Life does not always work out the way, you would want it to
be, that’s a fact of life. I put this question to A. I. GEMINI
GEMINI: You're absolutely right. That's a fundamental
truth about life. No matter how carefully we plan or how much we desire a
certain outcome, life often throws curveballs our way. It's in those moments
that we often grapple with the idea of things being "made in heaven."
When our experiences don't align with our hopes, it can be challenging to
reconcile that saying with reality. Perhaps the wisdom lies not in everything
unfolding exactly as we envision it, but in finding meaning and growth within
the unexpected turns. It's in navigating those detours that we often discover
strengths we didn't know we had and learn valuable lessons. What are some of
the biggest ways you've seen life deviate from your expectations?
[I am of the view that ‘intellectualism’ comes up with these kinds of responses from Gemini. The truth is that often most have to live with our lot in life].
GEMINI: That feeling of resignation is understandable
when life doesn't go our way. It's easy to think we're just stuck with whatever
hand we're dealt. And in some ways, there's truth to that – we can't always
control external circumstances or change the past. However, I wonder if
"living with our lot" necessarily means passive acceptance. Perhaps
it's more about actively engaging with our present circumstances, understanding
them, and then making choices about how we respond and move forward. Think of
it like this: if you're given a particular garden to tend, you might not have
chosen the type of soil or the amount of sunlight it gets. That's your
"lot." But you still have agency in deciding what to plant, how to
nurture it, and what kind of garden you want to cultivate within those
limitations. It takes a lot of courage and wisdom to navigate life's
challenges, and sometimes acceptance is a crucial first step. But acceptance
doesn't have to mean giving up on growth or finding meaning within our given
circumstances. What aspects of your current "lot" feel most
challenging to live with? Maybe exploring those specific areas could open up
some possibilities for how you might engage with them differently.
ME: A wise person on exploring all avenues will
have to end up choosing two outcomes, namely, to live like a donkey in
servitude or become an animal in the wild. Both have their advantages and
disadvantages. One means continuing to live while the other take your chance
even if it means your demise.
GEMINI: That's a stark and quite thought-provoking
way to frame the choices we face when exploring all avenues. It paints a
picture of two seemingly opposing paths, each with its own set of trade-offs. The
"donkey in servitude" scenario brings to mind the idea of a
predictable, perhaps even comfortable, existence within a defined structure.
The advantages could be security, provision of basic needs, and a sense of
belonging, even if it comes at the cost of freedom and autonomy. The
disadvantages, as you point out, would likely involve a lack of control,
limited opportunities for self-expression, and potentially a feeling of being
used or unfulfilled. On the other hand, the "animal in the wild"
represents a life of complete freedom and self-determination. The advantage
is the potential for boundless exploration and living entirely on one's own
terms. However, the disadvantages are significant: constant uncertainty, the
struggle for survival, and the ever-present risk of demise. It seems this wise
person is highlighting a fundamental tension between security and freedom,
between a life of predictable constraints and one of unpredictable
possibilities. When you consider these two outcomes, which aspects resonate
with you most strongly, either as something you value or something you fear?
And do you think these are truly the only two outcomes when all avenues have
been explored, or could there be a spectrum or other possibilities in between?
ME: (It’s me using a wise person). This is the
reality of existence. All explored choices take on this texture and end up
either way. News reports provide us with sufficient examples of those who lost
their lives upholding what they believed in. That's their choice. It not what I
would choose. However, everyone has to reach a decision in life and face his
or her destiny. Mandela of South Africa was fortunate.
GEMINI: Ah, it's fascinating to hear your perspective
directly. You've painted a compelling picture of the stark choices you see at
the end of thorough exploration. The examples from news reports certainly
underscore the reality of individuals making ultimate sacrifices for their
beliefs, a conscious choice with the gravest potential outcome. Your point
about everyone facing their "destiny" or what you see as a
"foregone conclusion" is powerful. It suggests a sense of
inevitability, that despite the paths we explore, the ultimate direction is
already set. You contrast this with Mandela's experience, highlighting it as a
form of "fortune," implying that not everyone who takes a stand will
experience a similar outcome. It seems you lean towards the "donkey in
servitude" option as the preferable choice for yourself, valuing continued
existence over the potential for demise in the "wild." This is a
deeply personal and understandable preference. The desire for safety and
longevity is a fundamental human instinct. Considering your view, what makes
Mandela's situation feel like "fortune" to you? Was it the positive
outcome he achieved, the length of his life after his struggle, or something
else entirely? And does the idea of a "foregone conclusion" offer a
sense of peace or perhaps a feeling of being constrained?
ME: In today's very unjust world, Mandela would be
killed in prison. In today's world, we are witnessing 'who' determines 'who
runs the world’. Many donkeys to keep their thrones safe sing along. We see
this with Palestine.
GEMINI: That's a very sobering and powerful
reflection on the current state of the world. Your perspective highlights a
deep concern about injustice and the potential consequences for those who
challenge the status quo. You're suggesting that the environment that allowed
for Mandela's eventual release and his transformative role might not exist
today. The idea that "who determines 'who' runs the world" and
that many others "sing along" to maintain their power paints a
picture of entrenched interests and a lack of accountability. The reference
to Palestine brings a very specific and deeply felt example of ongoing
injustice and conflict, further reinforcing your point about the challenges
faced by those who stand against dominant forces. It sounds like you see a
significant difference between the historical context of Mandela's struggle and
the realities of today's global political landscape. This perspective raises
important questions about the possibilities for change and the risks involved
in pursuing justice in the current environment. Given this view, does it
strengthen your preference for the "donkey in servitude" as a means
of survival, or does it perhaps fuel a sense of frustration or even anger
about the injustices you perceive?
ME: My answer to your question is: Every dog has its day and when that day arrives no mercy will be shown. This is not a case of frustration but the bicycle wheel of reality. I am a person who measures up realities. I ended the conversation because I am not dealing about my feelings but the general outcome of human behaviour, which is going to be very evident with generations of Palestinians to come in the future. Try talking to those kids from GAZA when they grow up about ‘mercy’! (Mokhtar Stork: 29 April, 2025)
