|
|
Freedom as I see it.
|
The mob, cheaters and thinkers |
You remember probably the calypso about groups. These are needed to create models for understanding thereality. But groups I mention furthermore are not models, but names of usual roles in a Game. Because almost all people attending a Game, during their life they take decisions, decisions change their situation and produce effects in the Game and to its players.
The mob plays stanard strategy called conformity. They think and do what others do. This strategy is not bad, because the pack of sheeps is still growing as its wellness does. They minimize the risk.
There are as well cheaters. Thieves, politicians, mafia, murderers, swindlers, usurers, governments. They either cheat with rules or create the mess. No added value, only costs and loss. It pays off as well, but is little dangerous.
Thinkers is the remaining part of players. Some of them understand the Game's rules or even create them. Others do their own duty nevertheless the crowd and cheaters. Many of them have the ability to omit the Game, they do not need rules and won't be sheeps or cheaters without them. They're free. |
|
Zmieniony ( 08.04.2009. )
|
|
Being jalous means being enslaved by one of most stupid emotion. Not only because it's destructive. Humans do many destructive things that are not stupid. So why?
If we talk about love we think only about emotions. The Person we love is an axiom - but, we have to understand - this axiom is a mind result of several assumptions we did before falling in love. This is why we do not accept this feeling as a stupid. We do not accept, that we did any assumptions about the Person, because we feel, that "love" and "assumptions" won't play together. If you could understand this, the rest is easy.
Envy means we suspect, our paramour is sharing something reserved for us only - to someone else. Thoughts, dreams, body and so on. But...have you assumed, that he could do this? Don't think so. So, if he is cheating you with someone else, you did wrong assumptions, huh? Your Axiom is shuffled to the ruins, but well, not the first and not the last in your life. It's miserable mistake, nothing more.
At the end of day eliminating envy from the life gives only benefits. Even, if your lover will fail, you're the winner, because all of those moments you've spent were 100% good. Don't regret the time lost, that was a good time for you, indeed.
|
|
Yes, it's about freedom or rather enslavement. The love is one of least intelligible emotion of a human. In a short time it's more important than freedom. We suffer as well much more when we loose love than freedom. Init?
We enslave ourselves bona fide when fallen in love, not only when consider sexual relationships but as well in many other bearings. "I'm loving her/him" is very easy excuse, something that releases us from thinking. Bite by bite, we loose freedom that way. The state of affairs is falling into grey area. "He loves me, everything will be OK" is mistaken with "my life might be better if...", and "I do love her" with "I'm not feeling she loves me". Plight. Fuck. We stop to talk about important things just because we do not want to feel we're enslaved. But we are. |
|
Zmieniony ( 14.04.2009. )
|
|
|
As a general rule of organizing human communities the artifact of ownership works good. This is because the particular owner of anything takes care of that, feeling close relationship between the thing and daily toil, personal welfare and so on. Extending the posession of things is natural tendency of all mammals with herd instinct I guess, so ownership is good for development and guarantees responsible use of things. But how that all is related to the freedom? It's dual, or not? Does it extend or limit the freedom of a human? Who is more free if we consider 'ownership' criterium: beggar, yuppie, heir, goods of production owner, landlord, Warren Buffet? Just think about this short range. Do you see? Yes, it seems, that relationship between freedom and ownership is a function, with local minima and maxima. But that's not all. Something missing? Add to the picture additional dimensions: education, age, self-development level, epoch...Okay, let's say we have a model. Does it allow to make a benchmark between beggar and Buffet? Who of them is more free? Obviously not. Because each of those two has his own coordinate system. |
|
Zmieniony ( 21.04.2009. )
|
|
Who, the hell, convinced people to loans and mortgages?
12 years ago, as a yuppie just after high-school I was the first within my colleagues, who took the mortgage for a small flat. After that I've buyed 2-year mazda worth almost my yearly income, another loan taken. One credit card, another one, credit line, first car loan paid off, car sold, another bought, another loan, flat sold, mortgage paid off, stock bouhgt then sold...geez, as I remember I was proud of that. Now I see, it's stealing freedom - what doesn't mean that I am not thinking about a mortgage for a house.
Why not to lean that? Do I really need the flat after my death? I'm pretty sure, that my children won't live in my house. An investment to their future? Money? What for? My investment to my children's future is good education, thoughtful upbringing, learning them to think, learning them to feel happy in any situation and so on. I don't want them to be rich; I want them to be happy, self-sustaining and free. Money from parents may destroy my efforts.
The economical crisis made me aware, that I feel much more free, because I do not have any loan or mortgage, no stocks or forex, nor car neither own house. I have two hands and a work, that pays off, so I can lean the flat anywhere I want. If I buy the house I will omit opportunities that will need moving.
The finance market - deposits, mortgages, loans, options, stock-exchange, futures is bullshit for personal life. It might be useful for business players, but in personal life it brings few opportunities at high risk. And limits the freedom. |
|
| | «« start « poprz. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 nast. » koniec »»
| | Pozycje :: 46 - 54 z 60 |
|
