We have came to the fork in the road, with only two available paths to be taken as a whole for humanity.
One path can lead to paradise, the other to ruins. One would think that the descision should be easy, but that is until, one recognizes that both
paths can not be distinguished from one another.
Lets think about this for a second:
The path we can take that may lead towards paradise will encompass means of governance, morality, and justice... all concluding in the allowance of
freedom and prosperity, so that we may no longer be focused on survival but can now thrive as a species.
The other path, also is encompassed by means of governance, morality and justice in the forms of doctrines and dogmas... all concluding in the
allowance of the suppression of freedom and prosperity, so that they will be suppressed so much as to bring about moments of revelations and reactions
that are only conducive towards ruins.
The face value of these paths are so similar that it's impossible to tell the difference. At this moment you are stuck with having to make a
descision, there is no longer time to try and enlighten yourself as to possibly allow you to make the correct descision.
This is then, where the following riddle comes into play:
Riddle: The Two Guards?
You stand at a fork in the road. Next to each of the two forks, there stands a guard. You know the following things:
1. One path leads to Paradise, the other to Death. From where you stand, you cannot distinguish between the two paths. Worse, once you start down a
path, you cannot turn back.
2. One of the two guards always tells the truth. The other guard always lies. Unfortunately, it is impossible for you to distinguish between the two
You have permission to ask ONE guard ONE question to ascertain which path leads to Paradise. Remember that you do not know which guard you're asking
-- the truth-teller or the liar -- and that this single question determines whether you live or die.
What one question asked of one guard guarantees that you are led onto the path to Paradise, regardless of which guard you happen to ask?
"If I asked the _other_ guard, which door would he indicate
leads to Paradise?" Take the door _opposite_ to what's indicated!
Regardless of whom you ask, they'll point to the wrong door.
This answer is then to be considered when addressing Einstiens definition of Insanity, in relation towards the answers we are given by Politicians and
So, what one question could you answer either of the guards that may give you a hint as to which direction you are to take?
This question has been given the following answer...
Ask a guard, what the other would say is the correct path that will lead towards paradise....
The one always telling the truth, will tell you that the lying guard chooses A... implying that B is the correct choice.
The one always lying, will tell you that the truth telling guard will choose A... because of it being a lie, this would imply that B is the correct
So regardless of who you ask, you will always get the correct answer as to which leads to which, if you are to only ask what the other will say.
This exercise can then be paralleled in the current situation that we are in, and can be played out with in the faculties of ones mind.
Not knowing which path leads to paradise or ruins, we are always asking ourselves questions. We are often incorrect as to these descisions for
cognitive bias' have clouded our judgement, so either of these 'guards' in our mind can not be percieved differently, nor are the paths truly that
So now ask yourself, is this the right path for me to take? This is where playing a self appointed 'devils advocate' comes in. If one guard says the
other(liar, incorrect descision maker) will choose A and If you ask the other guard(liar, incorrect descision maker) what other(truth, correct) will
suggest, he will say A(as to throw you off, and decieve you). Which then means, that B is always the correct descision.
Some have said that insanity is to be defined the way that Albert Einstien put it... The act of repeating the same actions, expecting a different
We as a humanity and all the great history that we have, have never made the correct descision. This is because we have always attempted to pretend
that we can always distinguish between Guard 1 and 2, and that we can read between the lines as to which path(A & B) is to be taken. One says B, in
opposition to what we percieve the other that is saying A as being incorrect, or lying to us. But even to differentiate between A and B is nearly
But just like the exercise illustrates, the descision to be made that is conducive towards finding paradise is not found in A, so why do we keep
Because, we are told that the correct descision is A by the liars. And, that we are told the correct descision is not what the liars have said. Being
that we are not all knowing, and many are ignorant to what is conducive towards what, in relation to human nature and allowance of freedom. There is a
gap, as to knowing which is which, which is the truth and which is the lie.
This is right where temparance seals the gap. This is where empathy may become the bonding agent to fill this gap. This is where the abandoning of
ones dogma and their indoctrinated means of establishing morality, law, and justice.
I'm not implying that there should be no law, that there should be anarchy, or some form of social anomoly. But rather, people should be more willing
to say, 'I don't know', it is 'Not another's life I am to dictate the free will of', 'I can only hope that others make the best descisions for
themselves.' This is your answer B. The answer that says that I should 'Know thy self', rather than pretend to know which A or B another person is
on and that you can distinguish between the two.
This is how you escape the instanity of us dictating one another, expecting different results from the suppression of free will.
There is only dissent, when another's ideology impedes your own ability to act freely.
None of us are all knowing, none of us know the 'best' means... we are always changing, our initial reactions are even changing, our means of
percieving one another is changing... paradigm is not set in stone.
I truly shot from the hip with this one, but I feel that there is much to be taken from it. I apologize to those that find this to be just ramblings,
and contain no meaning. If that is the case, sit and ponder the mentioned rittle, and see how it applies to your life, government, and your
relationship with the world as a whole. In the end, it should be beneficial.
btw, spellcheck is disabled, I apologize for any confusion this may have created when reading this thread.
I would appreciate any and all contributions to this idea, for I may have paradoxially mind fluffed myself LOL!
What does ATS think?