Inspiration, Action, And Doing Good For The Community (As Inspired By TV)

Okay, this one is going to be a bit silly, because it is inspired by two TV shows.  But I hope you'll listen.

As silly as it sounds, I see what the little animal figurines mean when they say, "because you listen."  This is from the show Wonderfalls, which was allowed to air about four episodes back in 2004 and then tragically had its life cut short.  The show was cancelled because TV executives have the sort of taste that would have gotten them stoned to death in Biblical times.

I happened upon a theory of worldview (deciphering, figuring things out) while watching the TV show Dead Like Me.  This show is from the same creator as Wonderfalls; Dead Like Me actually aired a few years prior.  But I am glad I got to watch them in the chronology that I did, because things made more sense this way.  Luckily I have been able to find full episodes on the internet.

well, there are many deaths all the time, everywhere.  so there are many reapers everywhere.  but we can't see them all.  the show focuses on the 4 or five within this one particular district(precinct).

so anyway, tha animals are the same.  work along the same concept (or team organization, rather) as the reapers.  there must be numerous little animals that supervise small groups, and the group members have to carry out good deeds. which got me questioning.   why is Jaye the only one who can hear them? why aren't there more people doing good deeds in other satellite branches?  there's so much to be done.  there's so much that _could_ be done.  in the same (district/precinct, similar to how the death reapers have jurisdictions that they work within the same local area).

more to the point, there are only a few things that Jaye is required to do. understandable, a human can only do so much. but I am sure there are a _lot_ of good deeds that needed to be done even in that small area.  Jaye couldn't poss have covered them all herself.  why aren't there more good deeds to be done in the localized area network?

and the answer is, there _are_ good deeds (many more of them).  there _are_ more animals who would very much like to recruit more humans to carry out these good Samaritan, selfless, humanitarian acts.  unfortunately for them, Jaye is I<the only one who listens.>I

so, let us further investigate the questions of, why don't the litle animals operate the same way as the reapers?  I'm sure the reapers take care of ALL the deaths in the area.  all of the potential deaths have to be taken care of 100%.  there is no skipping out, sleeping on the job, no "sorry I have to be somewhere."  none escape the reapers'(notice).

this is not how the little animals work.  Jaye is only told to do as many as she can handle. and as for all the other potential good deeds that go undone, unnoticed, ignored, forgotten, oh well.  force people to do it whether they want to or not?  because death is the equalizer __. 

death _has_ to be done.  On the other hand, this good deeds is a matter of free will, unfortunately.  (just so we're clear, the too many good deeds [J only being given as many as she can handle, which is only a few in the area] is NOT Jaye's fault. the reapers also, if you'll notice, are only given as many as they can handle. divide that by the number of deaths that need to be covered, and if you've done your math correctly, you'll see that there are many, many reapers, all over the world. this is confirmed by the tv show.)

so in conclusion, there have to be many, many reapers to cover the many many deaths.  but there do NOT have to be many, many good-deed-doers to do all the many, many good deeds
+-+-+-
and another question is, if it's so damn important, why don't the animals just do it themselves? because, through humans is the only way it can be done.  they're big enough, they're strong enough, yda.
and why through the channel of little animals?

because ___ has to disperse it this way.  it has to be un-everyday (unique, unordothox) enough that humans will actually pay attention, to take the time to take notice of it.

Evolution And Behavior As Affected By Environment, Climate, Physical Environment

http://www.uwgb.edu/chancellor/FYI/april05FYI.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ca/humanorigins/writing.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/ForestDesert.htm

Interesting theory -- that the desert, with its absolutes of life and death, fosters the development and study of absolute disciplines such as science and math.

This makes sense-- in the desert if people are note absolutely careful, meticulously rationing water and other food supplies, they will die.  Likewise, in studying science and math, you're either right or you're wrong.  There is no wiggle room for bs.  Whereas lushly vegetated areas tend to coddle and baby people, offering them the luxury of not having to accept any absolute truths.

But hang on a minute.  This does not really make sense.  I think the author is confusing two very different concepts with each other.

So how do the ancient cultures of the Mayans and Aztecs fit into this?  The climate that they inhabited was primarily tropical forest.  Yet they had a remarkably accurate calendar; and had indoor plumbing running water.  They had very sophisticated civilizations.

A cruel, unsympathetic desert would only allow its inhabitants to comprehend life and death.  the only thing they would have the patience for, and indeed the inclination for, is to simply survive.

Beginner, rudimentary mathematics and science are concrete, hardscore, and conducive to basal life.  Such as 1+1.  Or, "don't eat this berry, it's poison."  That is not really an academically sophisticated discipline.

