St. Luke

And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.
For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away? (9:23-25)

This piece of text called my attention, mainly because when I read verse 24, I was remembered of the ‘do nothing theory’ of the Tao Te Ching. But losing your life is doing something, though I wonder how is it that you loose your life.

Perhaps it means to loose your identity. Because if it is, it would be logically connected to verse 23. What Jesus is telling is that if there were any man or women that was willing to give up his or her life and totally devote it towards him (Jesus) and God, that is, loosing his/her life for my sake, for Jesus’ sake.

Because of someone loosing an identity for Jesus and God, later on (which is, I suspect, at the end, in the Kingdom of God), that someone will receive it back, having therefore a life being dedicated to Jesus and God. So, it is either having an eternal life of dedication and 'loosing of identity', or a non-enternal life, yet original, and your own.

So, perhaps having little identity might be a bit boring, and, obviously, very imitative…I’m guessing it’s the reason why such a small amount of people decide to follow Christ; only the people that have enough faith and willingness to do it.

The people whom I’d call followers of Christ (‘losers’ of their lives and identities) would be the nuns, and all the priest and high priests, people devoted to Church, Baptism, etc.

Why can’t we be followers of Christ, and keep our own identity (life)? First we need to know for sure what is to be a follower. I am a believer, that is for sure…but as a follower I get that it would be someone following Christ, therefore, wanting to do the same things as he did; not exactly go around the world and perform miracles, but rather, take the same path he took.

So, the believers (me) believe in Christ, believe that everything he did was the right, that all his teachings were correct. But, though we trust and respect his teachings, we don’t turn into them, as that is what the believers do.

The last verse, Jesus is practically saying what a waste it is, to try to save your life and therefore be in advantage because of it. Supposedly, a man is ‘benefited’ because of keeping his own identity, thus he can have the whole world. This doesn’t really make sense, because I am sure most of us have kept our identities (and chosen to be believers), but yet don’t have the whole world.

Then, a man who has gained the world will be lost, because of having so much power, which will later surely become unmanageable. Jesus is saying that a man with such benefit and power, which will lately become desperate and crazy, is just the same as to be a cast away, or as I thought about it, a stranger in the Kingdom of God.

St. Mark 11-16

Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, beleive that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.
(11:24)

Whatever the mind of man can conceive, it can achieve.
-W. Clement Stone

For this entry, I’d like to make a comparison between the two citations exposed above. Mainly, I chose that certain quote from the Bible, because as soon as I read it, I remembered about a documental I saw not too long ago: ‘The Secret’. It mainly talks about the Law of Attraction, which refers to thinking, and therefore having it. Within the documental, the quote by W. Clement Stone appeared, as it matches perfectly what they’re trying to say, about such law.

So, Both citations seem quite similar, cause both are saying an underlying message; in your mind, when you believe and focus on something you want, you can have. What is different, is the way in which you think about that goal/thing you want to reach.

As for the Bible, and everything within it, it is God. The Bible’s quote is referring to believing you shall have what you want, but also praying. Praying to God, for him to help you have it. Having patience and faith in him, and behaving.

Then, in The Secret, as the W. Clement Stone’s quote says it, it is only your mind and yourself you need, to accomplish things you want, goals to reach. Your mind, mainly.

It remains a mystery to me (and I bet to most too) about which ‘source’ (whether believing in God or the power of the human mind) is more beneficial, through which source is it more possible for what you want to come true.

As for Society today, it depends whether they are Catholics or not, for which method they decide to live with. But then again, not many people are conscious of the power of their own minds. I’d say most of us just stress over not having enough money to get something, stress over things we can’t get but want too much; we think life is being unfair. But, how can there be unfair when we don’t try?

I myself, use both methods. I am Catholic, and therefore believe and have faith in God. And, after watching the documental, the thing about the Law of Attraction did struck my mind, and I’d say I am new at this thing of such a power in the mind. I hope that impatience doesn’t feel me in, through the process of believing and conceiving.

