dimanche 3 août 2014

Cercle vicieux

Mille fois j'ai entendu dire :

« C'est bien beau tout ça, mais si je ne peux rien y faire,
alors je préfère ne même pas en entendre parler »

Oui, mais pour faire quelque chose, ça prend un plan.
Si on a pas de plan, ce n'est pas de l'action, c'est de l'agitation.

L'action c'est ce qui nous amène du point A au point B.

Et le plan, c'est ce qui définit d'abord A, puis B
et enfin la route à suivre pour aller de l'un à l'autre.

Sans plan, on part de A, on tourne en rond et on aboutit à A.

Pour avoir de plan, il faut prendre la peine de définir :

A. La situation où l'on se trouve
B. La situation où on veut aller
C. Le meilleur chemin pour s'y rendre

Alors comment peut-on y arriver si personne ne veut en entendre parler ?

« Parlez-en entre vous autres
puis revenez nous voir quand vous aurez décidé »

Mauvaise réponse.

L'infime minorité qui contrôle la situation
a élaboré un plan il y a plusieurs centaines d'années
et elle le suit méticuleusement.

Et ça marche...

Si on fait pareil, ça changera quoi ?

Pour qu'il y ait une différence,
il faudrait qu'au lieu d'être élaboré par une infime minorité,
cette fois-ci, le plan soit élaboré par l'immense majorité.

Et pour y arriver, il faudrait calmer ceux et celles
qui veulent immédiatement passer à l'action
sans prendre la peine de réfléchir, de choisir, de planifier, d'organiser...

On a même pas le début de l'ombre du commencement d'un point commun.

Il me semble que c'est par là qu'il faudrait commencer.

A. Ça va mal

La majorité vit dans le déni,
il faut commencer par s'entendre que ça va mal...

B. Ça va aller mieux

La majorité pense que ça a toujours été mal
et que ça ne changera jamais
et que donc que ça ne vaut même pas la peine d'essayer.

Il faut au moins partager l'espoir que ça peut s'améliorer.

C. Le plan

Une fois qu'on est d'accord que ça va mal et que ça pourrait aller mieux,
alors on fait l'inventaire des problèmes, on identifie les causes communes,
on établit les priorités puis on résoud les problèmes un par un.

Et voilà !


jeudi 24 juillet 2014

On the purpose of life...


« He who dies with the most toys wins »
« You can tell a man from a boy by the price of his toys »

I have seen various explanations of the meaning of these two sentences,
but I find they all focus too much on the player and not enough on the game.

They say things like :

« I recently listened to someone who told me about a sticker they saw on the rear of an expensive car which read, “He who dies with the most toys wins”. Part of me wanted to laugh, another part felt of me felt pity. So many of us have been caught up in the belief that we should measure our worth in terms of what we own; the bigger our bank balance the greater our worth. We focus on accumulating material wealth, forgetting that we can’t take it with us beyond death. »


Of course, people who think like that do not understand the « game ».

The purpose of the game is not the toys, it is the winning.
Winning is not an end result, it is a way of life.

In the minds of the people to whom those sentences make sense,
from the kindergarden to the grave, each individual is constantly evaluated
in order to separate the wheat from the chaff.

In the end, what the players bring with them in the grave,
is not their net worth but their status as a winner or a looser in the game.

The loosers, and those who are not even playing the game,
they focus all their attention on the material belongings
whereas the winners only focus on winning.

The winners are « the men » with expensive toys,
the loosers are « the boys » with cheap toys or no toys at all.

This was the « worldview »
that we inherited from the Middle Ages materialism.

It reached it's peek when the « motto » driving the business minds was :

« There's a sucker born every minute »

Being born in that worldview
meant your life was a constant struggle
between not being the sucker of anybody else
and grabbing enough suckers to feed your greed.

Children had to learn the game very early in the school yard.

The game has only one rule and one very easy to learn :

« Winner takes all »

Victims get no respect, no help,
they're told to stand their ground,
or else they're never going to make it in society later on.

Agressors get respect, fame, recognition
and they're told they're going to go far in life.

I can remember all that
because it was still the prevaling worldview
when I was born in 1952.

All this had been going on for centuries, gathering momentum,
until suddenly it was the sixties, the Flower Power,
and the mind blowing experiences that changed the name of the game.

« All you need is love, love is all you need »

« What matters is invisible to the eyes »

In fact a whole new game had appeared on the scene.

Having toys was no more a prerequisite to be part of the game,
on the contrary, material possessions became a liability
on your way to become a good player in the new game.

The focus had shifted from the joy of winning to the joy of playing.

The purpose of the new game is not to dominate the others
but to share with one another, to help each other.

We are not separate from each other, we are all one :

« I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together »

And we are all co-creators of our consensual reality.

A lot of people are still playing by the old rules,
but they're not having as much fun as they used to
and they're certainly not having as much fun
as those who play by the new rules.

Even for a ruler of the world,
you can only take so much exploded guts of bombed children in a day.

Because it is based on a false assumption,
the old game often leads to violence
because it is simpler than facing the truth.

What false assumption ?

It is an assumption so big
no one would even dare considering it false.

It is the assumption that « someone CAN OWN something ».

We all know what « CAN OWN something » means
so let's focus on the « someone » part of the equation.

« Everybody » has a « someone », so we take it for granted
and rarely give any thought to what exactly is a « someone ».

We are trying to identify the owner in « ownership ».

What is « someone » ?

Materialists would say propably « you are your body »
hence « someone » is the body of « someone » .

As everything else, bodies are made of atoms.

Since the atoms of « someone »
each have between 4 and 14 billions years of age
and the maximum age of « someone » is around 150 years
then it is clear that the atoms where already there
long before « someone » was born.

So we now have to ask « someone » :

Who did you get your atoms from ?
How much did you pay for them ?
Have you kept your receipt ?

I am trying to establish the merit of the human claim that
« someone can own something »
and I see that « someone » doesn't even own
the very atoms he or she is made of.

We have to ask ourselves :

How can something
that doesn't even own itself
own something else ?

So, where can « someone »
find a legal basis on which to lay its claim of ownership on « something ».

Nowhere !

Because it doesn't belong to human beings
to give human beings the right to own the universe or any part thereof.

I know they're doing it anyway,
but I consider they're not doing it legally.

It is a clear case of conflict of interest
and their claim has no legal value as proof of ownership.

And pretending God gave the world to a chosen few
is not a valid proof of ownership either.

So if we can't own anything,
where does all that lead us ?

We don't have a good case for « someone can own something »
but we have a good case against « he who dies with the most toys wins » !

It leads us to the idea that
we are not born here to own the world but to create it.

This is what we have been doing all along,
but we have been creating the world
following a rotten clueless scenario with a bad ending.

Now would be a good time for every one to switch gears,
embrace the new paradigm and co-create a different world,
one with a happy ending .

« Give peace a chance »