Important Riddle for the World to Ponder: Riddle - The Two Guards

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:

answers.yahoo.com...

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 guards.

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.

Question:
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?

Answer:

"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 ourselves.


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 choice.

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 distinguishable.

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 result.

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 impossible.

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 choosing A?

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?

I'd like to slit the throat of the Guard who always lies.

There's no need for that.

reply to post by Goldcurrent


It doesn't have to be that the guard always knowingly lies, it's just that what ever comes out of his mouth is incorrect.

This is to represent the duality in all decisions... right or wrong. This is why there's two guards, and exactly why you can not distinguish between the two. Because it would not be a decision then, for everyone would choose right, or the path that leads towards paradise.

That is where admitting that we know nothing, we are all equal in our pursuits, and not to suppress one another comes into play.

Both guards a representation of possibility, to kill one would to kill the other, or collapse dualism that is the construct of everything, which is not an available option at the moment.

So how then do you make a decision... you ask the 1 question and act accordingly.

This is all very true.

So how do we apply this to our everyday life?

How does one go about asking the question? Must we then ask, what would the other person do?

Yikes, you may have just stumbled upon something.

A philosopher I am not.

I go with my first instinct almost always.

Originally posted by Goldcurrent
This is all very true.

So how do we apply this to our everyday life?

How does one go about asking the question? Must we then ask, what would the other person do?

Yikes, you may have just stumbled upon something.

A philosopher I am not.

I go with my first instinct almost always.

How to apply:
It is to be taken in consideration when any answer to such questions arise as to which direction to take. Whether the answer is given by another person, or ourselves... to acknowledge that we simply don't know the correct choice, then gives premise towards going away from the suppressing of anothers freewill.

How to ask the question:
It's not necessarily about how, but rather, what answers you are willing to accept or the lack of said answer. Sometimes, we should be willing to accept that the answer is not to be known, just as we can not distinguish between the two paths. The answer is not to be found in what has not worked before, which then brings in the definition of insanity provided above.

Our gut reaction, or answer to every question is only based on acknowledging previous answers given to similar questions, which were then all based on a form of doctrine of morality. Yet all these answers have not brought us to a point in which we may all thrive, we are all stuck in survive for this very reason.

What should the other person do:
Know that they are not righteous, infaliable, and/or always correct. When these attributes are considered to be the individuals defining characteristics, that is when the freedoms of others are suppressed or dictated. This is something that empathy will always allow for one to see this is not the correct course of action.

I can't recall exactly what lead me to this questioning, I remember it had something to do with the Mayan elders and egyptian hieroglyphs in relation towards 'end times' and such, as to the specifics... I do not remember.

To try & find the correct path from today's politicians would require that at least one of them would be telling the truth.......



*tumbleweeds

This is a great riddle, one I would never have been able to figure out on my own, but I've heard this one before. Though I kind of wish I hadn't. The way you put it is genius, and I would've considered myself lucky to have first come across it here in your thread! I cannot agree more. I have often pondered this myself, but without tying in the riddle to help it make sense to more people... Even still, I don't know if enough people are open minded enough to give it a try... But we've been trying the same thing for so long and it so obviously isn't working! At this point I'm almost willing to try anything... And that's actually scary... Because most people in my situation will accept whatever feels safe and familiar enough to be "normal", when what we truly need is something vastly different than "the usual"... People tend to think that "if only we can eliminate 'this' such and such enemy, get rid of 'these' kinds of people, then everything will be alright". Well, no... You have to learn to live with them and learn to teach them to live with you. Because there will always be more people who sprout up who you will find some problem with. Eventually, you will find yourself all alone if you could just eliminate everyone who bothers you. Imagine a white supremacist (im white so that's why I use this exampe but you can insert militant black bigot or Muslim extremist or antigay or any other "hater" in place of white supremacist), if he manages to pull of the eradication of all but white people, he will then find faults in other white people. So then he kills off all but his family and friends. Well then, a person like this, will eventually find fault in everyone except maybe his lover and kids, and say, one brother or best friend. Well then, perhaps he comes to realize his best friend has no choice for a mate except his own lover. Now he must die, too. Then after a while, his lover starts to annoy him and he doesn't feel the same way about her anymore. Or one of his kids does something to infuriate him... And eventually he's all alone. What's the point in that? We NEED to stop finding fault in others. We are FARless than perfect ourselves. We NEED to stop fighting our perceived enemies and find ways to become FRIENDS with them. It's NECESSARY for our survival and continuation as a species. How can this be done? Start with a smile... the rest, as they say, is history.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


Somebody's been watching too much Labyrinth...

(hoping at least SOMEONE gets that reference)...

True Paradise is a pipedream. We human beings define ourselves by conflicts (whether physical, emotional, etc.). Without these conflicts, life would be extremely BORING. That's right...true paradise would be BORING. Imagine if you could do anything you wanted to, eat anything you wanted to, etc.? What's left? Where's the challenge? You'd be bored out of your skull....

I think this is why I can sign on to the idea of reincarnation. After a bit of this "paradise", the soul simply longs to wipe the slate clean a bit, and give it another go, with all of the conflict that comes with life.

reply to post by MESSAGEFROMTHESTARS


The wrong question provides the right answer to the wrong question. The right question has a hidden answer.

Ask, "Which door leads to Christ?"

Both will tell you the wrong path. In the end, you must choose the narrow path. It's neither one way or the other on the swing of the pendulum. Each side tells you the wrong direction. Choose the other way.

This is the same as esoteric and exoteric. Neither is the correct path. New age Theosophy is one extreme of the esoteric. This is the mystery schools and Freemasonry. They lie. Exoteric is Chruch Dogma and ritual. That amounts to idol worship and control. The path is narrow. Both will tell you the wrong door so you can find the right door: The one that they both deny as correct.

The Rap Star is confused by the contradiction. Choose the narrow way.

Before you blast me for being off: Consider that both guards, when asked, will tell you the wrong door. Just pick the one they don't tell you and ask either one. The one they say is wrong is right. Not a contradiction. The esoteric is a liar. He will say his door is correct. The church will tell you the spirit. They are correct. The spirit is found with Christ and the Church, but not with the Pope or Priest. That's where the Freemasons (Builders who rejected the cornerstone) made their error. The church is Christ. He is the High Priest. This is also where the church made the error on the extreme of exoteric.

Matthew 16:18
18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros), and upon this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Petros is the small stone that is rolled away. Petra is the foundation. Christ is where the church is built. Not Peter and not the Pope.

Riddle Solved - In the end, neither one is correct because they both hold a a part. You need both to find the point. You need neither Christ. He is at the crossroads waiting. Christ carries you the rest of the way through faith and repentance. The roads are not needed after you find Christ. This is the excluded middle that you never considered, but was always there.

As above, so below.

A train engineer and a friend argue over the train whistle changing pitch. Which is right? Both. The Doppler Effect is the excluded middle is the answer to both being right and wrong at the same time.

Intellect over emotion. Love over hate. Good over Evil. Choose Christ.

See this Thread: Mystery Babylon

Luke 17:33

Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it.

Seeking to avoid death is duplicity. In this case, the true desire would be the preservation of self. Seeking paradise is also self seeking. Christ is the correct desire. Good is its own reward.