Belief.md: economy

green miyagi belief.md economy
--:--:--
BELIEFS.md · v1
tap to activate
BELIEFS.md · about the economy
What Do You
Actually Believe?
About the world, business, AI, ecology, people — the priors that drive every decision you make.

So . . . the economy we did not break, but we did mostly abandon — or at least forget — that it is a thing that exists separate and unrelated to what we now do as 'business'. Worse even, we label it 'business as usual', but there is certainly not anything that feels 'economical' or even 'usual' about any of this 'thing' we just 'do'.

Might I add there doesn't seem to be much of anything that has remained 'just' in how we as a mass go about it. This is but a guess, my sample size is relatively small, and is miniscule compared to the over 8 billion of us on planet Earth the data set itself contains (that's only the biological humans) — but my guess is one-half.

One-half of what the guy in your head asks? Only half of the Earthlings — with maybe 1/10th of Americans — even realizing what they just missed.

Economy is all of 'us' conspiring to efficiently, effectively, and equitably spreading Earth's resources or 'tokens' amongst each other best we can collectively manage. It is 'economical' to have an 'others' (any/all others) back — support, protection, solidarity — if for no other reason than the fact that reciprocally the 'other' may confront the reality (the balance universally) of how to act or what to now do when/if it's front faces my back.

e-CON, O MY. Hell — Jesus, for Heaven's sake — even had to speak on that. Once (conceptually) we collectively or even selectively were able to in mental modality replace the actual value we staked in a real thing for a mere symbol that could/may lead to the thing once-valued — we lost the 'economic' plot.

So now in a foggy confusion, but because of wanting liberty, life, and love — too many of us now 'work' in the 'business' of tricking or coercing or just convincing an 'other' to make a decision or participate freely in an exchange that both or either/all of us:

  • 1 ACTUALLY feel we WANT for ourselves OR another
  • 2 would AGREE is GOOD for ourselves OR them, and
  • 3 EVEN CARE ABOUT!? More times than not, and more of us than less, even have the bandwidth to at all care about whatever now arbitrary and BEEN-stupid-ass shit we find ourselves doing . . . REGULARLY.

In short, if I could speak metaphorically — we're definitely the monkey on the Earth that fell the farthest, longest and hardest out of the econo-tree. We fell. We hit every fucking branch on the way down and we don't even realize that where we've landed is something different entirely . . . no, not a tree.

We landed face-first ass-out, but somehow boasting that 'WE ARE ON TOP NOW' of the tree-bottom — otherwise labeled 'justly' as . . . 'THE GROUND'.

— green miyagi

Can’t Play to Win

greenmiyagi.io

Product mockup




can’t play to win – can only play to love

can’t play to win

can only play to love

i can explain this this way certainly, if it helps share help others. in regards to ‘security’: i am fully
aware and do intentionally participate best i can manage given my circumstantial variation in attentive
bandwidth as a 3d creature (somehow one of the lightest but most dense of them/us). however, i cannot not
operate in ill-logic or unsound logic systems. quadrants. the possibilities exist in which: a can be
fear/love. b can (amend trust into love as trust/love) also be fear/love. so together any a/b: fear/fear,
fear/love, love/fear, love/love. so as an: either an a or a b . . . me one. i can completely control the
outcome of any a/b pair, infinitely, in (and only in) one particular direction) so to fear as one is to
ultimately and also immediately and irreversibly doom 1) myself yes 2) the other, any other, all others, ad
infinitum. ipso facto: fear so. but love i can do it by myself without a node logic dependency. but love
freely unconditional as outside of the pcb i be… bees. now, as a or b in love free, now and not until now
had the communal opportunity to both a and b finite in entanglement quantum jargon-speakingly-ing-ly-ly. so
that’s 3 squares if i care to look, but regardless whether i look or not it is there unable to not be seen.
but those odds, algorithmically, instill terror sheer anxiety and doom-casting always certainly. as they
would, as they should. but we lost. every. one. every. time. just because: by rule of law a quadrant sans
love is never to be a quadrant at all after all. this choice i make, have made, will make again. is me
deciding we should have some chance to appear to (ourselves or to ourselves via others) maybe be at least
partially or imaginarily or just pretending to be…. any shade you like… free.