave the world barren, make the once warming sun a burning tormenter. But, isn't this what Buddha warns us against? This is not Love, it is for one person above all others, one flower at the expense of the host. I can't see it yet, but isn't this Maya, the illusion of existences. My delusion, a belief in an individual unchanging being: "my muse", who before my eyes has disintegrated and I still haven't seen the weakness of the form I once addressed as "daughter of the moon". Even the moon changes, yet I am stuck in a phase, my foolish heart abandoning all for the one.
It must be the tragic truth I have long avoided that she died the day I met her, because she was never going to be the same again. That day was gone then, I tried to forget then; I remember still. I knew this, I have written this before; why is this so hard to grasp? What is it about this illusion of existence that is so impenetrable? Why do I insist so deeply against all the evidence that the existences that I desire should be so solid and unchanging? I know, I know, but I do not see.
I guess I fear also that when this illusion evaporates in the waking sun my world will be forever changed, and there is no going back. No longer will there be the security of solid, permanent people and places to rest upon, to take refuge in, to warm my heart beside. I and everything in this universe will be here for a day only, and tomorrow we start afresh. This is not how the fairy tales were supposed to be, this is not how I dreamed life would be, this is not what comforted me as I slept as a child: my father dust, my greatest love dust, the past all dust. I know in this lies liberation, but the medicine is a little too bitter just yet... but at least my heart is awakening from its crysalis this spring, clinging to a blade of grass still glistening in morning dew, to unfold its brilliant new wings to the warmth of a new day's light.
On Blasphemy, faith and the Law
So if I disagree or don't understand a sacred text and they haul me before the authorities to answer a charge of blasphemy or heresy...
I would answer, surely only God can decide whether I blaspheme, and do those who accuse me of blasphemy then claim to speak on behalf of God? and if they do speak on behalf of God then did God decide that they do? and if God did decide then show me the sign from God which indicates that they represent God rather than another? And if He did not then who are these imposters? If mortal men elect or decide who does and does not speak on behalf of God, then do they not put themselves before God and are they not the greater blasphemers, ones who deserve only the hatred of God and the loathing of men.
So Jesus might have said to his accusers... but then maybe he really was a blasphemer? How do we know?
That is the great question how do we, how does anyone, know? How do we know that a preacher speaks the word of God or the word of a devil? How do we know that the organisations be they the Vatican, the various Islamic schools, the Rabbis, the Christian preachers or anyone know themselves who is speaking the word of God or who is sent to deceive us?
Ultimately as has been argued in various guises throughout this blog the judgement rests upon our own shoulders. Whether we believe the teaching of a preacher, whether we even accept the authority of a church ultimately lies with us. To think blindly that a school or book is correct is to abdicate the responsibility for our own salvation, to reject our relationship with God who will accept us personally when we die, and judge us personally upon our own sins and beliefs, not as a member of an organisation, and not on the merits of other people! I mean when we die is God really going to accept the argument, "well everyone else said it was good"? The whole point of judgement is that we are tested on our ability to tell demons from angels. Even if we misunderstand a line of a sacred text, our misunderstanding will be punished by God - not by mortals - that is why we have jihad every day.
Some say the Koran is not to be questioned, that to challenge the faith of Islam, to question the accepted wisdom and the pillars is to challenge God. Well if we have faith in God let God punish those people! What possible reason is there for mortal men to conduct the affairs of God's Law? Either we do not think that God can enact his own Law, and this be remembered is a Being so mighty that He created the Universe! how simple to execute a trivial line of Law! or we lack faith in God all together and think that we must fill the Void left by our own lack of belief.
Is there any situation where a True Believer in the Law, a true devotee, a person who has truly submitted to the Law of God need to be brought to action to enact that Law! If it is Law then let it be, if it is not Law then don't make it so by acting it out!!! Let the sinners sin, their punishment will be metered out and we should only pity them for that! And while the mortal Laws are acted out by the unfaithful, maybe the religious councils might also want to push the sun around the sky as well, and the keep the hearts of Good people beating too! Or, maybe the religious councils are just the Wizard of Oz like fabrications that the politicians are.
Those who question and abandon a faith, are the same as those who question and join a faith. If you cannot leave a faith then you cannot join one also! Close the door of exit and of choice, and the you close the door of choice and entrance also.
To end, I do not say a word of truth above. It is simply for the reader to decided whether they agree or not. If you disagree and consider this Blasphemy you exercise choice, if you agree and consider this Truth you exercise choice. Either way you are the judge and God will be watching your choice as indeed he does mine, for upon these we will be judged ourselves.
