perjantai 21. helmikuuta 2025

Of the difference of the words "wild" and "ill"

 " In being wild there is strongly the dimension of running free and things going so well, with high skills and good health, especially for the individual and for such a natural ages old life in the nature. Such life has wisdom that keeps things well for such a life, for life generally too. 

So as a word, the word "wild" as far as I know has: 
W :  something natural, complex, life like, maybe ages old with wisdom of feelings too, 
I :  things seen from the point of view of good quality objective civiliced wisdom with common sense and a holistic view, and such wisdom of life followed also in practice like healthy natural ways of living and emotional goals etc taken wisely into account, 
L :  often, at least in this modern word, such needs some practical solutions, like if I run here over the low garden table and stools and around the fireplace will there behind the berry bush be another pet, 
D :  it is good to be wise in these solutions though and in the ideas they maybe bring into mind, since otherwise the way of life might not contunue in the long run, so civiliced wisdom must be respected, especially values make sense in it's light. 

*
So if one does not have so much civiliced wisdom in use but trues to find some solutiobs by oneself in a much too complex situation, it is just some terms I, plus some technical solutions L, but it leads nowhere well for life, it is just technical attempt L. So that is typical reason someone might get ill or be ill, and typical also to the ill not being able to work with good quality. 


* * * * *






Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti