south korea: about 25% of its university students are engineering majors, there are hagwons (ie. private supplementary "cram schools" for secondary school students...just imagine having just as many kumon learning centers as you do gas stattions), they have mandatory 2 year military inscription requirements for young adults, they emulated much of what their former colonizers (the japanese) left for them, they benefited tremendously from the loans provided subsidized by the us, the japanese and europe, they practice dogged protectionism and neomercantilism...ironicqlly just like the japanese. South koreans still have the highest suicide rate per capita of any oecd nation.
...which proves that wealth doesn't equal happiness. However, that is another discussion altogether. This is a debate about which economical model is the most efficient in developing a country. I admit both arguments are related but their is a difference, and an important one at that too.
Whether on per capita basis or total amount, South Korea is nowhere near the top on aid and subsidized loans received. Aid and subsidies played a non-negligible role but were not pivotal much like how the Marshall Plan wasn’t a pivotal factor behind Europe’s recovery.
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Fabulous again👌
Inequalities... (Part Two)
What can help in such a case that I allude to....!
Clarity and rules that help in understanding and maintaining that clarity.
Once there, then a question of....!
What is debt for the highest number of the world's population, can be easily understood as an answer.
More to it...!
Can anyone buy debt!?!
Who can buy debt!?!?
How can anyone buy debt!?!
And...!
What does anyone that has bought debt, acquires in doing so!?!?
Recently I was listening to two "debates" of sorts.
One stating that (a systemic change is needed). The other stating that (we have a right to die).
Both "debates" are an eventuality of not having clarity, together with the rules that help in understanding and maintaining that clarity.
For the first one (the debate)....all anyone needs to ask is...!
What is the state!?!?
As a free existence of being....!
Then earth and knowledge in relation to begin on earth, fulfills all aspects as a possible relatable answer.
As a constrained existence of being, having to be lead (here) and (there) by the consequential (fact) of being in direct opposition with a system or combinations of any systems, for all the reasons and logic the constrained existence of being requires....!
Then a strategy, the best strategy will fulfill all aspects.
The second one (the debate), refers to some kind of defined right, in law preferably, that anyone could make use in terminating their own life, through assistance or help.
And as with the first one (the debate), the clarity of what is the state is completely ignored.
In this case, a human being body, with all of its sensory process, a nervous system, organ systems, without mentioning a thought system, or a spiritual one.
Yet while anyone "knowing" about all of this personally, and through a full contact observation with billions of others, anyone (for some reason and logic) still uses the argument....!
That anyone has the right to not feel pain and suffering, calling up dignity for a human being body system.
Which would point to the fact, that anyone in such a process of reason and logic, is at war with their very own human being body system, and is determined to win no matter what, even by destroying it.
((All of this after thousands of years in scientific advancement in all possible fields)).
To present this point of view in a much clearer prospective I will refer to a sentence I have come across recently.
The sentence is....
(Ordinary people are evil) and I believe is the foundation of a "genius" philosophical thinking in trying to explain "something".
The sentence to me is beyond stupid, intentional and absurd, and not because it differs much from the already established and similar sentence off ....
(People are evil),
but because the sentence indicates, that someone, anyone has already established what (ordinary) is, what (people) are, and in a mathematical method concluded the sum combination of the two results in (evil), meaning that someone, anyone has established also what evil is, which in the case of the sentence refer to the (ordinary) being predominant in (people) and as a consequence resulting in (evil).
Anyone can go and try and figure that out.
Now although (ordinary) represent ordinary best, and (people) represent people best, making (evil) represent evil best also...!
What is missed as always is the state, or as in some cases known as the condition.
If being in existence for anyone is either (free) or (being lead to here and there) for all the reasons and logic, the state or the condition is a most crucial indicator as to what type of structure or rhythm anyone, together with anything in relation to anyone will take shape, meaning unfold.
But in the case where the system is one that leads a huge number of people (here) and (there), yet anyone involved is equipped with a belief that in what they are truly involved in, is in fact (a free being in existence) system, making the leading (here) and (there) dependant only on their own free will.....!
Then a serious problem of clarity is the symptom.
Because a more complex and elaborate system of being lead (here) and (there) for all the reasons and logic is presented falsely and as a (free being in existence) system.
This is all achieved by intentionally or unintentionally not understanding, hiding, and not explaining that within a system of having to be lead (here) and (there) in huge numbers for any possible reasons and logic....!
Can only be achieved by having sub systems and sub systems, and if very complex, various combinations of sub systems with the overall system.
This serious problem of clarity, will result to failure in such a system.
