When we go to an ice cream shop, there are constant presences that still welcome us even after a dozen years.
I often have a unique experience as I think of myself at that time in the past and at the same time look at myself as I have grown over time, and see the differences of opinion between two mental beings that suddenly arise.
Although the original value of ice cream does not change over time, the past me and the present me seem to believe that growth or development can only be proven if our perspectives change, as if it were a given.
So, I try to think that sometimes you have to break away from consistency to have a vision in life.
Is this a step in evolution?
Or is it just a coincidence?
Does a consistent, honest, and upright step fail to respond to the changes of the times and only emphasizes the unification of perspectives and only results in compliance?
In fact, the best way to enjoy ice cream is to accept its taste as is..
There will certainly be an evolution where the same method is thought to be the most appropriate method and laws and formulas based on truth are created..
At the same time, if you try to resist the law, such as lightly stretching to reduce stress, and apply such an equation when eating ice cream and say, "It tastes good, but it doesn't feel good," it is common to think that personal opinions other than the rule that determines how to feel good are your own equations. However, since the common truth is always missing when the object changes, the convergence of those opinions is unlikely to be very safe in the lives of individuals and many people.
In that case, I ask my past self.
What was it like living there?
Education, which is the basis of rational judgment, produces fairly safe results and forms a system, but didn't those who led the group with personal opinions without considering the laws survive only after receiving all the benefits of the world's laws, even though everyone had different opinions?
Survival is not something to be ashamed of, but subjective mutual differences sometimes tempt those who break the law and take risks by offering them the option of a compromise under the pretext of survival by something that seems to be an improbable truth that they should reduce differences and promote harmony and consultation in the space that can give themselves and others room for rationalization.
If this continues, survival becomes disadvantageous or impossible, and there are more disagreements than in the past, and even if two or more characters mutually find a compromise, confrontation with those who are not tempted and have not chosen that compromise is inevitable, and considering that the probability of being tempted is high, an official standard called the optimal line may be necessary for individual choices.
The intellect with reason that cannot overcome the survival instinct may misunderstand that the process of judging factors that threaten survival under the pretext of survival and the conclusion resulting from consideration of the results is a process of evolution.
Sometimes, when the times force survival harshly, that usually happens.
The appropriate line exists, but it identifies those who are uncomfortable with it or thinks it is an option, and the misalignment of such concerns and options ultimately disturbs the social order, so official combat is to discover such people and propose options. However, if the words and actions that cause danger are repeated repeatedly even if time and opportunity are given, or if a danger due to entrenched thoughts is discovered, if the user does not limit the benefits in any way or respond in the form of ostracism, suppression, control, etc., such option will be judged to have been unofficially permitted. It may be possible.
It's really hard to give an answer to an uncomfortable, rationalized question like, "Isn't it possible for mistakes to occur when there is no guide in the first place?"
“Isn’t it possible to judge that much even without a guide?” is also a similar question.
In conclusion, “Guide = Truth”
Even though we know this, we just stand by, hinder exploration, and fight pointlessly.
In fact, it is a waste of energy.
Action is always accompanied by reaction, and since action is unavoidable, reaction is also unavoidable. As there is no guide, safety can never be guaranteed or mutual interests can be established. In the end, such guide is expected to continue to form and be created as part of the system's laws for safety.
That is part of the value of history.
If such laws are already in place to some extent, all you have to do is proceed in that direction through review and action based on reasonable procedures over time.
If you think about it a little, it is expected that most people's thoughts on what kind of future they want to live in, including the present, will unanimously lead to a 'safe society', so why would there be any hesitation in reaching a conclusion on this topic?
It's an obvious conclusion.
That may be the reason why ice cream has remained delicious to this day.
Even if you change your position later, the mistakes you made in the past leave a trace.
Since it cannot be reversed or time-traveled to the past through general methods, it requires coercion to understand each other through philosophical tolerance of humanity or individuals, followed by apology and forgiveness, realistic recovery measures, and mutual understanding in the process.
However, successful choices definitely leave a trace.
If the results of success and failure are indicators of personal growth and development, your perspective on evaluating them should be to not hide the failures but to strictly reflect on them and correct them. Apart from that, you should maximize the success rate and set the zero point for yourself so that you can think of mistakes or failures as a process for success. It will be easier for your future self to have a conversation with your present self, which will become your past.
Those who have this consistent perspective will develop, grow, and evolve together as they increase the success rate and hit rate for achieving common task goals to improve individual well-being.
Achievements will be shared correctly and choices will be plentiful.
If biased decisions due to rationalization of compromises exist in the distribution of results, the foundation of the entire system may be shaken depending on the mechanism.
It is obviously something that needs to be adjusted since it is easily observed consistently.
It is judged that exploring the truth by tasting several ice creams is a little closer to evolution based on the premise of peace than debating various opinions over one ice cream.
Do you have any intention of talking to your past self?