Does the model labeled “real life” allow people to survive well and achieve their personal goals efficiently?

No, because it’s too tied into the agreed upon system. Agreements, and by that I mean ethically sound agreements, are arrived at mutually. Is real life a mutually arrived at agreement?

Yes and no. It’s done mutually but not necessarily agreed to mutually. Ok, so is an inefficient system a practical system? My point is, does the real life system work and work well for all who subscribe to it?

No. Why not? Because for those who perceive things differently they are sidelined. So how would this be handled more “realistically” then? The same way they arrive at the insights like the ability to see colours we don’t naturally see with intentional application, and other tricks of that nature. Each person does not necessarily choose to perceive things the way they perceive.

I believe, in understanding human nature, all could be happy. That is the key. If we taught people to first explore their individual traits, the aspects of their personal experience and the beliefs that result from that experience, then they could adjust their beliefs not according to a parasitic standard that serves no one really but the system itself, and instead allow for the personal needs that lead them to believe as they do in the first place.

We could, instead of plugging into the current system, acquaint ourselves with our own personal natures and, by virtue of our ability to communicate these details, create genuinely symbiotic relationships with the people around us.

I see a different story in currency. It is impossible to remove math. It is indeed impossible to remove math, but it is possible to change the system being used to arrive at values we calculate meaning with. Recent scientific research is even revealing that many of the processes they believed operated by measuring “units” in fact operate by sensitivity to quantum wave functions instead. Calculus instead of accounting.

Either way, it’s a system that is already in place regardless of what we label it. We didn’t originally use money as the basis of trade. Originally, we bartered.

The Freemason’s that drew the imagery of the dollar bill is riddled with mystery that when understood declares at some point we become a society of equality, and it’s the path to it because it’s based on the blueprint of the nature of the male and female. Well, according to today’s topic, if that view serves as a functional support for the individual holding it, then it is true whether or not it is factual. That’s the basis of the law of pragmatism. Since we cannot arrive at a universally perceivable truth, a functional truth is acceptable and even necessary to survive and thrive in life.

So “start where the other person is at” would also fit this? Yes. It’s the basis of sound teaching. It is referred to classically as the “Socratic method.” Socrates believed that all truth was already present in people’s minds, and the only thing necessary to do was draw it out by assisting the individuals process of reason. This is actually the literal meaning of the word education. Education is the process of educing or drawing out understanding. Much of peoples suffering stems from subscribing to everything but a pragmatic awareness of self.

Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.

Travis Saunders
Dragon Intuitive
~science,mysticism,spirituality~