Life, not a game

Life is a rigged game. Quit the red bloody mar­ket, se­clude from all the ran­dom­ness of it and dis­ap­pear com­pletely. But that’s a premise be­hind “do not com­pare your­self to oth­ers in­stead com­pare to the per­son you where yes­ter­day”. Claiming that one se­cludes him­self from the need to see your­self as lower than a per­son or su­pe­rior to one. In or­der words com­pete with your­self , or past self. But is it so, since com­pe­ti­tion in healthy ways where you agree to play. But we don’t agree to be al­ive in the first place. No­body asked to par­ti­ci­pate in the game of life. Wittgen­stein the fam­ily, his father wanted to turn his child into cap­i­tal­ist agent and make profit for him. They all 3 kil­led them­selves like a chain re­ac­tion.

Beyond that are peo­ple who play life like a game.I hear it all over: Of course I will play cap­i­tal­ism and bu­reau­cratic way of host­ing in­sti­tu­tion as a game. But at life it­self you draw the line. See We­ber on in­sti­tu­tions and it’s way on per­sonal free­dom.

And only a fool­ish would rely on habit alone. If habits aren’t you then what counts as you, let’s say all your note­books and jour­nal where burnt to the ground. But you still re­mem­ber right? Its epi­sodic mem­ory that is the last savi­our, but isn’t that effi­cient. Then you are also your data (that many say they have pri­vacy poli­cies but sure they steal your data). So does that mean you must pro­tect your­self . all your digi­tal pro­file and iden­tity? Tak­ing a hard drive and own­ing a phys­i­cal ex­ten­sion of you be­cause be­liev­ing in the cloud has a slight chance of be­ing de­stroyed. Google ac­tivity and how it tracks you by the times­tamp. It is amaz­ing to have this data and be­ing able to switch be­tween ideas and where you read them.

Maps of mean­ing refer­ring to the wikipe­dia page for the mean­ing of life. It’s quite de­press­ing to reach the end look­ing for mean­ing and gloss­ing down the foot­notes and googling the au­thors of the books. From the philoso­phies of Kant (you come as you like but you pay as you go) and util­i­tar­i­anism, to Jainism and other Eastern philoso­phies.

Mircea Eli­ade is an ex­am­ple of a man who ex­pe­rienced both wor­lds, and as a re­sult he wrote a the­ory of re­li­gion and of the myths. He wrote Maitreyi (a love story novel re­cently read and his other novel/​jour­nal) and ex­pe­rience the karma, devas (gods of Hindu) and their re­li­gion. But he got com­pared to Bud­dha. It’s like be­liev­ing you are Je­sus and the pat­tern hap­pens many times in the world. Peo­ple like Acharya Ra­jneesh (he was even suici­dal at peak of his cult­ness) and his old cult where he pre­tended. For those fake are hos­pi­tals for peo­ple who be­lieve they are Je­sus: https://​​​​Men­tal-Health/​​News/​​i-be­lieve-i-am-je­sus-christ-20180828 and peo­ple who when think of god think of them­selves, neu­ron fire at the same area

Us­ing fMRI, they saw that the same ar­eas of the brain were used to rea­son about one’s own be­liefs and God’s be­liefs, but differ­ent re­gions of the brain were used when rea­son­ing about an­other per­son’s be­liefs. In par­tic­u­lar, rea­son­ing about God’s be­liefs ac­ti­vated ar­eas as­so­ci­ated with self-refer­en­tial think­ing more so than did rea­son­ing about an­other per­son’s be­liefs.

In other words, if you be­lieve in God, you’re prob­a­bly sub­con­sciously en­dow­ing God with your be­liefs (at least on con­tro­ver­sial is­sues*), and not the other way around. (http://​​­​​blog/​​2010/​​use-mri-for-imag­in­ing-god/​​).

And the same sto­ries goes for other re­li­gions, peo­ple see them­selves as strong.and the pat­tern you see ev­ery­where. OK if you live no­ble life then you can ad­mit you aren’t a char­latan but don’t re­peat his­tory un­til you learn it.