Could be a Botticelli....

A rose by any other name would smell as err...as....um...

Such a rosy topic today, and I thought I would get the chance to stop and take a whiff, for once. Now, I'm gonna have to take a couple of shots to get that image unburned off of my eyes.

Being incapable of conjugating the verb to be, we conjugate instead the verb to have. But as the verb to have can lead us nowhere, for nothing lasting can be acquired, we seek indefinitely to have more. Such is the source of our enslavement.

- Robert Linssen

From Jr High....

am is are was were be being been have has had do did done may might can could shall should will would....and must!

-B

'Now conjugate the verb to go.....thats it Now do it one hundred times by morning, or we'll cut your ball$ off'

Monty Python- Life of Brian

To be, or not to be...that is the question.

The way to freedom from that enslavement is: "To give".

to give, someone has to take. And then in turn give themselves, to acieve a balance. That equilibrium is hard to achieve if not impossible.

Prisoner's dilema quite interesting:
Tanya and Cinque have been arrested for robbing the Hibernia Savings Bank and placed in separate isolation cells. Both care much more about their personal freedom than about the welfare of their accomplice. A clever prosecutor makes the following offer to each. "You may choose to confess or remain silent. If you confess and your accomplice remains silent I will drop all charges against you and use your testimony to ensure that your accomplice does serious time. Likewise, if your accomplice confesses while you remain silent, they will go free while you do the time. If you both confess I get two convictions, but I'll see to it that you both get early parole. If you both remain silent, I'll have to settle for token sentences on firearms possession charges. If you wish to confess, you must leave a note with the jailer before my return tomorrow morning."
The "dilemma" faced by the prisoners here is that, whatever the other does, each is better off confessing than remaining silent. But the outcome obtained when both confess is worse for each than the outcome they would have obtained had both remained silent. A common view is that the puzzle illustrates a conflict between individual and group rationality. A group whose members pursue rational self-interest may all end up worse off than a group whose members act contrary to rational self-interest. More generally, if the payoffs are not assumed to represent self-interest, a group whose members rationally pursue any goals may all meet less success than if they had not rationally pursued their goals individually.


is it a matter of trust?

I don't understand how this has relevance to the topic at hand...