Because each of the sub systems are in direct conflict or opposition to any other sub systems by the very simple being of one.
Especially when a false representation of the overall system is presented as a (free existence of being).
Meaning that anyone has to only be with and within a particular sub system as a profession or as an abstract concept in order to be in direct conflict or opposition with any other sub system.
What is more subtle yet extremely crucial to the failure is the fact that...., simply by being with and within a sub system and as a consequence in direct conflict or opposition with any other sub systems....!
It is very hard for anyone to be in a direct conflict or opposition for all the right reasons and logic with their very own being, with and within a sub system, meaning the very sub system itself.
Making for an eventual failure quicker than usual, which in turn brings up something that seems to be referred as "inequality".
If anyone takes up any profession or an abstract concept of being, such as rich, middle class or poor....!
Then the question I proposed in relation to debt, as in what it is, who can buy, can anyone buy, and what is bought as debt, begins to have a possible answer in relation to the being with and within a sub system that is in direct conflict or opposition for all the reasons and logic it needs to, with another sub system.
Together with a clear fact, that in most cases anyone cannot, will not be against, in direct conflict or opposition with their own being with and within the sub system.
That can only be achieved by jumping system.
If not a sort or means of punishment in relation to a (credit system, investment system, technology system, protection under law system, and information system) will most certainly be applied and efficiently to anyone that goes against, or is in direct conflict and opposition with their very own being with and within that sub system.
(Making the very improvement of that sub system, including anyone's self often very hard to unfold).
In some very specific and particular cases, the overall system that leads huge numbers of people (here) and (there) will apply the sort and the means of punishment as a totality or in direct specifics, in order to maintain that of which it is.
If what I point out has any weight of truth with and within....!
Then what is failure, and what does it mean not giving up for anyone!?!?!
When the obvious is pointed out in the form of the sentence (never give up, try again etc etc)....!
In what?
With what?
What is the state?
Should be some of among the questions easier to ask.
Which in and when answering will make much clearer what is referred as "inequalities". Meaning...!
If anyone of you that are going to be in positions where your failure will effect a lot of people or seriously your very own self, even if on the terms of money (as in spending or earning a lot of it), don't try again, give up, unless you are not going to fail.
Then anyone will be able to see if a failure is really that, or a success is really that.
I will close with few examples of (honor), and the complete misunderstanding of each example, yet now through such examples the very confused by not having clarity almost all of the systems of the world stand, (somehow)... until....!
If honor was mistaken and confused with power, money, speed, strength, endurance, knowledge, wisdom, numbers etc etc.....!
There would never have been a son of man on the cross, any cross.
There would have never been a prophet in a cave, any cave.
There would have never been a man under a tree, any tree.
There would have never been a caravan of people walking through a sea, any sea.
There would have never been any holy man or holy woman.
There would have never been anyone speaking at a gathering, any gathering.
There would have never been an experiment, any experiment.
And if I total correctly, between all, there is all of the possible pains imaginable and experienced.
From crucification to burning.
Proving the only certain fact known to all human beings.....!
There are only two possible forms of being we (all human beings including animals) refuse in all categorical terms, and that is to be born and to die.
If there is no clarity in that state....!
Then anyone can call it "inequality" if they so wish to do so, and if in a genius mode.
I would call it stupidity doomed to destruction by its very own hands.
© Miri
5 April/2023
Inequalities.....! (Part One)
I have no idea what the word means, and as a consequence it would be (rightly) logical for me to firmly believe that no one else should have any idea either in relation to the meaning of the word.
Now surly there is no harm in that!?!?
And the answer lies with and within exactly what I am at any given point of a contact.
Because as it is established that in order for me to be what (I am), and knowing full well how such possible combinations of (I am) have come into existence throughout history....!
Then a lot of people, land, and structures have to make sure that becomes a reality. Making the perfect terrain for a most formidable and destructive paradox.
That of knowing full well of what I am every single day at any given point of contact with and within the very civilization...!
At most points simultaneously the I am not, nor have ever been, and if whole structures and systems exist and continue to develop in order to tell me that (I am) and especially make sure that (I am) when and if I want to....!
That will get you....!
A democracy problem and a climate related catastrophe problem.
Simply because more and more millions of you and I am, when in fact you and I, are not.
Should.... has nothing to do with it.
A holy man lived not long ago in a rural and mountainous area. He was well and in many cases extremely known together with a great desire to be known by anyone living in and around the area.
If and when encountered, his appearance (for anyone not aware what the term ((holy, or holy man)) means, or as in this case specifically with him), would surpass anything known and referred to as a (hermit or a street beggar).
