Cog, or a Particle, which would you want? Options

[AC9breaker]

With Summer just about here, I've had a lot more time to do things Ive been wanting to do, and a lot more time to do nothing. Usually in those times of nothingness, I contemplated about things I've done or plan to do; entertain various thoughts of existentialist, philosophical, political, or just thoughts of an incoherent nature.

Recently I've had this thought in my head and I'm not sure which would better suit the goals I plan on achieving. That being would it be better in life to live as a cog in a clock, or a particle in space. I don't recall exactly what was thinking that brought me to these two examples but ultimately I thought a choice is made of from these two.

As a cog, one would have others to support you, one can depend on others (which could also serve as a handicap) there is a logical order or process in which things occur.

As a Particle, one is free to choose ones own destiny , no constraints. The Unexpected.

There are also downsides to both paths but I would rather see what some of you guys would say or choose. There is the other path that I've obviously overlooked. I say that because I refuse to believe that there is only two choices in anything we do in life. So, lets share our thoughts with each other. Do I just have too much free time on my hands or is there something to what I'm saying here?

[HC82]

I feel that in doing such a thing and bringing about change, one is also alienating them self from the group. Those belonging to the group may come to see that persons thoughts as too different and may be drawn away or may even try to destroy it. Thus forth causing one to be shunned, living the life of a loner or as a particle in space, alone. I say to myself I could deal with such a thing but of course its easier to say now then to actually live through it.

Ever heard the story of "In the valley of the blind, the one eye man is king?"

Everyone is essentially blind and there is one man who can see. Obviously, he has the potential to ascend to kingship because he can see that which others cannot, giving him an edge. His downfall, though, is when he tries to show everyone else what he sees. They deem him mad, a dissenter, and they pluck out his eye, so he too is just like them, "blind."

Theres a strong lesson to learn here. If you try to enlighten others who are outside of the ability to conceptualize, chances are they won't get you at all. In fact they will, as you stated, shun you because you're not like them. Don't try to force people to see what you see, because it won't work. Just use the edge you have in your understanding of the world to your advantage. But, none the less, it's totally possible to utilize those same people who would shun you, and in fact have them not shun you at all, and still fullfil your obligations.

The key is to let them be, but use your "one eyed" advantage to maximize your environment to your advantage. Once you're in a position where you are in control of an environment, you no longer need to enlighten or persaude people, you dictate and shape the very environement the way you see it fit.

In the story, the one eyed man should of shut his mouth and use his one eye to his advantage.

Sometimes its not about standing defiant against something, but being defiantly quiet against something.

I will also comment on "The Art of War" to further this point.

Sun Tzu states, "All warfare is based on deception." If you intend to make a change in the world, do realize you will directly infringe on people who want the world to be just where it is, in the shitter, because that is what keeps them in power and makes them rich. War is war and fighting against anything takes on a war like mentality. The war on poverty, the war on hunger... These literaly aren't actual wars, yet it is a battle to fight them; a war of sorts. The same is applied when trying to do postive things; it is a war against the negative to do the postive.

So, with Sun Tzu in mind, deception is a key tool to warfare.

I can yell out "I'm going to stop you" and in turn, I prepare you for my attack, or I can walk quietly toward you and stab you in the side. Which is more effective? Obviously the deceptive approach.

When doing postive things, when trying to enact change, don't overlook the deceptive approach to doing positive things. It essentially causes people to do postive things without them realizing it, even if it goes directly against what they are about as a person. This bypasses the "shunning aspect" that occurs and these very same people can be utilized to enact postive change as well. Studying characteristics of human behavior assists in that to some degree. Reinforcing teamwork is the best method in enacting change. You find people who use teamwork for good and bad things. Example: I scratch your back and you scratch my back. That is far more self intersted in nature and the teamwork involved there might not really be associated with something positive, but none the less it causes people to help one another. It's not about reinforcing the attitude, but learning from it. Why does it work? Once you see how it works, its just abot implementing it in the 'right' way.

Long rant short, cause if i go on, I will not stop typing. If you want to get anything done, you need to be in a position of enacting change. The system is obviously corrupt, but you can't force change. In fact, let the system work for you. Master it, so to speak. It's like being an undercover detective. You need to infiltrate a organization to bring it down, right? Problem is that once you infilitrate the system, you become a part of its crappiness. If you ascend to positions of authority, you will see how terribly corrupt it really is and you begin to question if you even won't to be in that position. That's where the deception comes into play.

*ninja vanish*