Life seems to deal in a quantum way, in whole units.
With respect to this topic of “purpose”, would it not be beneficial to define what it is that everyone wants? I put forth that there are common needs. I would second that notion, and it’s not possible for everyone to want different things. Not literally, because we all live in the same world.
I would further state that it is these intrinsic commonalities that creates “society” in the first place. We all share the same air and water. Yes, but we aren’t free to share our personal thoughts. Why is this?
Say for instance, I wanted you to jump up and down and cluck like a chicken. You might not want the same thing. We can still discuss your wants, and given time, if not having me do it you may get someone who agrees and does as you ask.
There is a danger of being harmed when it is discovered what your desires are. Those desires can be then used to control you. That is why people are guarded against sharing. Those desires are already used to control you. Some already know what they are.
Sometimes asking is not as gratifying as “forcing”. You own your desire more by removing the secrecy, and removing the secrecy also removes a part of the incentive for force. For every intention to force you, there would be an intention to counter that force. But each side gets to use you as a chess piece in turn when it’s all secret.
I don’t need validation for my beliefs or understandings of how things are. Which seems to make people vexed. It’s good you don’t. You are closer to understanding true purpose for it.
Define purpose? Purpose is relationship.
Secrecy can be negative when combined with fear, but in and of itself I wouldn’t say it is negative. Because we all use the same energy, secrecy is only necessary in the context of fear. Otherwise, it’s not secrecy. It’s just not answering questions that no one has asked. Not the same thing. But until we can relate in natural ways, we will be slaves of these parasitic, psycho-social constructs.
But, there is a falsity known as the “scarcity principle”. If we continue to fear a perceived “lack”.
So perhaps secrecy is born of fear, yet we value our secrets like precious hidden jewels.
True, friends. Anything you have, even your thoughts and ideas, have come to you second hand. At the very least, something was involved in your experience if not another intelligence. But either way, it’s all second hand. Now cling to this and the energy moving though you stagnates, depletes, or rather seems to. Energy works naturally in a holistic, or if you prefer a “holographic” way. It is dynamic and the whole is greater than any smaller sum of its parts.
Hence my statement about the false “scarcity principle”. The model I was describing was the solution. We get less of things when we operate as a static. We fail to manage the dynamic that renews or allows for the renewal of anything, so of course things look scarce. It’s like unplugging your computer, then wondering why it doesn’t work anymore.
That is in my opinion due to the stagnant notion of the “self”. Oh, I agree. This is why the concept of human limitation is so popular, and the belief that we would have insanity and abuses if we don’t create artificial authority. There is such a thing as natural authority, and cultures the world over have had similar notions. It’s the original meaning of the Norse word “luck”.
Luck references Loki, no? Actually, only indirectly. Luck references more directly to the “weird”, which was the concept of nature playing out in the skein of fate. They were not actually fatalists. They just saw the things natures tended to play out.
But chaos was embraced. And yes, they were early masters of what we now call the chaos theory.
Your thoughts are welcome. Be well friends.