Living with a Duality of Existence.
What is it?
The Duality refers to there being two methods of motivation to our survival:
Selfish Egotism or Caring Love
" you cannot serve two masters , for you will love one and despise the other......"
Our motivational drive to survive is, currently, by means of a selfish competitive animal instinct.
The duality of existence explores the possibility of there being an alternative method to this means of survival derived from belief.
Why?
Although it has served us well until now, I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the prime objective of man's motivational force. The competitive element to survival of the fittest, is, in man's situation, unsustainable. Over population and (in crises) an aggressive survival nature, will ultimately lead to a "balloon debate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_debate: a direct conflict for survival leading ultimately to a "petri dish" scenario (see: "the story of the petri dish" reff needed).
How?
There are two aspects of paramount importance:
1) That we become more proactive rather than reactive: that we create the agenda of choices from believed principles and not from a reactive management of crisis; that we take control of the direction we are going.
2) That we break free from the instinctual selfishness to our decision making; instead we make decisions from a truly "moral" perspective of a commonality of survival: seeing all life of equal value.
The following pieces of writing explore all aspects of The Duality. In finding a place to start, however, I am looking at mankind's perception of what the future holds.
The duality of existence explores the possibility of there being an alternative method to this means of survival derived from belief.
Why?
Although it has served us well until now, I believe that there are fundamental flaws in the prime objective of man's motivational force. The competitive element to survival of the fittest, is, in man's situation, unsustainable. Over population and (in crises) an aggressive survival nature, will ultimately lead to a "balloon debate" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balloon_debate: a direct conflict for survival leading ultimately to a "petri dish" scenario (see: "the story of the petri dish" reff needed).
How?
There are two aspects of paramount importance:
1) That we become more proactive rather than reactive: that we create the agenda of choices from believed principles and not from a reactive management of crisis; that we take control of the direction we are going.
2) That we break free from the instinctual selfishness to our decision making; instead we make decisions from a truly "moral" perspective of a commonality of survival: seeing all life of equal value.
The following pieces of writing explore all aspects of The Duality. In finding a place to start, however, I am looking at mankind's perception of what the future holds.
The Future: a spectrum of views.
The Duality is all about the Future. Having recognised the nature of our existence and consequently seeing the necessity of change, that change is for our future: our future existence. It is, therefore, apposite that in discussing the Duality we look at the concept of "the Future", our future.
From the apocalyptic to the muddling on, the future is not at the mystery of a crystal ball. To the seeing eye of a wise man, prophesies are possibilities and probabilities that are in the realms of corollary. Attitudes make decisions, decisions have reactions and repercussions: all determinable (theoretically) given enough data to measure the variables of the chaotic. But! if it comes to the "balloon debate" where someone's survival is at stake, we won't need a crystal ball or a prophet to predict events. (resources: oil, water, land.)
The future is fearful?
With regard to man's survival, indeed, life's survival, we should look for a future that gives us hope.
From the apocalyptic to the muddling on, the future is not at the mystery of a crystal ball. To the seeing eye of a wise man, prophesies are possibilities and probabilities that are in the realms of corollary. Attitudes make decisions, decisions have reactions and repercussions: all determinable (theoretically) given enough data to measure the variables of the chaotic. But! if it comes to the "balloon debate" where someone's survival is at stake, we won't need a crystal ball or a prophet to predict events. (resources: oil, water, land.)
The future is fearful?
With regard to man's survival, indeed, life's survival, we should look for a future that gives us hope.
Pessimistic by Nature?
"It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of light,
it was the season of darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to heaven,
we were all going direction of the other way."
A Tale of Two Cities (1859) Charles Dickens.
"It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of wisdom,
it was the age of foolishness,
it was the epoch of belief,
it was the epoch of incredulity,
it was the season of light,
it was the season of darkness,
it was the spring of hope,
it was the winter of despair,
we had everything before us,
we had nothing before us,
we were all going direct to heaven,
we were all going direction of the other way."
A Tale of Two Cities (1859) Charles Dickens.
Notwithstanding, that this quotation comes from a well-known piece of fiction, I find it fascinating that historical words can echo down through the ages and still be as relevant as the day of their inception. One might say that in one sense, "nothing changes" but then I am not sure if that is true? Nevertheless Dickens's opening, to his novel the Tale of Two Cities, seems to be very apt for today.
It may well be man's pessimistic nature, to see the times we live in as being the worst there's been, but then maybe, at heart we are conservative by nature, a fear of change and things new. Innovations down the ages have always been prophesied, by someone as going to be "the death of us". Of course there have always been the doom's-day-ists, a la Nostradamus to prophesy the beginning of Armageddon and they might well quote Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies "a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, (as he passed the windows on the way down,) "so far so good". But of course such a scenario as this would be different than just unfounded fear, as a man falling from a 10 story block of flats would have an inevitable disastrous consequences. The separation of fondles pessimism and true Armageddon will be as they say of the devil, in the detail. I think our situation is not just fearful pessimism but one of real substance.
Although I want to draw attention to the influence of man in the future of this planet I do not wish to be or be seen as a doomsdayist, if by that one means a prophet of inevitable disasters, however if our falling man is an accurate analogy of humanity's situation and we wish to avoid the consequences of falling from a 10 storey block, we should probably get a safety net out, sooner rather than later. (see reff: Antaganus three questions) A safety net that would take the form of change.
It may well be man's pessimistic nature, to see the times we live in as being the worst there's been, but then maybe, at heart we are conservative by nature, a fear of change and things new. Innovations down the ages have always been prophesied, by someone as going to be "the death of us". Of course there have always been the doom's-day-ists, a la Nostradamus to prophesy the beginning of Armageddon and they might well quote Clint Eastwood in one of the Dirty Harry movies "a man falling from a 10 storey block was heard to say, (as he passed the windows on the way down,) "so far so good". But of course such a scenario as this would be different than just unfounded fear, as a man falling from a 10 story block of flats would have an inevitable disastrous consequences. The separation of fondles pessimism and true Armageddon will be as they say of the devil, in the detail. I think our situation is not just fearful pessimism but one of real substance.
Although I want to draw attention to the influence of man in the future of this planet I do not wish to be or be seen as a doomsdayist, if by that one means a prophet of inevitable disasters, however if our falling man is an accurate analogy of humanity's situation and we wish to avoid the consequences of falling from a 10 storey block, we should probably get a safety net out, sooner rather than later. (see reff: Antaganus three questions) A safety net that would take the form of change.
