Why do weeds grow so well?

Domesticated crops are less hardy (in many senses of the term) because they have been bred too strongly in limited numbers of qualities. Weeds can survive better because they are not performing at their maximum at all times; the excess is security.

Say you have two plants, plant breed A has bred to have high seed production whereas plant breed B is wild. Both plants are injured, while they are in flower and have to allocate extra resources towards healing their injuries. Plant of breed B is able to divert some of its energy away from its flowers and all its other systems because it has a bit of excess to spare, and even though it produces less seed it still produces some. Plant of breed A has all of its energy going towards making flowers at the time it’s injured, and by diverting energy away from them it doesn’t have enough resources to support all its flowers and doesn’t make any seeds.

In the wild, breed B’s linneage would go on to outproduce all the plants in breed A for all the nutrients in the soil, but in captivity where larger seedheads are selected for the only plants that will continue to be planted by the gardener next year are those with the larger seedhead that were fortunant enough not to be injured. But this means that one event coming through, say a dog running through the garden, is enough to destroy the crop. Whereas the weeds capable of being plucked and cast off still reroot and grow to fruiting.

The model of morality to follow is that of a simple weed. Like water, weeds live in the places no one else wants, use the resources that remain untaken, and persist and subside.



The Too Sharp Sword

If you sharpen your sword constantly keeping it at its peak sharpness, the sword will wear down quickly and you will have to forge a new sword. But the opposite, of never resharpening and using a dull sword means while you may have the sword for longer it will eventually become so useless as to effectively be no sword. There is a balance to strike between the two, finding the perfect sharpness for the task.

The Too Sharp Sword is a maxim we use for describing how constant maintainance can lead to extra unnessessary work, a decrease in overall efficiency. The example goes that a blade kept too sharp will wear away quicker. You’ll need to reforge a new blade more often if you keep the edge constantly at its peak sharpness. While you may be able to get a finer cut with a sharper blade, past a certain point there is no increase in material benefit from finer sharpening.

A commercial knitting machine may be able to knit a finer cloth than knitting a garment by hand, but the time spent to build the machine would take longer than the time spent knitting any garment itself. And a very coarse and shoddily made hand knit fabric can be nearly as warm and comfortable, the increase is minimal.

Things that do not change, have no meaning. Things that do not end, have no value.

If a process were to last forever, a point in the future would inevitably come where due to the intermediary buildup the actions of what is currently the present are untraceable to the conditions at that future point.

And in a real process, one which must end, the actions during it’s existence have no effect on the final outcome. This is indistinguishable from a process without end.

A universe without value is self-contradictory. Rules without action are not rules.

Without some process to act, value cannot apply to system.

Thus, any set of value cannot violate the preliminary requirements for there to exist value. This, in itself, is valuable.

The primary course of action is to follow one’s noble goal
-having a noble goal means one is a Ryup and can be debated.
If there is conflict in doing so,
-the first solution is fleeing
-the second solution is debate
-the third solution is (theoretically) combat
Should one suffer a dishonour to debate, they are shunned should their behaviour effect another person.

A Ryup is one who follows debate.
To pactice debate one must have a Noble Goal.
To have a Noble Goal one must pass a rite of passage.

A Noble goal must have these qualities;
-Derived from nothingess
-Universally applicable
-Not self-defeating

A rite of passage is working out a Noble Goal from nothingness under supervision of someone who was passed a rite of passage to verify the soundness of the logic.
A rite of passage is nessessary for a person to participate in debate because it gives amperson a noble goal and holds them up to its standard of ethics and ensures theyhave an understanding of logic.

A debate proceeds by stating the conflict, stating the lesser goals, and stating the Noble Goals of the participants.
Then it proceeds by asking ‘why do I want this?’ And working backwards until common ground is reached, or until invariable values have been reached.
Then it proceeds by listing all the various methods of satisfying those values in the most vague manner possible, and slowly crossing out the ones which conflict between the participants or with other invariable values.
Then it proceeds in a fractal manner making the various methods more detailed until one or several mehods are reached that satisfy the goals.

This is essentially the same as my older post ‘What is a Ryup?’ I just thought it was more clear written this way.


What is the meaning of life?

There is no teological purpose intrinsic to logic. Everyone can still accept the same facts about the universe and still derive different ethical principles because their values are different. So the question becomes ‘what is valueable?’ or ‘what ought one value?’ It is possible to work out from nothingness (pokua, as we call it) what things cannot be valueable, for example nihilism is not valueable because to reject the concept of value is valueless. But it is impossible to state that any one thing, asside from the concept of value itself, is valueable. So there are multiple Noble Goals, multiple sets of values that are equally valid since they are all logical and derived from nothingness and not self defeating.

My goal is Xuilte, so naturally I’m biased that Xuilte is the meaning of life, and here is my responce with that in mind.

Life is because if it didn’t live it wouldn’t exist. That is Xuilte. And it’s not a tautology. You can cease existing at any moment, any living thing can. But nothing can start existing, it is not an action nonexistent things can take because the ability to act is uniquely a property of existent things. So, by existing one has more potential than by not existing.

A cloud is not alive. Another cloud can be formed and be declared indistinguishable from that previous cloud. They could merge, seperate, disintigrate, or reform as many times as they would and never cease being the same thing. You can always start another fire, and it will stil be same same fire, not some seperate species of fire that will pass its traits down to and fire it progenates. Heretability, linneage, divataden. This is the important quality that distinguishes life.

For you or any other living organism alive today to be alive it means that all your ancestors up to the present must have lived atleast long enough to replicate. Any divataden (linneage) may (and if it continues surviving, will) diversify and change, but can also cease existing at any point and there will be no more descendents of that linneage. Therefore life is because if it didn’t live it wouldn’t be. Those that didn’t live cease to continue as linneages and have no descendents forever more.

This concept of divataden doesn’t just apply directly to offsprig, it can apply to anything that has the qualities of Xuilte. They must replicate and have heretibility and noncontinuation. Noncontinuation is an implication of heretibility, where something can’t simply spring into existence in that same form once more if it ceases existing. These conditions aply on many different series of processes, to genes, species, memes, cultures, perhaps efen to whole universes if the theory saying selection forcesmare an active part of universe creation is true.

But linneages alone aren’t enough. A single species cannot survive in a vaccuum. There must be other species for continued survival. Well, I suppose that’s not nessessarily true, there could be a theoretical planet so full of easy to process resources for life that a single archaea like species could flourish without the need for competition. This is how I often imagine the gods of Buddhist myhology, as some sort of simple crystal like bacteria completely lacking in wants in a world of plenty. But could any species really be said be alive if there were no selection pressures actig upon it? But that’s just idle speculation, because the concept of society, or ngaral, would still aplly in any case, it would just be much smaller.

Ngaral (society), this is the true concept that is important in the Noble goal of Xuilte. A ngaral is defined as the smallest group of units that is capable of survivig indefinantly. It is the deer a person eats, and the lichen the deer eat to make it through the Winter. To a Ryup, even the yeast in bread is just as much a part of their ngaral, and must be given the same consideration as any other life within it.