|
Greetings End / Interesting Times Friends, This is an email about screwing-up. Or perhaps not. I screwed-up, screw-up, and likely will again. You might too. In the last Tao is Now newsletter, I opened with a sentence that contained the words “an vital,” which is grammatically incorrect. The correct way to write it is “a vital,” for when an indefinite article (a,an) precedes a consonant, one should use “a” rather than “an.” There are other offshoot rules and regulations, but I’m not an English teacher, and there are formidable grammar experts who know much more than I do, should you want additional data. If you didn’t open the last email or read the included newsletter, please feel free to ignore this; however, there may be some benefit in reading this. Anything’s possible. If you read the last newsletter and missed the error, please proceed, and if you read and noticed it, apologies- and please keep reading. While I’m writing this for you, I’m writing it for me. If both of us gain, it’s true win-win. I won’t get into why I made the error, but I think it’s reasonable to conclude that I wasn’t in the “now.” Does your mind sometimes wander to unconstructive musings of past, future, or unrelated topics when focusing on the task at hand? What if I made a small “not in the now” error while playing a high-stakes game? In some cases, that could result in significant pain or program deletion. Having identified the error, I need to commit to “not making the same mistake twice.” If I make the same indefinite article error in a future opening section of text, I give any interested party permission to strike me with a leather belt across my back 5 times (no buckle). I’d also need to wear a shirt as I don’t want permanent markings. I won’t press charges or retaliate, and if you’re not local to me, you’d need to cover your travel expenses. This is NOT a sexual advertisement. Better to remember a little pain than to never forget a lot. Disclaimer 1: No grammatical errors other than the aforementioned apply. Disclaimer 2 : Unless the person’s a sadist experiencing a severe masochist shortage, I know most are not motivated enough to make the effort. Disclaimer 3: Even if I made the same error again, I’m glad most if not all would forgo beating me with the belt- if only because it took too much effort to arrange things. That said, it’s still open. Unless at some future date, I say it’s not. Although if I made the same error before making that statement, then you get to hit me with the belt. Disclaimer 4: You probably don’t care about the error. I don’t either. I did at one time, hence the email. That’s over. Disclaimer 5: “This is this.” From a global perspective, if I learned my lesson, is punishment necessary? If there is a lesson, what is it really? If punishment is necessary, who should punish me? Me? You? The government? Karmic principle? Do you not see why the Tao monk always retains the title of Student Monk- even if he becomes a Warrior Monk, or a Teacher Monk, or an Emperor Monk- or the highest level Beggar Monk? Why is the Beggar Monk highest? Because he is the lowest. The KJV Bible verse says, “So the last shall be first, and the first last.” Like the indefinite article error, the newsletter and this e-mail are meaningless- or perhaps not. The Tao paradox is that errors, mistakes, and screw ups sometimes prove beneficial. Think of the traveler who overslept and missed the flight that crashed into a mountain. We are going to screw-up, but try not to screw-up, and if you do screw-up, the long-run net benefit of the screw-up can sometimes outweigh the cost, especially in the case of a profound though somewhat painful learning experience. To reiterate, “don’t make the same mistake twice.” The second time around usually hurts more. The karmic action-reaction chain of events that started at the beginning, if there was a beginning, is too complex, circuitous, and timeless to wrap our heads around. All you can do is run your program and follow your code. It’s an excellent way to level karma beyond your control. Is that sufficient? Is the shell sufficient for the clam? Is the clam sufficient for the shell? Ask the clam. Ask the shell. If both clam up (ha ha ha), what is correct? Correct Tao ethics start with defense of the orphan and widow. From that, springs defense of the laborer and family, which moves to tribe, nation, human species, animals, ecology, planet, solar system, galaxy, universe. Why universe? Do you want humanity to evolve into a Star Trek Kardashev Level II Civilization? I do. Even if that never happens, the universe exists. Until or unless it doesn’t. Which likely correlates to you and me. The oligarchy crushes the orphan and widow- hence, the laborer, family, tribe, nation, human species, planet. What of the galaxy and universe? In that case, the oligarchy crushes humanity’s potential. Rather than follow the path of the star dust that created us to achieve fantastic epiphanies and revelations, they create the Kingdom of Hell on Earth or extinction. Someone needs to stop them. “Who?” asked the clam. This is a big game. Play it well. Cheers, Richard
|