So How do You See the Future?
Excerpt from: Our Rubicund by Sisideas
When events contrive to stir the emotions,
To be touched by personal trauma
Or deluged by media's diet of dramatized disasters,
Impinged, we are, to thought provoked;
To take a passing glance at those things
Beyond the immediate cascade of crises
That is our lives, for most of us.
To ponder on the future,
Our own, mankind's ... existence.
Usually short-lived,
Such thoughts curtailed to a fatalistic resignation
Of things beyond our control,
We hope for the best,...
But fear for the worst,
As the more immediate crisis of;
“What shall I cook for tea?!”
Return to absorb the mind.
But fear provoked, questions remain unanswered
Two gnaw on the bones of hope;
What is the future for my children?
It is probably fair to say that as individuals, the pervading feeling for many is one of a fear of the future; the unknown or at least the uncertainty of things to come and that this feeling of fear is exacerbated by a sense of impotence to do anything about issues that seem to be beyond our purview.
The Idiosyncratic/The greater Future
As individuals, our particular circumstances are going to be our immediate reference in determining our view of the future; where we have come from sets expectations of where we are going to go in life. One's allocation from the "birth lottery" sets expectations based on innate abilities, social position and wealth. There are a myriad idiosyncratic influences that set one's perspective on life, most of which, I suspect, were set to a colouring from events of many years before and all of which combine to flavour our appetite for a perceived future. But perhaps, for some, the idiosyncratic is the lesser of the influences that pervade our thoughts for the future. So much of our personal situations are determined by circumstances outwith the idiosyncratic: national and international events. Most of us, are but pawns in the machinations of the collective, of society; but a few rare "cogs" get to wield power and influence beyond the norm.
So the future has two perspectives, the idiosyncratic and the greater, national/international future and binding them to gether is an unholy symbiosis. Nevertheless most of us see "The Future" (as opposed to my future) as the purview of governments (being the guiding, decision making body of consequential events) and consequently we employ a collective sense to The Future: our future, mankind's.
In terms of The Duality
The Future will be dependant on the the choices we create and the nature of decisions we make; and these will be dependant on breaking free from the stifling effects of our instinctual nature. Such a dependance is predicated on the possibility of man's ability to change.
As individuals, our particular circumstances are going to be our immediate reference in determining our view of the future; where we have come from sets expectations of where we are going to go in life. One's allocation from the "birth lottery" sets expectations based on innate abilities, social position and wealth. There are a myriad idiosyncratic influences that set one's perspective on life, most of which, I suspect, were set to a colouring from events of many years before and all of which combine to flavour our appetite for a perceived future. But perhaps, for some, the idiosyncratic is the lesser of the influences that pervade our thoughts for the future. So much of our personal situations are determined by circumstances outwith the idiosyncratic: national and international events. Most of us, are but pawns in the machinations of the collective, of society; but a few rare "cogs" get to wield power and influence beyond the norm.
So the future has two perspectives, the idiosyncratic and the greater, national/international future and binding them to gether is an unholy symbiosis. Nevertheless most of us see "The Future" (as opposed to my future) as the purview of governments (being the guiding, decision making body of consequential events) and consequently we employ a collective sense to The Future: our future, mankind's.
In terms of The Duality
The Future will be dependant on the the choices we create and the nature of decisions we make; and these will be dependant on breaking free from the stifling effects of our instinctual nature. Such a dependance is predicated on the possibility of man's ability to change.
Can We Change?
From/To.
So in terms of change from, this must be from our instinctual nature? Yes: but as I have already said it is not the motivation itself, survival, but rather the method, "competitive survival", that we have to change.
And what would we change our method of survival to? Well, in principle, to the same mechanism on which our instincts operate at the moment: a belief in the "rightness" of our perception of reality. If we absolutely believe in the appositeness of the "petri dish" such a corollary must initiate the rationale of a new belief. So, we can use belief in whatever new rationale we perceive to be necessary. The aspect of change so stated, has the appearance of being quite straight forward, all we have to do is to see this change as a necessity for our survival. Well suited! Man, it appears, is, in some of his deliberations, a creature of necessity response; as I have said before he is more reactive than proactive in his decision making, at least when it come to those elements that pertain to his survival behaviour. So, theoretically, this adaptive change should fit well with his instinctual nature. The only obvious problem might be in getting a consensus of opinion, that such a change is a necessity. In the light of other, current obvious issues still being contested as to their status of necessity: e.g. global warming, one would be forgiven in seeing the consensus required for this magnitude of change as being a very uphill struggle.
But I suspect the real issue that might inhibit the change we are looking for is, more of breaking the spell of "survival by competition" being such an ingrained attitudinal fixation; or is it?
So in terms of change from, this must be from our instinctual nature? Yes: but as I have already said it is not the motivation itself, survival, but rather the method, "competitive survival", that we have to change.
And what would we change our method of survival to? Well, in principle, to the same mechanism on which our instincts operate at the moment: a belief in the "rightness" of our perception of reality. If we absolutely believe in the appositeness of the "petri dish" such a corollary must initiate the rationale of a new belief. So, we can use belief in whatever new rationale we perceive to be necessary. The aspect of change so stated, has the appearance of being quite straight forward, all we have to do is to see this change as a necessity for our survival. Well suited! Man, it appears, is, in some of his deliberations, a creature of necessity response; as I have said before he is more reactive than proactive in his decision making, at least when it come to those elements that pertain to his survival behaviour. So, theoretically, this adaptive change should fit well with his instinctual nature. The only obvious problem might be in getting a consensus of opinion, that such a change is a necessity. In the light of other, current obvious issues still being contested as to their status of necessity: e.g. global warming, one would be forgiven in seeing the consensus required for this magnitude of change as being a very uphill struggle.
But I suspect the real issue that might inhibit the change we are looking for is, more of breaking the spell of "survival by competition" being such an ingrained attitudinal fixation; or is it?
Exploring the nature of Survival by Competition
This exploration is not so much a defining of "competitive survival", as in the main the meaning is self evident form the title, but rather a look at the application of it, relevant to the Duality.
The Ironic Paradox produced by Competitive Survival
If i was to tell you that I have six children, that to one of them I have given a sumptuous room and that he lives a life of opulent decadence having much more that he really needs, while two more of my children work each day to make a reasonable living for themselves and support their older brother in his opulence; but that the last three of my children live in varying degrees of squalor and degradation, near death from starvation and disease, I doubt there would be a person in the world that would not condemn me for my obvious cruelty.
What creates the paradox?
The differential of attitudinal behaviour to the explicit written context above and the unwritten parallel to the global family.
No, I do not take this paradigm as a faithful representation of the relationship that we, the global family, have with each other but more as an analogy of the hypocrisy or indeed an ironic paradox: that we see the obvious in one situation and yet not in another; at least not sufficiently for our leaders to lead us, the led, on a train of thought to rectify such a situation.
So what does that tell us?
Man is most certainly not devoid of the concept "Good": I can make this assertion from the confident belief I have in saying that "I doubt there would be a person in the world that would not condemn me for my obvious cruelty".
A separation of good
I feel that as the father in my analogy equates with the leaders of our world, I can conclude that there would appear to be a separation of aspiration to do good, between the individual and the collective/leaders, our expectations of those that have power: (our leaders)would be to lead in the exercising of a degree of moral fairness. It would suggest that in terms of possible change, we would be better looking at individuals than the leadership collective. From this exploration of survival by competition it would appear the leaders, as an entity of the collective, are more ingrained in the mechanics of the instinctual.
Looking in to the Mechanics. The self interests part to our competitive survival is very vexing to "get our heads round": That on the one hand we (more as individuals)can demonstrate great compassionate care and aspire to very selfless acts of kindness and yet as a global community we appear to be locked into the competitive struggle. But I suspect, I, and perhaps most of look at this issue do so from a critical causal perspective (eg the father in my story); who's to blame? rather than an understanding of the mechanics. To help us see those mechanics I offer an other imagery for your thoughts:
I am an entrepreneurial businessman. In seeing that there is a growing demand for trips to the moon I have decided to launch a business with the precise aim of taking 50 people a year to the moon. It is true that my underlying aim is to make money from this venture. Equally clearly the method of making that money is very specifically defined: to take people , 50 in this case, to the moon; not mars or the nearest asteroid but the moon. We have a clearly defined goal that has no room for dubiety or opinion. And the thing is that I could do it ( if someone is not already doing it) I would have of course to take them safely there and back and the management of that would be the scientist that from facts and figures would make such an endeavor possible. The important notes to take from this that firstly I have a clear and unambiguous direction and aim. Secondly that as everything within the mechanism of achieving this goal is set in the scientific evidence there is not room for opinion in this mechanism unless it is supported by the scientific evidence. Although I can state this endeavour in a paragraph, this is not simple task in its execution it is quite monumental to an extraordinary degree and yet I believe it is quite achievable.
So what of "Earth/mankind plc" ?
I know it is faintly ridiculous to equate Earth/Mankind plc with the running of a business but I feel there are a number of aspects that illustrate what is truly ridiculous.
So here we are, Mankind on planet earth, all 7 billion of us, 7 billion and counting, no not just counting, uncontrollably running away, split up into disparate factions mostly based on geographical separation, each doing our own thing; surviving.
In terms of my topic heading Exploring survival by Competition I can be accused of digressing way beyond it but i would contend, in justification, that in terms of the Duality becoming a reality, the notions of good leadership, and visionary direction to a known goal are very apposite. No I have not taken the elements of this topic to an absolute resolution but have exposed some of the more lateral issues that competitive survival maintains, within the realms of politics and economics.
As any parent or family knows, dysfunctionality makes for the scourge of disharmony caused primarily by a lack of will or vision on the part of the members to "pull together " to form a harmonious existence. Of itself, an attitudinal goal of "being nice to each other" with the simple tools: fairness, forgiveness, respect, tolerance and understanding, is all that it takes: Visionary it may be but then it is definitely not rocket science.... or going to moon?!
If i was to tell you that I have six children, that to one of them I have given a sumptuous room and that he lives a life of opulent decadence having much more that he really needs, while two more of my children work each day to make a reasonable living for themselves and support their older brother in his opulence; but that the last three of my children live in varying degrees of squalor and degradation, near death from starvation and disease, I doubt there would be a person in the world that would not condemn me for my obvious cruelty.
What creates the paradox?
The differential of attitudinal behaviour to the explicit written context above and the unwritten parallel to the global family.
No, I do not take this paradigm as a faithful representation of the relationship that we, the global family, have with each other but more as an analogy of the hypocrisy or indeed an ironic paradox: that we see the obvious in one situation and yet not in another; at least not sufficiently for our leaders to lead us, the led, on a train of thought to rectify such a situation.
So what does that tell us?
Man is most certainly not devoid of the concept "Good": I can make this assertion from the confident belief I have in saying that "I doubt there would be a person in the world that would not condemn me for my obvious cruelty".
- I would however, have to confess that in seeing the "cruelty" of the father's actions as a moral issue, I may well be miss-attributing a moral context to the father's bad behaviour. Confusing morality for what is in fact a failure of instinctual nurture and not a moral issue per se; in doing so, is to endow the condemnation with a moral virtue beyond its measure. In pointing out the separation of moral virtuous outrage and bad instinctual nurture may sound like a pedantry separation. But when we consider that our sympathy based on nurturing has a proximity strata to it; the farther we go from our own family friends the less it gets, any action or thought out with this proximity can be deemed morally good. Such proximity strata must surely suggest that from nurturing perspective we we don't see ourselves as a global community.
A separation of good
I feel that as the father in my analogy equates with the leaders of our world, I can conclude that there would appear to be a separation of aspiration to do good, between the individual and the collective/leaders, our expectations of those that have power: (our leaders)would be to lead in the exercising of a degree of moral fairness. It would suggest that in terms of possible change, we would be better looking at individuals than the leadership collective. From this exploration of survival by competition it would appear the leaders, as an entity of the collective, are more ingrained in the mechanics of the instinctual.