People who are trying to eerk out a hardscrabble living, just trying to survive in an unforgiving clime, are not going to have time to pursue lofty, higher-order modes of intellectualism such as science and mathematics.  People who had to fight off deadly glaring sun from turning them into a crisp-- are not going to prioritize any studying or scholarly pursuits, endeavors_]]].  you think someone trying to grow wheat in a harsh snow desert is going to be concerned with learned, erudite endeavors?

To desert populations that lived in harsh, unforgiving climates,, the best course of action indefinitely was to make sure they kept themselves from burning or starving to death.  They had to devote all their energy towards making sure they did not die.  They hunted, sure.  They found shelter, sure.  But that is not science.  That is following basic instincts of survival.

for eg.g,::: [[case in point]]  rationing food and water is not exactly higher-level thinking.  it is a simple matter of dividing.  they had to make sure every member of the tribe got enough food to survive.
They did not entertain more lofty ideas such as scientific theory.  __--scientific process requires patience, painstaking attention to minute detail.  I seriously doubt they prioritized__

--they did not have time or energy to devote to higher orders of thinking.  they were too busy just trying to survive.

[[[good, expert,,__]]] knowledge in any given scientific discipline requires extended education for a reason.
a peson can only __ ifff devote__ ample time towards thinking and contemplating, pondering the universe's mysteries profoundly.  A person can only do this if their basic needs of food, water, survival, and shelter are already met.  A person does not have time to waste on discovering the existence of bacteria if they are starving.  The only thing on their mind would be finding sustenance.
A person can only dedicate years of their life towards cerebral goals if they have all their basic needs of survival already met.  If their house is collapsing, on the other hand, they are not going to concern themselves with such bookish, egghead conceits.
If someone's house collapses, they learn that they need to rebuild it more strongly, with sturdier columns and supporting structures, foundations, and framework.  That is not science.  That is common sense.

Hmm...  Astounding revelation.  it seems that this guy is displaying certain patterns in his thinking -- the same patterns I detected a few years ago.  Middle-class whites think that just because mathematics and science are absolute disciplines, this automatically means those are easier to understand than fluid, elusive, abstract studies like philosophy, psychology, flip-flopping on political views, etc.  Not concrete.

I am finding that this kind of reinforces what I have been saying for years.  Too many people think that because science deals in absolutes (unlike philosophy or creativity), this must mean it is easy to understand or that technology is easy to innovate.  they think that because science has definite answers with clear demarcations of right and wrong, that this must not require any more intelligence than securing a clean, dry, free-from-marauding-lions cave [[[stable, safe place]]] in which to live.

This guy here simply took that line of thinking [[[interpretation]]]] one step further.  He, unfortunately for him, thinks that people living in a harsh atmosphere where their basic survival is not guaranteed from one day to the next, would somehow be able to grasp concepts of sine, cosine, and tangent.

Nope.  hwere people must fight for their survival,
sciecne deals in aboslutes, suyre.  [[[smth abut learnging the theory behind the common sense observances.
A person cannot just stumble upon ideal gas laws if they are worried [preoccupied]]] about whether they will be able to eat dinner that day.

+
also an interesting talking point --  in this essay, the author asserts that large environmental factors such as climate and population density, are factors that shape human behavior, evolution of technology, and therefore paths of history.
+
Note that both credit external factors contributing to a person's behavior.  Neither says anything about the innate goodness or badness in an individual person.

++++++++++++++++++
all this hemming and hawing this guy does over wondering why matristic societies survive or come to existence at all - .  he says other philosophers argue that matristic societies are more evolved bc they are too patient and forgiving and do war-protest sitouts.  he argues that patristic societies should exist more bc they ensure the physcial survival of all individuals, albeit a harsh, suppressed, rigidly controlled civ.  this "quandary" can be solved in a simple statement.  duh!  humans are _struggling_ with the conflict between their more primitive attributes and their more evolved characteristics. that's all it is.  we are caught in both, belonging entirely to neither.  sometimes we think that the more mushy interpretation is the solution to life's problems, and sometimes we think the more violent, confrontational behavior is the solution.  we as humans, homo sapiens, are not expert enough in either type of behavior.  we cannot control and [precision] our violent urges, and we cannot keep ourselves from making the mushiness too extreme.

*[most human beings will not achieve this in their lifetimes.  we cannot; we are unable to; it is not in the "pantheon" [repertoire] of human abilities.  in 500,000 years of human existence, no human has ever accomplished this.  not while living, walking on this physical earth.  the only way to truly achieve peace and harmony with the soul, finding a resolution between the spiritual soul and raw, instinct.  reconcile between the two halves of the human soul, to [connect] this apparent dichotomy, these two opposite extremes of the human characterization spectrum. ...is to die.