I would answer, surely only God can decide whether I blaspheme, and do those who accuse me of blasphemy then claim to speak on behalf of God? and if they do speak on behalf of God then did God decide that they do? and if God did decide then show me the sign from God which indicates that they represent God rather than another? And if He did not then who are these imposters? If mortal men elect or decide who does and does not speak on behalf of God, then do they not put themselves before God and are they not the greater blasphemers, ones who deserve only the hatred of God and the loathing of men.
So Jesus might have said to his accusers... but then maybe he really was a blasphemer? How do we know?
That is the great question how do we, how does anyone, know? How do we know that a preacher speaks the word of God or the word of a devil? How do we know that the organisations be they the Vatican, the various Islamic schools, the Rabbis, the Christian preachers or anyone know themselves who is speaking the word of God or who is sent to deceive us?
Ultimately as has been argued in various guises throughout this blog the judgement rests upon our own shoulders. Whether we believe the teaching of a preacher, whether we even accept the authority of a church ultimately lies with us. To think blindly that a school or book is correct is to abdicate the responsibility for our own salvation, to reject our relationship with God who will accept us personally when we die, and judge us personally upon our own sins and beliefs, not as a member of an organisation, and not on the merits of other people! I mean when we die is God really going to accept the argument, "well everyone else said it was good"? The whole point of judgement is that we are tested on our ability to tell demons from angels. Even if we misunderstand a line of a sacred text, our misunderstanding will be punished by God - not by mortals - that is why we have jihad every day.
Some say the Koran is not to be questioned, that to challenge the faith of Islam, to question the accepted wisdom and the pillars is to challenge God. Well if we have faith in God let God punish those people! What possible reason is there for mortal men to conduct the affairs of God's Law? Either we do not think that God can enact his own Law, and this be remembered is a Being so mighty that He created the Universe! how simple to execute a trivial line of Law! or we lack faith in God all together and think that we must fill the Void left by our own lack of belief.
Is there any situation where a True Believer in the Law, a true devotee, a person who has truly submitted to the Law of God need to be brought to action to enact that Law! If it is Law then let it be, if it is not Law then don't make it so by acting it out!!! Let the sinners sin, their punishment will be metered out and we should only pity them for that! And while the mortal Laws are acted out by the unfaithful, maybe the religious councils might also want to push the sun around the sky as well, and the keep the hearts of Good people beating too! Or, maybe the religious councils are just the Wizard of Oz like fabrications that the politicians are.
Those who question and abandon a faith, are the same as those who question and join a faith. If you cannot leave a faith then you cannot join one also! Close the door of exit and of choice, and the you close the door of choice and entrance also.
To end, I do not say a word of truth above. It is simply for the reader to decided whether they agree or not. If you disagree and consider this Blasphemy you exercise choice, if you agree and consider this Truth you exercise choice. Either way you are the judge and God will be watching your choice as indeed he does mine, for upon these we will be judged ourselves.
Sunday, 4 May 2008
Progress = Sisyphine tragedy
Did I already cover this? anyway quickly...
what a strange idea is "progress". I believe it says that tomorrow will be better than today and that things are improving. It argues that the past is to be forgotten, that our ancestors were stupid monkeys and that our children will be geniuses. It says that the sum of human happiness is always increasing.
The evidence is all around ... isn't it? Child death rates are always dropping, technology is always advancing and more people are employed today than ever before. How could people have been happy without modern medicine, without TVs and without mobile phones are computers. Clearly everything is getting better.
Yes! how could people have been happy without mobile phones.... yet we were! Turning the logic around doesn't it mean that our children will be happy than we are today? That our lives are wasted here in the 21st Century because by the 22nd century they will look at us like stupid monkeys. The idea of progress makes our own lives now pointless and backward!
It does the same to other people in countries right now that either do not celebrate technological achievement, or have not undergone economic transformation. Are their lives worthless and backward 2?
The obvious observation is that yes we were happy 10 years ago without mobiles, and 150years ago without electricity and televisions and 10,000 years ago when the only technology was stone.
That is a milestone in human thinking - the realisation that human happiness is not a product of our material circumstances. And that was realised a long time ago!
Is it not also true that were human beings to ever get the formula for life right, then progress would actually end up in changing that formula and so would make things worse!
Progress it seems assumes that there is no final goal to human endevour... I mean what is it that we are aiming for? and how would we know when we get there? Its a very vague notion at best.
Personally I believe that we had the solution to life a long, long time ago and we've actually being working away from that for at least 400years if not more. America for example has never existed during a time of reality!
The problem today is that our records of the past are written by the historians and they record only the political ficgures... and as I've argued already political figures, like countries and nations, are narrative inventions and have no reality, and certainly don't represent the "average person", the wisdom of the day or the way of life. We have only fairy tales about the past, and so have a distorted view of life... just as we do today from watching the news, films and books.
So what if we put the idea of progress aside... then the world looks very different! Actually we have rising violence, mental illness and unhappiness! People work longer hours than ever before, and the largest percentage of the population ever are in employment. How is it that with all the technological advancement we need to work even harder than before to get what we need to be happy? Remember only men used to go to work before, now both men and women go to work and have to do all the house tasks as well! The evidence points in the opposite direction that people are more unhappy! And, even the peoples once "immune from this stuff" (to quote Robert Palmer) in what the West calls "undeveloped" countries are now thinking in these terms... they look at themselves as being backward and unhappy!
Well being "undeveloped" is a blissful dream compared with being "developed", mke no mistake. Being developed means... to be "progressing" to eternity toward some vague unrealisable utopia. On an eternal tread mill we become like Sisyphus forever struggling toward a better world only to see it fade into the past and a new mirage appear in the glowing Progressive future. It is completely mindless and senseless, a narrative trap that too many people are beginning to talk with.
There is no Development, and no Progress. Whether we live in a hut in the forest with sticks and stones, or we live in a Californian mansion beside the sea with an executive position and a dozen hispanic slaves actually they are the same! The only question then is which is the more sustainable (ecologically, practically and fairly assuming that all people should be able to enjoy this) and the easier to come by... and i'd happy just walk into the forest and take up the first rather than have the hassle of working through college, and years of 9-5 on the off chance my goals came true... and then what?
And in the last paragraph hides the rub... the goals of progress become ever higher and more unobtainable.. and as they become scarecer the higher their price and the more people want them. Already the worlds resources can only just support the global population living the average lifestyle of the UK. That would mean raizing the entire planet for resources and land. The US consumes twice that of the UK and if anyone dreams of that let them remember that only 1 in 2 could ever have it and the other half of the world would die. And the global population will double anyway... so even to have the UKs level will mean the starvation of half the world. Oh but of course "Progress" will solve these problems... but for what purpose when Progress made these problems... and we can be happy with or without?
The reason for Progress i have argued throughout the blog is the status-quo. Drawing more and more people around the world into longer and longer hours labour, tricking them into giving up their lands and birthrights, and enslaving them in factories to make cheap goods that support the pinnacles of the dream that they struggle in vain to attain... that is the Sisyphine tragedy...
The donkey forever trudging toward the carrot that is held by its owner sitting on the cart it pulls, and who always promises that when you get the carrot you can be like me sitting on the cart. And the Ouroboros smiled!
Time for a new narrative. One of attainable happiness in the here and now for everyone, that does not get dished out by the establishment with meal tickets and wages, one that comes from within, that is secure and unbreakable... one that comes from being kind and good, that is the truth that we all once knew, but have since forgotten.
what a strange idea is "progress". I believe it says that tomorrow will be better than today and that things are improving. It argues that the past is to be forgotten, that our ancestors were stupid monkeys and that our children will be geniuses. It says that the sum of human happiness is always increasing.
The evidence is all around ... isn't it? Child death rates are always dropping, technology is always advancing and more people are employed today than ever before. How could people have been happy without modern medicine, without TVs and without mobile phones are computers. Clearly everything is getting better.
Yes! how could people have been happy without mobile phones.... yet we were! Turning the logic around doesn't it mean that our children will be happy than we are today? That our lives are wasted here in the 21st Century because by the 22nd century they will look at us like stupid monkeys. The idea of progress makes our own lives now pointless and backward!
It does the same to other people in countries right now that either do not celebrate technological achievement, or have not undergone economic transformation. Are their lives worthless and backward 2?
The obvious observation is that yes we were happy 10 years ago without mobiles, and 150years ago without electricity and televisions and 10,000 years ago when the only technology was stone.
That is a milestone in human thinking - the realisation that human happiness is not a product of our material circumstances. And that was realised a long time ago!
Is it not also true that were human beings to ever get the formula for life right, then progress would actually end up in changing that formula and so would make things worse!
Progress it seems assumes that there is no final goal to human endevour... I mean what is it that we are aiming for? and how would we know when we get there? Its a very vague notion at best.
Personally I believe that we had the solution to life a long, long time ago and we've actually being working away from that for at least 400years if not more. America for example has never existed during a time of reality!
The problem today is that our records of the past are written by the historians and they record only the political ficgures... and as I've argued already political figures, like countries and nations, are narrative inventions and have no reality, and certainly don't represent the "average person", the wisdom of the day or the way of life. We have only fairy tales about the past, and so have a distorted view of life... just as we do today from watching the news, films and books.