Looking in to the Mechanics. The self interests part to our competitive survival is very vexing to "get our heads round": That on the one hand we (more as individuals)can demonstrate great compassionate care and aspire to very selfless acts of kindness and yet as a global community we appear to be locked into the competitive struggle. But I suspect, I, and perhaps most of look at this issue do so from a critical causal perspective (eg the father in my story); who's to blame? rather than an understanding of the mechanics. To help us see those mechanics I offer an other imagery for your thoughts:
I am an entrepreneurial businessman. In seeing that there is a growing demand for trips to the moon I have decided to launch a business with the precise aim of taking 50 people a year to the moon. It is true that my underlying aim is to make money from this venture. Equally clearly the method of making that money is very specifically defined: to take people , 50 in this case, to the moon; not mars or the nearest asteroid but the moon. We have a clearly defined goal that has no room for dubiety or opinion. And the thing is that I could do it ( if someone is not already doing it) I would have of course to take them safely there and back and the management of that would be the scientist that from facts and figures would make such an endeavor possible. The important notes to take from this that firstly I have a clear and unambiguous direction and aim. Secondly that as everything within the mechanism of achieving this goal is set in the scientific evidence there is not room for opinion in this mechanism unless it is supported by the scientific evidence. Although I can state this endeavour in a paragraph, this is not simple task in its execution it is quite monumental to an extraordinary degree and yet I believe it is quite achievable.
So what of "Earth/mankind plc" ?
I know it is faintly ridiculous to equate Earth/Mankind plc with the running of a business but I feel there are a number of aspects that illustrate what is truly ridiculous.
So here we are, Mankind on planet earth, all 7 billion of us, 7 billion and counting, no not just counting, uncontrollably running away, split up into disparate factions mostly based on geographical separation, each doing our own thing; surviving.
- The role of leadership. The underlying aim of any of man's multifarious activities, as with our businessmen, is to make money; to survive. It is the one aspect in life that unifies us all. The entrepreneur has the specific quality of having a an idea; a vision if you will; the means with which to fulfill the imperative of making money with in the context of a market economy. The role of the businessman is as a leader: leading from the front with ideas, to a specific goal. What is the role of a (country's) leader? does he/she equate with a businessman? There are certainly attributes and skills that they will have in common, by definition a leader is someone who is "in front" deciding direction, based on a known goal; going "to the moon", what ever that is deemed to be. But there is a fundamental difference: He is not in "business" to make money per se; as things stand at the moment he is there to protect those he feels he is responsible for and to maintain stability and security both with in his/her province and externally as international issues pertains to the influence on his/her province. Yes, there must be an unholy symbiosis between a leader and business, (as with any other faction with in his or her province) as the success of businesses within his/her province will be part of stable security.
- Is he/she, in part, a glorified facilitator of business? Is he/she a reflector of the will of the people? (A facilitator not a leader) and if so, do the people know what they want, where we are going? Should he/she not have, like our entrepreneurial businessman, a specific definable role and visionary view of where we are going? In what context should that be based on? On a fearful reaction to a terrorist world, on the basis of self interest; strictly with in one's own province, or in an over riding view of the total welfare for our planet? For me a true leader has a vision, and by that I mean having thoughts beyond the common place, seeing above the squabbling of the adversarial lobbying of the factional self interest, to a holistic purpose for mankind, all of mankind.... I see none. I do see power greedy sophists tinkering with the issues of the day, pandering to the powerful whilst dancing there chameleone principles to the color of the majority.
- We cannot claim as individual units an exclusivity of purpose. We are defacto sharing a commonality of purpose. Yet living as individual separate entities we bicker and squabble while engaging in self serving mutuality of commerce. We have no planned direction, no visionary entrepreneurs, and the talk and advise of leader is not based on science but more the rhetoric of opinionated sophists bent on self interest. Why? Such a description is reminiscent of a semi functional school playground; the law of the jungle . We need to give ourselves a good shake, in our 21 century, as a parent might to a self deluded stroppy teenager being advised that life has responsibilities made so by the consequentiality of one's decisions and behaviour.
- Do we know what we want? Beyond, "to survive" It is my opinion that at its most basic all a man wants is stability and security for his family. We recognise the nature of our existence: in spite of the distortion of man's sophisticated living, it is still the survival of the fittest. It is the fear of this uncertain-state that sends man searching for the security he seeks, he sees and believes he has found it in joining "The game" of competitive survival, of being better than others, it is the animal instinct with in him.
- The Game; man is so imbibed with this notion of competitive survival being the answer to his security and stability he can not recognise it for what it is: a coercive manipulation and worse he doesn't see that it is no longer apposite. He/mankind has won the race to survive as a specie, there is enough in the world for all to live in that state of security and stability but instead he,/ some lives to an opulent excess at the expense of others. Going to the moon is a finite quantity, we know when to stop ; without a known goal we will not know when and if we have arrived at our goal. We, without thought, have the unconscious illusion that opulent excess is going to give us extra security!? Quite the contrary; greed and envy, sow the seeds of hatred that must equate with instability.
In terms of my topic heading Exploring survival by Competition I can be accused of digressing way beyond it but i would contend, in justification, that in terms of the Duality becoming a reality, the notions of good leadership, and visionary direction to a known goal are very apposite. No I have not taken the elements of this topic to an absolute resolution but have exposed some of the more lateral issues that competitive survival maintains, within the realms of politics and economics.
As any parent or family knows, dysfunctionality makes for the scourge of disharmony caused primarily by a lack of will or vision on the part of the members to "pull together " to form a harmonious existence. Of itself, an attitudinal goal of "being nice to each other" with the simple tools: fairness, forgiveness, respect, tolerance and understanding, is all that it takes: Visionary it may be but then it is definitely not rocket science.... or going to moon?!
Introduction to a new topic
From a perspective of "The Human Condition", man sees the future in a different way from other animals. To have an understanding of time itself: as the "container" to an endless stream of consequential events; from the activities of subatomic particles to the birth and death of galaxies. to see time in this manner requires a mind capable of sophisticated abstract thought. What is, to other animals just the consequentiality of day following night, the future for man, can be perceived as a void of empty time stretching before him. This void can be filled with creations from his imagination He can plan and map out a future, or can he? Looking for the evidence for such an assertion would not be part of my explanation of the duality. The evidence for such an assertion lies in another related piece of writing. The answer to the question "Can we Change" (outwith the context of the Duality) is in fact, emphatically yes, without doubt; evident from our passage through time; our history. We are not the men of yesteryear; a Viking a Roman, a medieval knight, yes we are the same specie but the mind, our thinking has evolved and with that, a perceptible change can be seen in our behaviour. The question in the next piece of writing: Civilised by Choice and Decisions? looks at our history to determine how, what we call civilised, came about.
From a perspective of "The Human Condition", man sees the future in a different way from other animals. To have an understanding of time itself: as the "container" to an endless stream of consequential events; from the activities of subatomic particles to the birth and death of galaxies. to see time in this manner requires a mind capable of sophisticated abstract thought. What is, to other animals just the consequentiality of day following night, the future for man, can be perceived as a void of empty time stretching before him. This void can be filled with creations from his imagination He can plan and map out a future, or can he? Looking for the evidence for such an assertion would not be part of my explanation of the duality. The evidence for such an assertion lies in another related piece of writing. The answer to the question "Can we Change" (outwith the context of the Duality) is in fact, emphatically yes, without doubt; evident from our passage through time; our history. We are not the men of yesteryear; a Viking a Roman, a medieval knight, yes we are the same specie but the mind, our thinking has evolved and with that, a perceptible change can be seen in our behaviour. The question in the next piece of writing: Civilised by Choice and Decisions? looks at our history to determine how, what we call civilised, came about.
Continuing with the Duality
Believing in belief
I suppose one might question if it is possible to "break the spell" of such a instinctual and intellectually ingrained attitudinal method to survival, by nothing more than in a belief?
There are "beliefs" and there are "things to believe in", I do not mean to be deliberately obtuse but I would explain what I see in regard to what we believe. The man of today is, by virtue of his scientific knowledge not the same as the man of history, who through ignorance and fear accepted explanations of those things that mystified him, to the point of superstition. Where as today man dictates that there should be some form of rational to his believing, even if the over all concept still resides in conjecture, that is believing: unprovable, philosophical. Where as in the past many beliefs have been seen as "God corollaries": the complex constructions that have gone to make up a many a religious faith, they are beliefs perhaps based on absolute trust " a leap of ". But in seeing the corollary of the Petri-dish and speculating on its appositeness to humans, in having an understanding of our own motivations as being "lost" to our instinctual nature and in considering the possibility of changing our future by means a of belief .. these are things to believe in, beliefs with a rational.
I do believe in the power of belief to change man's thinking and give him a motivational force. We can see in the martyr fanatics of to day's suicide boomer's what belief can do even to the point of denying one's survival motivation. but even with out the them, men have done extraordinary things thorough out history on the basis of a belief.
There are "beliefs" and there are "things to believe in", I do not mean to be deliberately obtuse but I would explain what I see in regard to what we believe. The man of today is, by virtue of his scientific knowledge not the same as the man of history, who through ignorance and fear accepted explanations of those things that mystified him, to the point of superstition. Where as today man dictates that there should be some form of rational to his believing, even if the over all concept still resides in conjecture, that is believing: unprovable, philosophical. Where as in the past many beliefs have been seen as "God corollaries": the complex constructions that have gone to make up a many a religious faith, they are beliefs perhaps based on absolute trust " a leap of ". But in seeing the corollary of the Petri-dish and speculating on its appositeness to humans, in having an understanding of our own motivations as being "lost" to our instinctual nature and in considering the possibility of changing our future by means a of belief .. these are things to believe in, beliefs with a rational.
I do believe in the power of belief to change man's thinking and give him a motivational force. We can see in the martyr fanatics of to day's suicide boomer's what belief can do even to the point of denying one's survival motivation. but even with out the them, men have done extraordinary things thorough out history on the basis of a belief.
Metaphysics and Ontology.
Metaphysics and Ontology are branches of Philosophy that in a nutshell deal with the nature of reality/existence. As a part of The Human Condition I have talked about an aspect of man's existence as being a paradox: that he can view his being/existence from two perspectives, akin to being both a player and a spectator of a game or both an actor and the audience. what do I mean by this? Well this ability/state comes about as a result of the abstract analysis of his and all animal life's existence.
We no doubt have all watched the wonderful wild life programs on television, The amazing series done by David Attenborough, show us, on the one hand, the uncompromising nature of existence for all life: the desperate struggle, to survive: a mechanism devoid of compassion or mercy. and yet also It's extraordinary diversity, resilience and ability to adapt and survive. I for one, marvel at so many aspects, not just the animals themselves but the whole structure of life stretching back to the dawn of time: to see the totality of life, as an extraordinary organic entity evolving to the bewildering assortment of life we have to day. It is almost beyond rational contemplation to see this organic matter as the stuff of stars and galaxies made animate, made sensate. it is wonderful.. full of wonderment. ........YOU are that wonderment, you are life, that same life that started 3.5 billion years ago..
Perhaps just for a moment in reading about life you had a glimpse of what it is, to be the "audience" to both, see and be part of the most amazing thing in the know universe .... life.
We can analyse the nature of our existence ... we are the animal....whose motivation is that struggle to survive.... we are the stardust, the stardust that has not only become sensate but self-aware, think about that.... matter, chemicals, the stuff of stars brought together in "life", to have an awareness of its own existence.... that is mind blowing. Man can see both the struggle and wonderment.
We no doubt have all watched the wonderful wild life programs on television, The amazing series done by David Attenborough, show us, on the one hand, the uncompromising nature of existence for all life: the desperate struggle, to survive: a mechanism devoid of compassion or mercy. and yet also It's extraordinary diversity, resilience and ability to adapt and survive. I for one, marvel at so many aspects, not just the animals themselves but the whole structure of life stretching back to the dawn of time: to see the totality of life, as an extraordinary organic entity evolving to the bewildering assortment of life we have to day. It is almost beyond rational contemplation to see this organic matter as the stuff of stars and galaxies made animate, made sensate. it is wonderful.. full of wonderment. ........YOU are that wonderment, you are life, that same life that started 3.5 billion years ago..
Perhaps just for a moment in reading about life you had a glimpse of what it is, to be the "audience" to both, see and be part of the most amazing thing in the know universe .... life.
We can analyse the nature of our existence ... we are the animal....whose motivation is that struggle to survive.... we are the stardust, the stardust that has not only become sensate but self-aware, think about that.... matter, chemicals, the stuff of stars brought together in "life", to have an awareness of its own existence.... that is mind blowing. Man can see both the struggle and wonderment.
Back on Earth
We live our lives for the most part as the the "Player the actor", locked into the reality of our instincts. What we perceive, at any one moment is the reality of that moment. The stimuli we are confronted with will be responded to by the perception we have at that moment. We do so because we believe in the reality that confronts us. We live convinced that our perception of the world is as it is. Such is the state in which all animals live, in the state of "being", but man can question the nature of that reality. Not nessacerally questioning the content of a given stimuli but more the quantitative evaluation process: the how and why we view a particular stimuli in the manner we do. (will be as a player or actor)
A number of years ago, a very popular series of films call The Matrix, depicted life as an illusion, a highly complex deception where everyone (apart from a few) existed only as incubates, being fed both nutrients and the illusion of life in there minds. I am not for a moment suggesting anything as radical as that but as an illustration of delude perception it is apposite. We are not being delude, but what the film show is that we believe what we see before us.
In "The Great Reality" one of the visionary pieces of writing, were I suggest that we are blind to an aspect of the reality of our existence. We live our lives from day to day following the coercive necessities of livening: eating, drinking, sleeping, and in the main give little thought as to why, beyond that which is obvious, hunger thirst, tiredness. We do not see our lives as part of the struggle to survive. In order to recognise life as such we would need to step out side of the confines of that existence and view our lives from a different perspective: That of an audiences, a spectator. But to achieve a position where that perspective is possible we need to look at the situation from the basis undefined by the needs and cohesions of our current state of being. To look at life holistically as a totality and not just from our own ego centric perspective. This give us that new position that allows us to firstly see existence as the struggle it is and that life as a whole is wonderfully extraordinary. We then are the audience, the spectators to this amazing event called life. Having seen our existence from both these perspectives actor and audience, and recognize the differing attitudinal motivations the emanate from each we are left with a choice as to which to follow. One, the instinctual nature of our animal heritage, the other, the abstract intellectualisation of our existence.
A number of years ago, a very popular series of films call The Matrix, depicted life as an illusion, a highly complex deception where everyone (apart from a few) existed only as incubates, being fed both nutrients and the illusion of life in there minds. I am not for a moment suggesting anything as radical as that but as an illustration of delude perception it is apposite. We are not being delude, but what the film show is that we believe what we see before us.
In "The Great Reality" one of the visionary pieces of writing, were I suggest that we are blind to an aspect of the reality of our existence. We live our lives from day to day following the coercive necessities of livening: eating, drinking, sleeping, and in the main give little thought as to why, beyond that which is obvious, hunger thirst, tiredness. We do not see our lives as part of the struggle to survive. In order to recognise life as such we would need to step out side of the confines of that existence and view our lives from a different perspective: That of an audiences, a spectator. But to achieve a position where that perspective is possible we need to look at the situation from the basis undefined by the needs and cohesions of our current state of being. To look at life holistically as a totality and not just from our own ego centric perspective. This give us that new position that allows us to firstly see existence as the struggle it is and that life as a whole is wonderfully extraordinary. We then are the audience, the spectators to this amazing event called life. Having seen our existence from both these perspectives actor and audience, and recognize the differing attitudinal motivations the emanate from each we are left with a choice as to which to follow. One, the instinctual nature of our animal heritage, the other, the abstract intellectualisation of our existence.
So How do You Build a Faith, a Belief?
In many ways, it is not so much the building of a new faith that will become our new altered motivating force, it is rather the "breaking of "the Spell" that binds us to the nature of our current motivating force: of our competitive survival of the fittest instincts, that is difficult but having said that it is difficult, it is not a "leap of (blind) faith" as might have been the case historically but more the following of a string of possible corollaries that although are unprovable do have a rational.. they are things to believe in.
1) Our motivational nature is one of selfish competitiveness.
2) As such, the functionality that this attitude produces is unsustainable
3)That by understanding our motivational nature and seeing it's possible failure, we can, as a rational consequence, consider a new motivation.
4) That, that motivation would be driven by a compelling belief: that our survival lies in cooperation and not competition.
Try saying this to yourself a couple of times and see how it feels?/ may be :) sisideas
Yes it is a faith, a belief but it is also the a rational corollary based on evidence. No! it is not provable, it is philosophical, even religious, (if you will,) but it is made up of things to believe in.
So the breaking of the spell, starts with nothing more than in a belief: a recognition of the nature of our current existence.
1) Our motivational nature is one of selfish competitiveness.
2) As such, the functionality that this attitude produces is unsustainable
3)That by understanding our motivational nature and seeing it's possible failure, we can, as a rational consequence, consider a new motivation.
4) That, that motivation would be driven by a compelling belief: that our survival lies in cooperation and not competition.
Try saying this to yourself a couple of times and see how it feels?/ may be :) sisideas
Yes it is a faith, a belief but it is also the a rational corollary based on evidence. No! it is not provable, it is philosophical, even religious, (if you will,) but it is made up of things to believe in.
So the breaking of the spell, starts with nothing more than in a belief: a recognition of the nature of our current existence.
Things in The Way: Man's Ego.
When confronted by any stimuli we will respond or react in a manner that reflects a number of parameters that the stimuli invokes of that moment. In my "things to believe in", the range of responses might be anything from elated excitement though apathy to outrage, each response having an idiosyncratic rational to the individual. To see such suggestions as being true: the possibility of being free from the adverse effects of our instinctual nature and the subsequent hope for a new future may well give someone a elated excitement. For some, who's intellectual thinking is seldom used, and I say that with out pejorative intent, such suggestions as I'm am proffering may well be met with apathy. The condition that produce this response, may well be as a result of a lack of intellectual endeavour (schooling) or that the life they lead is so full of crises that the time to have such considerations is squeezed out to the necessity of surviving. So in terms of "things in the way", of some one seeing or taking up these notions, a level of intellectual ability is necessary (education) and that a person must have a degree of free time to consider life and not be so absorbed with finding food, shelter and security that would not allow such thinking. (poverty). For those that are not under such circumstance their responses will be different. The rich may well see this as an attack on the materialistic comfort of their existence. The intellectual might well be out raged at the perspicacious simplicity of such a suggestion particularly as it emanates from a non academic source, being a threat to their intellectual ego. The humanist may well see it as veiled Christianity or at lest as a theistic in essence as it implies a non man centred theism. Quite why one puts man into that elevated position I don't know, as he quite clearly is not the orchestrator of his own existence!?
Everyone will have his or her own considerations, all will have a rational, that will be as human as the next person's and it is not for me to condemn or criticizes. All I can say is, this is what I believe. sisideas
Everyone will have his or her own considerations, all will have a rational, that will be as human as the next person's and it is not for me to condemn or criticizes. All I can say is, this is what I believe. sisideas
An Ode to Speculation
That the universe has order, is not in question, if by order we mean that it is governed by laws, rules that determine the nature of its existence. It is not chaotic, as in the random existence of particles that are lawless as to their activity. So dose that equate with "design"? Surely the order is and must by definition be a "design". but in using that word do we by implication make a "designer"? by dint of our humanity must we make that corollary. Why dose it matter? What passion is driving this conundrum to resolution? Man wants purpose, meaning. Is it the ego-centralism of his nature that wants there to be design> purpose> meaning? A meaning to his life?
