A vision / fantasy is shared by others of thriving in a natural world (with little synthetic). Is our fantasy of a natural world less valid then the larger group’s fantasy of thriving in a synthetic world (with little Nature)? Can we co-exist?

Q-Anon:
The first is Life, the second is Death. With Life feeding on solar photons or on the reproductive excess of other lifeforms, they have long been in a dance on a wide range of timescales.

If Life’s primacy is not reasserted, Death will be total, permanent and likely swift. Life and the landscapes it thrives in are irreducibly Complex. Synthetic manufactures are irredeemably Simple, albeit sometimes complicated.

Age of Deductive Reasoning (Greek Scholars)

They are products of the Map, not the Territory. Death is the ultimate simplifier. Seeking simplicity is suicidal. Celebrate complexity. The words and numbers that have become colonial humans’ first choice mapping methods are primary agents of oversimplification.

Kev:
I am suggesting, from the Age of Deductive Reasoning (Greek Scholars) we have parsed and identified so many things they now overlap enough to confuse us and delight psychopaths.
The principles of Nature, Air and Water in it’s simplest observation demonstrate the complexity – without parsing and identifying every single thing.

It is as simple as trading your time so more of it is Simplicity/Nature Driven and less of your time is Complexity/Parsing/Synthetic or Fantasy Driven.


Granted, all this fantasy is exhilarating and far too complex to identify all the parts. But all the noise and complexity interfere with our engagement of simplicity.

Please share your wisdom or reaction.

%d bloggers like this: