Relationships and Food

The podcast can be found by clicking here. 

The first time one understands how amazing it truly is that everything we know or can ever know, including ourselves is in a relationship. We ourselves alone in a room are in so many relationships mathematicians and physicists could waste a lot of time there. This is because we understand that everything is information and it is all made up of the same stuff.

Imagine one is in a living room by themselves. In layman’s talk one would say that person, he or she, because it could be a man or a woman, what more reality can there be. If one truly believes that it should be just he, then they have crossed distances of the mind we cannot hope to imagine. Anyhow, imagine one is in a living room he or she, all by themselves, they are the only being in that living room.

If they are sitting on a couch, they have a relationship with that couch, not forgetting that the human and the couch are made up of the same stuff. There is energy needed to maintain that relationship, the couch faces a strain from their body and a quality of energy is needed to accommodate that hum. The human who could be somewhere else at a different location is on that couch. The couch has a relationship with the floor, or it would endlessly float somewhere, but it is at a fixed location unless moved.

If one is reading a book on that couch or watching television or playing a video game, they have a relationship with that video game that they are playing, television that they are watching, or book that they are reading. Some energy is spent in a relationship with the couch, other energy is being spent on reading a book, watching television, or playing a video game. If the phone rings and they answer it, they are in a relationship with that phone and whomever they are speaking to on the phone. Energy is being used to maintain a relationship with the phone as well as communicate to the person on the phone.

All relationships are similar, that a proton, neutron or electron get together to make an atom, the principles behind the relationship are really no different from somebody sitting on a couch. All relationships lead to a loss of freedom due to the energy needed to maintain them, thus ensuring location. Just as an atom is about energy relationships between a proton, a neutron and an atom, when one is in a room by themselves and are on a phone, they need energy to maintain that relationship.

When a phone rings many things can happen. One could be in the washroom, one might decide not to answer it, that relationship with whoever is calling is a relationship that is random in nature. It does not have to be that one is talking on the phone; they could really be sick and feeling down and it’s too much effort to pick up that phone. A lot of things can happen that makes one not pick up the phone.

An electron one finds in the constituency of an atom is in a relationship with the other particles that make up the atom. But that electron or proton could be in another atom in proximity or 15 000 light years if one appreciates the magnitude of what happened at the big bang type event that allowed all this mass to be. The underlying reality is that all relationships are random. If a great great grandfather had not met a great great grandmother you would not be here. There has been a lot of wars, famines, plagues, natural disasters in the past and today. A great great grandfather or mother 100 generations back could have caught a disease as a child and died.

The principles of relationships and the laws of relationships, that every relationship leads to a loss of freedom due to the energy needed maintain them. There is however another law that is just as important when it comes to relationships. This law states that an information package will remain in its present state unless a relationship is established.

A human, a zebra, a glass of water, a black hole, a particle, these are just information packages. A glass of water will remain as it is until a relationship is established. One could pick up the glass of water and spill the water, a new relationship has been created and there is no more water in that glass. It takes energy to create a new relationship.

There is nothing that is not in a relationship, thus these laws of relationships are the foundations of the laws of everything. Before talking about relationships and society it is important to remember from the two laws about relationships, and much more will be discovered as we go to the roots of existence. The two laws essentially say that it takes energy to maintain a relationship and it takes energy to break up a relationship.

Usually as one keeps searching deeper into something, they get a deeper understanding of that something with time. As they say everything comes with practice, each scientific experiment whose result confirm something or do not confirm something is simply practice, one must constantly practice, a society must constantly practice. With greater understanding we can say the two laws essentially say that it takes energy to maintain a relationship and it takes energy or lack of energy to break up a relationship.

The first law is about relationships and the energy needed to maintain them. Everything is in a relationship one must show us this phenomenon that is not in a relationship. We understand that we can categorize all information. Categorizing all information, classifying it according to more specialized characteristics than the general characteristics that everything is in a relationship that cost energy to maintain or break. This more specialized categorization is about the similarity of the quality of energy that is used to maintain that relationship creating variety within information.

We appreciate that atoms all have the same quality and similar type of energy relationships allowing us to distinguish between a hydrogen atom and a plutonium or calcium atom. Different types of atoms are because of different relationships between protons, neutrons and electrons, thus though similar energy relationships that is why they are all classified as atoms, but the energy relationships that define hydrogen are different from those that give us gold hence the differences in properties of the two atoms. It is the same quality of energy used to maintain a relationship that allows us to say this is a carbon atom, this is a rock, this is a car, a fish, or a human being.

We are for the rest of this discussion concerned with the human being. All have the same quality of energy in the relationships of information that makes up a package of human we have categorized as a human being. An example of self categorization, to describe oneself. A human being, a mammal, warm blooded, larger brain, the thumb, walking upright on two legs, not always as much hair as most other mammals, two eyes looking ahead mostly, capable of understanding that everything is in a relationship.

Interestingly a human being has all the forces of the universe at place. All the forces that hold atoms together are at play, electromagnetism, that is why humans radiate heat, geography, humans have mass and must attract mass and thus gravity and other forces like being alive. Thus taking a human being one has all the constituents of the universe plus unique things like being alive, there is not much life in the universe, thus even the idea of an ant might look like many but in relative terms, there is not much life in the universe.

A human being needs to have sustenance to merely be a human or they will be a corpse. Sustenance comes in the form of food. A human must either grow this food or trade for it, but somebody must grow this food. The relationship with food is critical because it allows all other things about being a human being to flow.

The first duty of a human being is to have food, most do this by having a job, by working. In modern sense we get a job and receive and income for that job. With that income food must be included in the budget. One is in a society for many reasons, but a primary reason has to be a source of having ability to sustain ones life, get sustenance. One chooses a path in life that they believe will ensure that they will get sustenance. They make this decision with the knowledge they posses about this world specifically their location. It is at their location where they shall have to get sustenance.

The knowledge one has is due to random events determined by location, all relationships are local. Don’t think in terms of you communicating with somebody say from a country 3 000 miles away, the internet has made them local, then how are you having a relationship with them. Knowledge is determined by one’s past locations. This is because knowledge comes and can only come from one’s surroundings, you can only be in a relationship with your surroundings, with your location. You can not know something you have never came into contact with. Reading about something is second-hand contact, but still contact. This is reality, how many people have replicated every experiment, you read about them.

The reality is about location and how much one familiarizes themselves with something they have come in contact with at some particular location. To then say knowledge has something to do with other things than location and familiarization of something or things one first acknowledged in a particular location. Knowledge is therefore something one acknowledges to be real, there is always false knowledge, ideas like the earth is flat.

Returning to the reality that one must get sustenance from their location; they decide with the knowledge at hand what it is they will do to get this sustenance.  It depends on many factors around the relationships one had up to the moment they make their decision on how to get sustenance for themselves. Knowledge is determined by location and nothing else, this we must never forget.

How one performs at whatever it is they have decided will best sustain them, that like all other events is a random event. It is about relationships at the location You can never know the outcome, no matter how sure you are, surety is about believing in how correct you are as well as other relationships like ideology , politics, we all know these things. This is the reality of relationships. As everything is about relationships, that means our thinking is affected by knowledge and how our mind interprets some kind of knowledge.

As we can only know if a decision is correct in the future, that it is rational in the future, there is risk in getting food. If there were no risk people would not need to work for it. Everyone shall have air to breath, that alone will involve the least risk, every other activity has a higher risk of failure than breathing. Hopefully somebody will not charge us to breathe on earth.

When one gets to get food, they are aware of the relationships at their location. The mind set, relationships in the brain that determines biases, ones outlook on other human beings, expectations, fears all these are results of relationships are at play at the location where one gets food, even 50 000 years ago when it was just blood. Now things are just a grand scale because not only relationships with blood to get food, other families, other nations, other races, other cultures, other clicks, fraternities, they are a lot of relationships in society that take place.

All these relationships are random events and are thus a risk. One might not be welcome for the sake of why not. Given this reason, and given the risks associated with getting food. But the choice of how to get food must be answered and actions must be taken.

Given that there are all these risks, how best is one to put food on the table. These risks are all associated with human relationships, Other relationships that could be in the way like the weather flooding, an earthquake, these are not being considered. Given that a choice to get food must be made, how best is it for the individual, the basic unit of society to get that food.

Only the individual, no matter how much one discourages them or encourages them knows how best they should get that food on the dinner table. Note that the encouragements and discouragements come from human relationships and they are opinions by others about one. An encouragement means that person you are with believes it is a path for you, discouragement means it is not a path for you according to their opinion for what ever relationships affect their mind. Those relationships in the mind are from location in the past, if they heard some people can’t do that will be their opinion.