Can this apparent design just be without the context of additional meaning to that being? so that within the confines of that being: (the apparent laws and rules,) there is nothing more than chance as to the the specific creations of this or that .... or man? We search for meaning: to be the potter's pot, or artist's picture, to know one is of useful use or or to be gazed upon with appreciated delight is both resolution and however humble, meaning. And if not? we are but a chance happening, of no greater or lesser consequence than any other chance happening. We are then but a rare frivolity, our uniqueness having no implications to being special.
But fear not this tug o war betwixt rational "truth" and desire of the heart, neither are provable one way or the other so with in the bounds of being honest to your rational, live and believe the desires of your heart. Let the conjecture of circumstantial evidence fuel imaginations riot, whilst common rational dose hold the rains to check that beast excesses.
sisiideas
Can this apparent design just be without the context of additional meaning to that being? so that within the confines of that being: (the apparent laws and rules,) there is nothing more than chance as to the the specific creations of this or that .... or man? We search for meaning: to be the potter's pot, or artist's picture, to know one is of useful use or or to be gazed upon with appreciated delight is both resolution and however humble, meaning. And if not? we are but a chance happening, of no greater or lesser consequence than any other chance happening. We are then but a rare frivolity, our uniqueness having no implications to being special.
But fear not this tug o war betwixt rational "truth" and desire of the heart, neither are provable one way or the other so with in the bounds of being honest to your rational, live and believe the desires of your heart. Let the conjecture of circumstantial evidence fuel imaginations riot, whilst common rational dose hold the rains to check that beast excesses.
sisiideas
Intelligent Design?
I have heard it said, that leave a chimpanzee alone in a room with a type writer, it will, under the laws of probability, write the full works of Shakespeare if given long enough. The theory being that it will arrive at the complete works by dint of purely random key strokes. I personally would think it might have evolved into a human called William before that happened. but hey. I only mention this by way of considering: at what point dose the circumstantial evidence of events out sway the theoretical laws of probability.
When dose a set of events, that by dint of their individual uniqueness and by their collective compounding uniqueness, make the events, something that common-sense would suggest to be so unlikely as to be beyond the realms of pure chance. And if there be such a point what reasonable deduction could one draw? If was to flip a coin that landed on its edge and not a face this would be extraordinary but if this were to happen six times it would either be nothing short of miraculous or one could reasonably deduce a very "fixed" coin.
I am not a mathematician nor a scientist so I cannot give you all the circumstances/events that have resulted in my sitting here listening to Bach's 3 Brandenburg concerto whilst writing my philosophy but I have my suspicions that this collection of events would make my coin landing on its edge six time pale into insignificance. Can we honestly say that all of this - existence is just chance? well the answer is yes we can.
It is at this point I find myself diminishing into absolute insignificance at the thought of the immensity of the universe and time, and the temptation is to extrapolate more from the measure of things than is justifiable, at least to one's own personal bounds of rational, but I can certainly understand those that would make the leap to a creator, and anyway what choice are we left with - that all of this is just one great big accident - that life and all that is, is the product of chance... but then, even an accident has some from of substance to it. Well that is Philosophy for you, unprovable but for me, my rational says that as this universe is so full of both order and consequently, (albeit arguably) apparent design. I actually find the possibility of chance being its orchestrator, as one of those sets of events beyond the realms of common-sense, but in suggesting a design, I would shy away from a theistic leap, if for no better reason than to avoid controversy.
When dose a set of events, that by dint of their individual uniqueness and by their collective compounding uniqueness, make the events, something that common-sense would suggest to be so unlikely as to be beyond the realms of pure chance. And if there be such a point what reasonable deduction could one draw? If was to flip a coin that landed on its edge and not a face this would be extraordinary but if this were to happen six times it would either be nothing short of miraculous or one could reasonably deduce a very "fixed" coin.
I am not a mathematician nor a scientist so I cannot give you all the circumstances/events that have resulted in my sitting here listening to Bach's 3 Brandenburg concerto whilst writing my philosophy but I have my suspicions that this collection of events would make my coin landing on its edge six time pale into insignificance. Can we honestly say that all of this - existence is just chance? well the answer is yes we can.
It is at this point I find myself diminishing into absolute insignificance at the thought of the immensity of the universe and time, and the temptation is to extrapolate more from the measure of things than is justifiable, at least to one's own personal bounds of rational, but I can certainly understand those that would make the leap to a creator, and anyway what choice are we left with - that all of this is just one great big accident - that life and all that is, is the product of chance... but then, even an accident has some from of substance to it. Well that is Philosophy for you, unprovable but for me, my rational says that as this universe is so full of both order and consequently, (albeit arguably) apparent design. I actually find the possibility of chance being its orchestrator, as one of those sets of events beyond the realms of common-sense, but in suggesting a design, I would shy away from a theistic leap, if for no better reason than to avoid controversy.
A Conjecture Too Far: No-man's Land?
If one has lost something, how can one be sure to find it? Well probably in the same manner as if one wanted to definitely win the lottery: buy every ticket: look in every possible place.
No, I cannot give an absolute meaning to life. I can only add to the conjecture by asking more questions and extrapolate possible theories and no doubt, they will reflect more my character.. perhaps the desires of what I would like to be the truth. So when I view life, that by it's extraordinary diversity, appears to set out to fill every possible niche that the limitations of suitable conditions permits. Is that behaviour of life, just like flowing water that would naturally fill every nook and cranny of a receptacle? Is that just the the intrinsic order of life? or might there be a hidden subtlety of purpose beyond that of the innate? Yes it could just be that innate ordering, with out any other purpose and those items of life that arise are just the product of chance with in confinements of their environment. and yet....I see order everywhere. So if one were to attribute "design" to theses events, that would, of its self, not be unreasonable but what interpretation I put on the events that I see as designable, should be me with measured restraint: That "design" was looking for something? looking for an animal that evolution would have equipped with skills to change life's method of motivation?
Life evolves...why? because it can? random chance? Life that by chance arrives at man, that purely coincidentally has those same abilities? If that be true, just coincidence, then so be it all is well as that.
But to the mind of this mortal who,s ego lies cuddled in the grasp of that shadow, death, sees such, as perversity; for all of "this" to be "destined" to oblivion by virtue its own success. OR dose "design" know of its own limitations?