Quote taken from:
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/w_clement_stone.html

St. Mark Chp. 1-10

Heaven, or the Kingdom of God. All of us will die someday, and all of us (or most of us) hope that we shall go to Heaven…or else Hell. Whether we deserve it, or what will happen next, we don’t know. At least I try to understand that it is up to God.

What is Heaven?

It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all the herbs and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.
(4:31-32)

At first, this quote confused me, since I’ve always thought about Heaven as something big, for all time, and this quote is saying that at first it is smaller than all seeds on earth (and I guess ‘all seeds’ represent everything).

But then, perhaps Heaven was somehow ignored in Earth for some time. Though it may not sound so, it is logical. Heaven and Earth are different places, such as, for example, Colombia and Argentina. As a different place, Colombia might be ignored in Argentina, because it happens to be, not there; just as Heaven might be ignored on Earth.

But, then, as time passed, Heaven will become more noticed. More people will die, therefore more people shall go to Heaven. And, then Heaven will become (or has already) a place where all shall go and fit. Not that Colombia will be superior than Argentina, but that as tourism may increase, so will the country’s image in the other.

But many that are first shall be last; and the last first.
(10:31)

So here, Jesus is speaking about the people that will go to Heaven. As the last entry I wrote (about the end of the world and who will be chosen) this idea is similar. It sounds a bit like Tao Te Ching (not doing anything, and therefore having everything done), but it is different. In both cases, Jesus is talking about the people on Earth, the first being the most wealthy and powerful of society; the rich people that supposedly are rich as for not sharing anything. And for their conceitedness and non-sharing wealth, they shall be the last to enter heaven.

So, the last, which will be rather the first, are the people belonging to a lower status that the superior class just mentioned.

Not including from what I’ve read in the Bible, I have been told that it is not exactly a physical place, but rather a state of mind in which you are extremely peaceful, with yourself and your surroundings. But, while you have this state of mind, where will you be? Physically? Perhaps after death there is not physical anymore, but rather, all imagination.

Recently I read a book called ’90 Minutes in Heaven’, which is a true story (written by Don Piper) about a man killed in a car accident, going into Heaven, and then coming back to Earth. From his visit to Heaven, Piper mostly recalls an abundance of happiness, that supposedly couldn’t be described by human words, that it was the happiest experience he had ever felt, and that as he gathered along with the other ‘dead’ people, nothing else mattered, but only the fact that they were, for once again gathered. Piper also dedicates a whole chapter describing Heaven’s music, as the most beautiful sound he had ever heard.

Nobody will ever know the truth, because they haven’t been to Heaven. What is different from Piper’s experience, is that supposedly, he was there. But how will we know Heaven is as it’s described in the book? Perhaps it is even different, to each person. It will only be known, when we ourselves get there.

St. Matthew Chp. 23-28

I have to admit I am both curious and scared about the End of the World. Whether I will live to that day, chances are pretty low, both scientifically and biblically. Scientifics say that water will soon become scarce and that trees are being cut off, and ecosystems are damaged, and that the Global Warming is increasing. All these are ways in which Humanity could end. Though I am aware of the consequences of all this, I doubt these consequences will become of a larger problem, while my generation lives.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angles with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
(25:31-32)

I imagined if it was physically possible, for all the nations to be gathered around him; where would we all be gathered? How? But then again, God isn’t really a physical being. Perhaps, by gathered it is meant that everyone (I guess all humans on Earth) shall be paying attention to him, and will be communicating with him, deep within themselves, as some kind of deep reflection.

But something else came to thought…not all humans on Earth are Catholics; not all of them believe in this God that will gather all. I wonder what those people will do…perhaps they are not included in this massive gathering, or perhaps they will be, and chosen like all the others.

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand. but the goats on the left.
(25:31-33)

The sheep (or the people at God’s right, the ones who are saved and allowed to enter Heaven) were ‘saved’ or chosen in the first place, because of their good performance on Earth. By good, I mean (and so the Son of man thinks) the people that

For I was hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
(25:35-36)

They didn’t exactly clothed, or received Jesus—the Son of Man—himself, but rather, Jesus is identifying himself with the rest of the world. Meaning that these people were good, for receiving others (not just Jesus), for helping others in general.