Something that was not just overridden by anyone who understood the precise form of being, in fact it was not even present, seen, sensed or understood if and when anyone else that did not, would be pointing at, following the most sound reason and logic always.
Which in this case would be the very actual appearance of someone, the appearance of a human being, or as I am specifically referring to in this case, a holy man.
No one would ever know where he was going or where he was coming from, (obviously).
Although out of the blue, or as a premonition the holy man would appear at the house of anyone for the day, for the night, for a drink of water, for a rest, for a talk, or for a greeting, and it mattered not.
What mattered was the fact that he was there, triggering what is known in all cultures, as hospitality norms.
One night, it had been raining a lot, and the holy man approached a house.
The house belonged to a young couple.
Upon answering the call, the young man recognised the holy man straight away, and rushed with all of his being to welcoming him inside the house.
While doing so, and exchanging greetings with the holy man, the young man asks his wife to make a place ready at the guest room next to the fire place, (obviously).
The young woman rushes to do so (obviously), but while doing so and having made use of the best reason and logic, in relation to the appearance of the holy man together with a heavy raining night being the main ingredient for anyone traveling outside at that period.....!
She quickly thinks on her feet, and swaps the usual best covers, skins, pillows, and ornaments that are always stationary at the guest room, (obviously) with the equally next best covers, skins, pillows and ornaments that are held as a reserve, not at the guest room (obviously).
The holy man walks in together with the couple inside the guest room, takes his appointed place next to the fire, drinks and food are present and husband and wife are there to look after all of his needs, (obviously).
After a little while, the young wife cannot help but see with her very own eyes, dirt dripping off the clothes of the holy man, yet not one single stain of dirt is there to be seen on the equally next best covers, skins, pillows and ornaments that by now are where usually are not, at the guest room, underneath the holy man.
She is mesmerized, but pull's herself together and focuses on being as hospitable as she and her husband can be, (obviously).
The night passes and the morning is present.
The holy man has to leave.
He thanks both husband and wife, but turns to the woman and says....!
((You tried last night to avoid dirt, where there was no dirt to be found, and as a consequence of that, you will struggle all of your life to avoid dirt, where there is no dirt to be found.))
It is still told the more that house was cleaned, the more dirt was noticed and found by anyone entering it.
I believe that in many cases, (honor) is mistaken and confused with power, money, speed, strength, endurance, knowledge, wisdom, numbers etc etc.
It's true meaning is connected to the concept of a (door), and if going very far back, it's meaning is connected to (smoke), which is the original concept of (a door) still in use at a very specific basilica or many many other similar places.
It has to do with the ability of anyone in using all of what is recognised and understood as power, money, speed, strength, endurance, bravery, knowledge, wisdom, numbers etc etc....!
At the right weight of being, for the moment, the location and contact.
No more and no less.
Resulting in a honourable connection, (a door/smoke).
When this is, was, and continues to be taken (away) by anyone in relation to anyone else, through all sorts of means that are highly reasoned and logical.....!
The system used is flawed.
Especially if any system advocates for a free existence of being for anyone with and within.
If on the other hand any system aims to have a very large number of beings, lead at any moment, location, and for any reason and logic, (here) or (there)....!
Then that system, any system operating in such a manner, is against or in direct opposition with another system or a combination of many other systems.
Making the consequential being with and within such a system, not free, but highly constrained to (here) or (there) the system is aiming at, for all the best reasons and logic it needs to do so.
© Miri
5 April/2023
Brilliant
2.30
south korea: about 25% of its university students are engineering majors, there are hagwons (ie. private supplementary "cram schools" for secondary school students...just imagine having just as many kumon learning centers as you do gas stattions), they have mandatory 2 year military inscription requirements for young adults, they emulated much of what their former colonizers (the japanese) left for them, they benefited tremendously from the loans provided subsidized by the us, the japanese and europe, they practice dogged protectionism and neomercantilism...ironicqlly just like the japanese. South koreans still have the highest suicide rate per capita of any oecd nation.
...which proves that wealth doesn't equal happiness. However, that is another discussion altogether. This is a debate about which economical model is the most efficient in developing a country. I admit both arguments are related but their is a difference, and an important one at that too.
Whether on per capita basis or total amount, South Korea is nowhere near the top on aid and subsidized loans received. Aid and subsidies played a non-negligible role but were not pivotal much like how the Marshall Plan wasn’t a pivotal factor behind Europe’s recovery.
Colonialism and imperialism, driven by capitalism account for the differences among nations.
no
no