It was not the hand of fate nor for that matter the hand of man that brought about the means to make things well: A creature equipped at natures design to see the mechanism of its own existence and with skills acquired to effect a change.
Is man, that creature sought for and quipped to make the changes for survival?
No, I cannot give an absolute meaning to life. I can only add to the conjecture by asking more questions and extrapolate possible theories and no doubt, they will reflect more my character.. perhaps the desires of what I would like to be the truth. So when I view life, that by it's extraordinary diversity, appears to set out to fill every possible niche that the limitations of suitable conditions permits. Is that behaviour of life, just like flowing water that would naturally fill every nook and cranny of a receptacle? Is that just the the intrinsic order of life? or might there be a hidden subtlety of purpose beyond that of the innate? Yes it could just be that innate ordering, with out any other purpose and those items of life that arise are just the product of chance with in confinements of their environment. and yet....I see order everywhere. So if one were to attribute "design" to theses events, that would, of its self, not be unreasonable but what interpretation I put on the events that I see as designable, should be me with measured restraint: That "design" was looking for something? looking for an animal that evolution would have equipped with skills to change life's method of motivation?
Life evolves...why? because it can? random chance? Life that by chance arrives at man, that purely coincidentally has those same abilities? If that be true, just coincidence, then so be it all is well as that.
But to the mind of this mortal who,s ego lies cuddled in the grasp of that shadow, death, sees such, as perversity; for all of "this" to be "destined" to oblivion by virtue its own success. OR dose "design" know of its own limitations?
It was not the hand of fate nor for that matter the hand of man that brought about the means to make things well: A creature equipped at natures design to see the mechanism of its own existence and with skills acquired to effect a change.
Is man, that creature sought for and quipped to make the changes for survival?
As I Wax Lyrical
To consider: that man and his abilities are no accident, that he is playing out a pivotal roll in life's evolutionary plan. That his ability to alter the method of his motivating force is not of his merit nor is it a perchance happening of fate, it is part of the on going design we call evolution. It has fallen to man to be that animal, to see it as such is surely to be humbled, to be a part of playing such a venture as this. As such, mankind can be seen as being at the transition betwixt child and adult and now, should throw off the habits of selfish childhood and take up the mantel and responsibility, of adulthood, to care for and look after this gift, this precious "gift" of life ... of all life.
I Do Not !
I do not proffer these thoughts as fact nor for that matter as beliefs, they are but observations of a particular slant, that I acknowledge may well be driven at the behest of some illusive part to my subconscious psyche.
What ever the truth, we will never know it, so we must resign ourselves to ignorance and be content that there are things that will for every reside in that "no man's land" of conjecture: that is not enough for our rational to say "it is something to believe in" and yet should not be leaped at, to belief, for fear of unnecessary conjecture. To swallow our pride and ego and be content with ignorance, is the bitter pill of humility.
Would I be first philosopher to say "I do not know", does such a state so offend our egos? that being in ignorance so humbling we can not live with it? No. I'm sure it may even be good for us. (lol)
I Do Not !
I do not proffer these thoughts as fact nor for that matter as beliefs, they are but observations of a particular slant, that I acknowledge may well be driven at the behest of some illusive part to my subconscious psyche.
What ever the truth, we will never know it, so we must resign ourselves to ignorance and be content that there are things that will for every reside in that "no man's land" of conjecture: that is not enough for our rational to say "it is something to believe in" and yet should not be leaped at, to belief, for fear of unnecessary conjecture. To swallow our pride and ego and be content with ignorance, is the bitter pill of humility.
Would I be first philosopher to say "I do not know", does such a state so offend our egos? that being in ignorance so humbling we can not live with it? No. I'm sure it may even be good for us. (lol)
A New World Order: Of the Meek
. But Solomon had it right: Ecclesiastes 1:9
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
The only aspect of my writing that is new that is, it is new to me, All of what I have written about has been said before, what is different as opposed to new is the way I have said it and perhaps that it "speaks" to a new generation. But I am sure that many people down the ages have seen what I have seen or very similar and have led their live accordingly.
But none of this helps in this piece of writings quest: to explain and describe what the difference would be to live our lives cooperatively, to make our new world order
"The meek shall inherit the earth" Matthews gospel ch5 v5
so who are the meek and why should they get to inherit the earth?
Like many a prophetic saying, one can get it to fit almost anywhere, like the a suit that "fits where it touches" very well in places. however this the third beatitude as written in Matthews gospel ch5 v5 as part of Christ's teaching called "The Sermon on the Mount", did have an interesting parallel in my mind. In some ways the meek, appeared to be a curious choice to have such an inheritance: Why not the "successful"? But then strident excesses of our selfish survival nature is the last place to look for meekness. Interestingly enough in the Bhagavad Gita scripture that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata the word "meek" is referred to as the "absence of ego" As I see it the "enemy" to much of my suggestions is man's ego. So may be a new world order will be made by the meek or those of lesser ego. It must be a little ironic that the aggressive and strong willed, the egotistical, that can claim to represent the positive attributes in regard to survival are the very qualities that are the antithesis of meekness.
What has been is what will be,
and what has been done is what will be done,
and there is nothing new under the sun.
The only aspect of my writing that is new that is, it is new to me, All of what I have written about has been said before, what is different as opposed to new is the way I have said it and perhaps that it "speaks" to a new generation. But I am sure that many people down the ages have seen what I have seen or very similar and have led their live accordingly.
But none of this helps in this piece of writings quest: to explain and describe what the difference would be to live our lives cooperatively, to make our new world order
"The meek shall inherit the earth" Matthews gospel ch5 v5
so who are the meek and why should they get to inherit the earth?
Like many a prophetic saying, one can get it to fit almost anywhere, like the a suit that "fits where it touches" very well in places. however this the third beatitude as written in Matthews gospel ch5 v5 as part of Christ's teaching called "The Sermon on the Mount", did have an interesting parallel in my mind. In some ways the meek, appeared to be a curious choice to have such an inheritance: Why not the "successful"? But then strident excesses of our selfish survival nature is the last place to look for meekness. Interestingly enough in the Bhagavad Gita scripture that is part of the Hindu epic Mahabharata the word "meek" is referred to as the "absence of ego" As I see it the "enemy" to much of my suggestions is man's ego. So may be a new world order will be made by the meek or those of lesser ego. It must be a little ironic that the aggressive and strong willed, the egotistical, that can claim to represent the positive attributes in regard to survival are the very qualities that are the antithesis of meekness.