Then shall he say also unto them on the left had, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angles:
(25:41)

As for the goats, the opposite people, Gos is sending them to hell, to the fire, to the pain. All these, considered as the punishment for the bad performance of these people while they lived.



Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the tour wherein the Son of man cometh. (25:13)

I’ll talk about this ‘day’ from a more personal point of view. First, after reading this, I asked myself: would I be ready? I’m not really sure about this, cause, never have I received a stranger or clothed someone, but I’ve done charity, such as giving things away and visiting neighbourhoods of people of a less status. But, then again, most people do this, without really wanting—without dedicating their heart towards it, doing it because they have to.

And, I guess it is this final detail (that though it is not directly stated in the Bible, it certainly is true), ever doing the tasks listed in the citations above will not guarantee our entrance to Heaven. For them to count, they shall be done with all attention and devotion put into it—wanting to do it; not doing it because you have to, or because you know that you are going to get a reward at the end, rather just because you want to.

So, we never know when the End is going to happen. As to be save, do good, do what God and Jesus approve, and but your full devotion into it. Don’t do it because you want to be save, do it because you really want to, and you know it will benefit others.

St. Matthew Chp. 13-22

There were various pieces (verses) within St. Matthew’s Gospels that called my attention, because of their similarity to the Analects. It seemed to me that some of the things told and taught by Jesus, are alike to some of the Analects’ fundamentals.

The citation just below refers to the Analects’ idea of ‘gentlemen’. I can conclude that both The Master and Jesus, define a gentlemen to be the same thing;

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man. (15:11)

Told by Jesus, he is meaning to say that a rich man (that has the chance to be good nourished, therefore, the things that goeth into his mouth) is not a gentlemen. Rather a gentlemen is said to be one for what he says, whether he speaks sagely and does really mean it, and he is meaning for others to listen and perhaps ponder or learn over what he says.


Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. (19:19)

It was easy to find, while skimming through the Analects, pieces of text relating to loving your elders and respecting them, as to remain by their side, always until death. So this citation above, that Jesus declares, is the same thing. Respecting your father and mother, and loving your neighbour (which might represent the people that live within your community), loving them as you would love yourself.


And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. (19:24)

This last piece, though, can be said to be unlike the Analects, for one bit. We can say that Jesus is against the rich, since they shouldn’t have more than the others, which is unfair. Jesus says that the rich will never be able to enter Heaven—it is completely impossible, since supposedly harder than fitting a camel through a needle’s eye—because as being able to posses more things, he/she should give to the others, until he/she is not rich or superior in economics standards, and then he/she will have less, but the others will have a bit more.

But, never in the Analects what it stated that a gentlemen couldn’t be rich. Recalling the Analects essentials (rightness above all, intelligence, modesty, practices ritual), certainly a man could have these qualities, and still be rich, yet a gentlemen.

When we finished the Old Testament and started The Analects, never did I think these two sources would relate in some way, and it was probably because the vocabulary and language in which they were written in was simply different. Now, I am surprised that I found a similarity, which surprisingly, it didn’t turn out to be ‘rare’; I would have expected for Jesus and The Master (the two ‘leaders) to have sort of the same ideas about life and action.

St. Matthew Chp. 1-12

But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking.
Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him.
After this manner therefore pray ye: our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
(6:7-9)

I was reading the bible, and thought this last phrase sounded sort of familiar, until the answer popped into my head; Iron Maiden.

I think it would be interesting, to compare a piece of the bible, with the lyrics of some song.

So, generally, the piece above is suggesting how to pray, yet only for the necessary. We can pray for more, though we can’t get that more, since God knows what is it that we need; so he won’t grant anything to us, that isn’t really necessary.

