Growth happens slowly over time and if one is truly open then they shall consider every available possibility
But they will not be endless or infinite ones and even if they were they could not all be experienced anyway
Its hard enough to see two different possibilities most of the time.
Free will if it exists is pretty limited - sometimes we must work the given situation years for one instance of true choice, and then of course half the time we do precisely the wrong thing. Instead of 99 percent effort to 1 percent inspiration, it more like .000001 freedom, the rest is effort within the thing that is given. But freedom is a powerful stimulant. And whats attained quickly isn’t worth much.
The moment of liberation after an occupation war is a true freedom, more people die these days than average war-days; many of the least healthy pick up all their bad habits at once. Freedom kills. Insert flag.
We need to exploit more of each others qualities. Humans are severely under-exploited, they are capable of far greater feats than we now expect of … us, - and I mean as a collective.
The UN isn’t the best we can do, as citizens of the world. For one it dates from a pre internet age. We can have a much better and more layered and interwoven and effective, relevant, and even sort of democratic united front of nationalities if we become a bit more ambitious with the internet. As fragile as all these individual bits are in terms of force, all of them together will make the world more stable. We will slowly be able to afford more truth, and value others more in terms of what we can not do. That is meritocracy, only refined intelligences can endure it - they have their pride in what is smart, they don’t care if it is the collective or individual who does it. As long as it benefits most stably and with the greatest plenitude.
Plenitude will at once point become a thing again. We have plenty, but scarcity is our mindset, so what we have is ugly when it sits next to all the other things we have - or at least sparse, sober - this is our style. Compare this to how people dressed in the 15th century - they lived in times of plenitude, even though they had far less. It is about self-valuing - the environment is valued into the self so that the self can freely expand into it.
The most healthy society is one where the greatest diversity of types can act spontaneously, attain its values, and thereby be of value to others so that they can attain theirs. Now, spiritual spontaneity is all but dead. Where it appears it is met with scorn as if it is violence. We can only imagine the ways in which it will try to come back into the game, and anticipate.
Are you kidding?! Paranoia’s a thrill! Makes you feel like a spy in an espionage movie.
Just kidding… sort of.
Anyway, I wonder if Destiny’s abandoned this thread. We’ve butchered it pretty bad. I was expecting a whole series of Q&A rounds. I swear I won’t at all of them.
Not an easy set of criteria to overcome, of which I recognise that I too am a victim of… victims of an all or nothing mentality, that needs an interim middle-ground found quickly enough to resolve this limitation of situations and therefore growth… or is that a bad idea, if our fight or flight responses cannot adapt as quickly as our mind?
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion from what I wrote. Read it again.
Had you even read my last line, you would have realized that my answer to your question was a NO.
I’m not sure what you mean Mags? I don’t think anyone chooses to be in the reality we find ourselves in. However, I think the anthropic principle might address what I think you mean. It’s like asking: out of all the animals on Earth, why did I become human? Because only humans can ask the question.
Reactive meaning more limited? Not actually making free choices? In that case, we’ve got to tough it out. Learn to be okay with the consequences we’re trying so desperately to avoid.