So what if we put the idea of progress aside... then the world looks very different! Actually we have rising violence, mental illness and unhappiness! People work longer hours than ever before, and the largest percentage of the population ever are in employment. How is it that with all the technological advancement we need to work even harder than before to get what we need to be happy? Remember only men used to go to work before, now both men and women go to work and have to do all the house tasks as well! The evidence points in the opposite direction that people are more unhappy! And, even the peoples once "immune from this stuff" (to quote Robert Palmer) in what the West calls "undeveloped" countries are now thinking in these terms... they look at themselves as being backward and unhappy!
Well being "undeveloped" is a blissful dream compared with being "developed", mke no mistake. Being developed means... to be "progressing" to eternity toward some vague unrealisable utopia. On an eternal tread mill we become like Sisyphus forever struggling toward a better world only to see it fade into the past and a new mirage appear in the glowing Progressive future. It is completely mindless and senseless, a narrative trap that too many people are beginning to talk with.
There is no Development, and no Progress. Whether we live in a hut in the forest with sticks and stones, or we live in a Californian mansion beside the sea with an executive position and a dozen hispanic slaves actually they are the same! The only question then is which is the more sustainable (ecologically, practically and fairly assuming that all people should be able to enjoy this) and the easier to come by... and i'd happy just walk into the forest and take up the first rather than have the hassle of working through college, and years of 9-5 on the off chance my goals came true... and then what?
And in the last paragraph hides the rub... the goals of progress become ever higher and more unobtainable.. and as they become scarecer the higher their price and the more people want them. Already the worlds resources can only just support the global population living the average lifestyle of the UK. That would mean raizing the entire planet for resources and land. The US consumes twice that of the UK and if anyone dreams of that let them remember that only 1 in 2 could ever have it and the other half of the world would die. And the global population will double anyway... so even to have the UKs level will mean the starvation of half the world. Oh but of course "Progress" will solve these problems... but for what purpose when Progress made these problems... and we can be happy with or without?
The reason for Progress i have argued throughout the blog is the status-quo. Drawing more and more people around the world into longer and longer hours labour, tricking them into giving up their lands and birthrights, and enslaving them in factories to make cheap goods that support the pinnacles of the dream that they struggle in vain to attain... that is the Sisyphine tragedy...
The donkey forever trudging toward the carrot that is held by its owner sitting on the cart it pulls, and who always promises that when you get the carrot you can be like me sitting on the cart. And the Ouroboros smiled!
Time for a new narrative. One of attainable happiness in the here and now for everyone, that does not get dished out by the establishment with meal tickets and wages, one that comes from within, that is secure and unbreakable... one that comes from being kind and good, that is the truth that we all once knew, but have since forgotten.
Thursday, 1 May 2008
Don't have to be intelligent to compete
Competition is a natural law. They speak of bacteria competing for resources, or molecules competing for binding sites. It is simply the sustained gaining the critical resources in a game. If an entity does not accumulate the resources needed to stay in the game then it is out. It goes on to play a different game.
So bacteria, leaves in the wind, dust, rain, people, birds all compete for various things from staying on the window ledge to winning a war.
Humans have this pre-Copernican view that they are the centre of the universe: a compromise from the infantile thinking that they individually are the centre of the universe. They often presume that they are highly successful in the world, have a far superior intellect and capability and play games that the rest of Life would be grateful to be envious of (if they could be either).
But, that intellect and mental capability itself has evolved as a result of competition. The competition that we think we are taking part in: chess, college, politics its part of an even bigger game that has led to the evolution of these traits!
Our very ability to play games is only a strategy in a vastly superior game called Life, which we aren't even aware of! How naive then to think that we are better able to play games that our fellow "livers"!! that we understand life!
So bacteria, leaves in the wind, dust, rain, people, birds all compete for various things from staying on the window ledge to winning a war.
Humans have this pre-Copernican view that they are the centre of the universe: a compromise from the infantile thinking that they individually are the centre of the universe. They often presume that they are highly successful in the world, have a far superior intellect and capability and play games that the rest of Life would be grateful to be envious of (if they could be either).
But, that intellect and mental capability itself has evolved as a result of competition. The competition that we think we are taking part in: chess, college, politics its part of an even bigger game that has led to the evolution of these traits!
Our very ability to play games is only a strategy in a vastly superior game called Life, which we aren't even aware of! How naive then to think that we are better able to play games that our fellow "livers"!! that we understand life!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
The classic antimony is between : (1) action that is chosen freely and (2) action that comes about through physical causation. To date no ...
-
https://chatgpt.com/share/688e1468-dfc4-8003-b47c-eb5351496d3d Me: Platonic Forms are invokes to explain how all apples are apples and all b...
-
Same current territory (and raft) but a bit more polished. Or perhaps not! That will be be explained. With Deepseek: https://chat.deepseek.c...