The song talks about someone, that is in jail—or a cell—for some reason. So this mainly represents shame and remorse, loneliness and sadness, disappointment in one’s self, as he is describing the cell as ‘cold’.

But then, later on the speaker mentions God: Somebody cries from a cell "God be with you". If there's a God then why does he let me go? He is asking himself, why would there be a God if I am about to die (since my interpretation is that they are leading him towards death)? He believes that God would have been able to help him free himself, but he didn’t. So as an immediate conclusion: God doesn’t exist. Perhaps, he does, but he just didn’t want to.

Then, at the end of the song, it is repeated various times...Hallowed be they name.

Perhaps the repetition helps mark its importance. So I started looking for ways in which this phrase could link with the song. I believe the speaker doesn’t want to go wherever he is being taken—which is, I believe, death—but he is sure that he can’t do anything about it…that God must have wanted it that wa.

In the Bible they are saying that God I holly, since he knows what we need, and he will only gives us that. Holly, since, not only do people ask only God for things, but he is the one who can actually make them happen, if he wants.

What both have in common, is that, no matter if we want it or deserve it or not, we shall do and accept whatever God does and says, because, he is 'hallowed' and has special abilities, therefore we ask him and it is he who decides. No complains. He, only, knows what is right for us, and it is not significant, whether we disagree.

Lyrics from www.lyricsfreak.com/i/iron+maiden/hallowed+be+thy+name_20067959.html

Tao Te Ching (44-66)

I wonder how different from our countries today might a country being ruled with the Tao be. I am curious of this, because it was many times, within the pages that I read today, where the text mentioned how is it that a country should be ruled. I automatically compared these to reality, and did find many differences.

Ruling a country is like cooking a small fish.
(62)

I’ve just want to dedicate some of my thinking towards this line. I tried to look at the similarities between the two showed ‘things’, the relationship that there can be among them. Cooking is easy, that’s what we think, but then again, there is a difference between something that is cooked professionally, and something that isn’t. It’s cooking a small fish, because, though it may seem vulnerable and easy, it’s not. I’d say that some rulers and presidents today think that ruling a country is, easy, not because it really is, but rather because they may be filled with self-confidence, that is remembering them that I am capable of doing this, I chose to do it in the 1st place.

A country with troubles is considered vulnerable, miserable—a small…fish. A fish is usually cooked, as a country is usually ruled over, and I may add, that there is a difference between something done good, and something that isn’t.

A great country is like low land.
It is the meeting ground of the universe,
The mother of the universe.
(63)

A country is the mother of everything within it. Its geography allows there to be only one specified kind of products, allows for people to life only in specified areas. Its location influences tourism, as its climate influences culture, and customs (way of dressing). So it is considered the mother of its own ‘world’, culture.

When the country is ruled with a light hand
The people are simple.
When the country is ruled with severity,
The people are cunning.
(58)

The way in which a country is ruled influences the people. The people will tend to feel more trapped, when there is a lot of pressure on them, therefore making them rebellious, making them have a desire to be ‘more free’. When there is almost no obligations, and the environment and government is relaxed for the people, they will tend to act freshly, feeling they have enough space and freedom, and are in a good humour to do the little that is asked of them.

A perfect example of this is drugs. I believe, and others do too, that the restrictions of drugs in some countries, oblige the drug dealers to commit more crimes to get drugs. Perhaps, in a country were drugs were allowed, there wouldn’t be as much drug dealers, because now the drugs would be legal, making them a ‘normal thing’.

The more laws and restrictions there are,
The poorer people become.
The sharper men’s weapons,
The more trouble in the land
The more ingenious and clever men are,
The more strange things happen.
The more rules and regulations,
The more thieves and robbers.
(57)

I think that this citation just above is my favourite in the whole text. Because, it’s certainly nothing new said to me; I know this, I think all of us do…the difference is that we are not AWARE of it.