A human knows what they are capable of besides the opinions of others, but the only way to be sure is to do it. One can does not know if their choice will work out unless they do it. If they manage to do it they will have food on the table, if they do not manage to do it they will not have food on the table and will have to try something that will best suite them.

We enter moral questions. Is it right for an individual not to seek the best way they can feed themselves? Should societal relationships block one from using the best they can to get food. If they are a member of that society, full citizenry of that society yes relationships in society will allow them to do what best fits them to put food on the table, if not full citizenry then society will choose for them how best to put food on the table, the worst case of course being slavery where food on the table is the only reward one gets.

In today’s world conscription as such does not exist. National service can not be considered conscription as such. Conscription is when what society considers every able body to pick up arms. National service just ensures that what society considers every able body gets training on those arms in case of a national emergency.

Talking about picking up arms, without conscription armies today are filled with volunteers. They choose what it is they want to join, they can either pick the army, the navy, the air force, marines, and those who love to observe and occasionally say hello, the spy, what matters is that without conscription one chooses.

The military is a very rigid structure in order to maintain discipline, at the end of the day all the training is great, but in battle most first time will need a little encouragement, we will hold this position, the senior is given the orders and the military to the best of it’s ability believes these are the ones capable of holding that position. The military can not afford without conscription when meeting a worthwhile to promote somebody not capable to that position of senior.

The person who is to lead that portion of the military to hold that position must be the best capable of the available to hold that position. They have been tried according to the circumstances and found capable and capable people offered to assist. Anything else will be foolhardy for the entire military.

If the protection of the borders needs the best capable, who are mostly volunteers, the taxation system must be about the most capable paying the tax or it would be a strain on society. Taxes come from production, you can’t tax something that produces, it will soon be taxed out of existence or into starvation.

Coming from production, taxes to protect the border to be most stress less to society must come from the best at a certain task. How can society ever know who is the best at a certain task? For it is the best at a certain task that will ensure that the tax pool is larger. If not the best is taken for a task it means that a less economical amount will be produced and less taxes to defend the border all because on relationships inside the society that do not see the similarities and complete relationships between the economy and the protection of the borders.

When one understands that everything is random and knowledge is collected by random events in the past in particular locations, then one has an idea of what should be happening for society to produce the most taxes to defend the border whilst putting a less burden on the entire society. If one can catch 30 fishes and the next guy catches 25 fishes and there is a 5% tax for defence of the border it means the one who catches 30 fish will give 1.5 fish in defense of the border and the one who catches 25 fish will give 1.25 fish towards the defence of the border.

An economy depends on many relationships over and above catching fish and paying taxes to keep the borders, a basic insurance of continuity for the society. The analogy of the fish however can be made into every relationship that eventually leads to paying a tax for the defense of the borders. Who should make the television, who should research the television, who should provide the basic theoretical framework of the television that is who is allowed to be a scientist? These relationships and much more lead to activities that eventually ensure there is greater security at the border, the society has greater chance of continuity.

As everything is random, all relationships being random, the results will always be random. The electron around protons and neutrons to complete an atom is there by a random process. Who will catch the most fish is also a random process? Anybody who refuses this fact is about to use an assortment of different phenomenon to escape this fact. Things like religion, race, ethnicity, sexism because a strictly simple answer like it is random cannot be accepted by their egos.

The ego is smashed when the reality is presented because that means one’s god was telling lies, it means one’s philosophers and scientists where telling lies when they talk of race, ethnicity and sexism. Sexism can never work when it comes to strictly affairs of the mind. Reality is everything is about relationships, and relationships are greatly influenced by location and determine location. In that location knowledge is gathered.

As it is random, in all aspects the principle of the best fisherman catches 30 fish and the next 25 fish and there is a contribution to the defense of the entire society, it applies in all aspects of society. You have no right to stop those who are better than you, at end of the day, you are affecting the defense of the territory.

At the end of the day society in all it’s relationships should organize society that at the very least the better fisherman is undertaking the appropriate task. It must also be accepted that being the so-called better fisherman is itself always a random event like all relationships and therefore events.

Thus for society to best defend itself outside the confines of the market, it must best organize itself that the person most suitable for a task is the one who does it.

Bhekuzulu Khumalo

If you like what you read, be generous if you can it will be appreciated