I’ve heard many times that the only way to stop fighting is to stop yourself first. If a country suffers an attack, for today’s society it is logical to attack back, but much more ‘harder’, bigger, in a way to make more suffering, to make that country understand how dangerous it was for them to threaten ‘us’ in the first place. But, what will this country do? Attack, yet again. And the ‘power’ of the attacks shall increase each time, as so will the intention grow with hatred, and hate.

So, it will never stop. Only will it increase, will it become each time a more violent war. And what the countries in this conflict are trying to do, is to make the other stop, they don’t realize that first they have to stop themselves, which might sound easier, but it is
indeed harder, cause for them, it will sound as giving up—the truth is that they will be giving up something: war and violence.

You wouldn’t think it is bad for men to become intelligent, but we have to accept, that it is true, that when there are more brains thinking, there is a higher chance for more hypothesis, guesses, and opinions to confuse us all. It happens, sometimes, that there are so many theories, about something, that we (society) are never sure who or what to trust.

The last bit of this citation links to one of my above explanations, of people tending to act more ‘cool’ when the environment in which they life in is ‘cool’ too.

In contrast to the world today, a country based on the Tao would indeed differ. Not much would be asked of the people, they wouldn’t have many restrictions either.

Tao Te Ching (29-43)

Since small, we (or at least I) were educated with the opposites. Given little puzzles, where our job was to build the correct pair of opposites—that is, matching black and white, and sun and rain. Never did I think opposites, in my life, would gain such importance—again.

Seems that, based on the Tao Te Ching, opposites are important to consider, since opposites can’t live without each other. I was able to bring several citations from the text, that show how is it that opposites are truly connected, and how, in each case, one of them might be better, in a way, than the other.

Being is born of not being. (40)

It matches the idea that things will only go right, and will happen, when nothing is done.
This quote can be said to say that bad is born of good, good being the NOT BEING, as bad being the being. These two (and the one just below), are examples of opposites connecting, and being a result of each other.

The ten thousand things carry yin and embrace yang.
They achieve harmony by combining these forces.
(42)

When the opposites are balanced, they will achieve peace, and, how things are to be, a mixture between good and bad moments and feelings. The ten thousand things, that is, everything, is a result of this balance, meaning that the ten thousand things achieve harmony, every now and then.

I was able to conclude, based on everything that the Tao Te Ching mentions, that, no matter which pairs or opposites, the ‘smaller’ one, is of greater importance. Not literally the smaller in size. Rather, the one that involves the least amount of DOING (wu-wei, and wu), the most vulnerable, too. Because every now and then it is mentioned within the text how power won’t lead you anywhere.

The softest thing in the universes overcomes the hardest thing in the universe. (43)

The vulnerable is, kind of the most powerful, after all, as it is the last thing that happens, the final result.

Based on the quote above, why be powerful when, at the end, you will be the least powerful? Rather, trying to be weakest since the beginning, you shall be somehow bigger than the most powerful.

I have realized how is it that opposites truly connect with each other, still, when they are so different.

Tao Te Ching (13-28)

Irony; usually, in the pages I read today, something was mentioned, say, being somehow beneficial, and then, mentioned again, but this time expressed as it if was foolish. Though I believe that in both cases, it is being talked of the same thing, perhaps it isn’t, it might only be using a similar/same term;

Therefore the ancients say, “Yield and overcome.”
Is that an empty saying?
Be really whole,
And all things will come to you.
(22)

What the chapter was speaking about before this, was about not doing anything, and getting everything, or the right reward. So, it’s good to be ‘empty’ instead of ‘full’. Better to rest, and therefore win. It is really ironic, but at the end it’s gets kind of normal, because I can find these kind of ‘do nothing’ thing around (as we learned in class: wu, and wu-wei).


Is there a difference between good and evil?
Must I fear what others fear? What nonsense!
(20)

So this is good; somehow, though we might not notice it, it is ‘nonsense’, that there is a definite good and evil. As there are different cultures and beliefs around the world, the view of what is evil and what is good might change, depending on culture. It might seem evil for the Catholics, to sacrifice themselves, as so did different Indian communities, a long time ago. But for these Indian cultures, it wasn’t evil. It was good. It was an act of bravery, and total devotion towards God. So there isn’t a difference. Because for some, scarifying may qualify as good, but for others, as bad. So they can represent the same thing, each term.

What is a good man?
A teacher of a bad man.
(27)

So this is complete irony. Didn’t it say, just above, how good and evil might define the same thing according to which your culture is? Perhaps it’s referring to what is good and evil for the Tao. What kind of ‘good’ and how much should a teacher be to be able to teach a ‘bad’ person, bad in what way? I couldn’t find any more citations that went more a fond in the topic, but I guess a good person, based on the Tao, is someone who is not proud, and that doesn’t feel superior. That doesn’t do anything without really needing to do it (wu-wei). So, as the total opposite, bad would be to have zero-modesty, and a desire to feel superior, standout, and overcome others. Of doing as much as possible, to be noticed.

For us, of the culture in which I live in, ‘good’ and ‘evil’ would be similar t owhat they mean for the Tao, except for the wu-wei part, because we con’t recognize someonethat doesn’t do something to be entirely good. In our culture (it could be said to be the school, serving as a very influential environment, or the ‘Latin’ culture itself), we would recognise this person as lazy. A hard-worker, instead of evil, for a person that lies to do extra work, or not leave everything for the last minute.

Irony; it’s confusing. But I guess it depends mainly on who you are and what is your point of view, what it’s influenced by.

Tao Te Ching (1-12)

What called my attention, while reading these pages, was the ‘ten thousand things’. What are they? Should they exist, or are they just something of moral/thought? To avoid curiosity, it doesn’t help either, that that phrase has been our topic in class since last week or something.

Within the text I found two citations that have perhaps might answer these questions.

The ten thousand things rise and fall without cease,
(2)

First of all, it is ironic compared to the phrase before it; that talks about ‘doing nothing’. Now, here, these ten thousand things do, since they sometimes rise, and sometimes fall. I guess everything sometimes rises, and falls, in the sense that, if living, it can feel happy, and other times sad, though it can be literal, as the waved of the ocean. So all these types of ‘rising and falling’, classify under the ten thousand things, and ‘without cease’, because as time passes, things shall change, for the good or the bad.

Heaven and earth are impartial;
They see the ten thousand things as straw dogs.
(5)

To understand this, I shall say that we’d have to get what is the superiority that heaven and earth have above everything, so see whether what they ‘think’ about the ten thousand things is valid or not. If they are impartial, meaning neutral, means that they accept any culture. And it’s true; since the Earth is filled with millions of cultures, and different ‘kinds’ of people. Yet, they see the ten thousand things as ‘straw dogs’. What I could understand of that term, it that they see these ‘things’ as careless, ‘empty’ beings. Dogs, because they might be wild, improper, messy.

I’d say the ten thousand things is the world, again. Everything that composes it. And this number will vary and increase differently, depending on what are we referring too. Shall we include the atoms and cells? They do compose stuff, that, I guess, composed the universe. But it’s sure that the things are more than just ten thousand, whether we counted every plant, every fish in the ocean, every human.

There is some kind of superiority from heaven towards ‘things’. But why are they superior for? For being neutral? Aren’t plants and fish neutral too? Well, we can certainly say that, though, humans aren’t neutral, so therefore they are allowed to be under some superior level—in which ‘they’ are neutral. I say humans are not this way, because, each, depending on their culture, only care about theirs, and tend to think weird of other customs and beliefs.

I only could find humans to be not-neutral and act as ‘straw dogs’. But then again, if the ten thousand things contain not only the physical, but as well morality and other thoughts, then they would all be biased too—favouritism, discrimination, etc. Maybe, the ten thousand things don’t include nature at all, since it’s not likely to be a ‘straw dog’. Perhaps, it refers as the ten thousand things to be more likely, less physical, yet in the mind, therefore all of them (thoughts, feelings) classifying as not-neutral.

About 'Go'

'Go' called my attention. What is so interesting about it, it’s how it’s able to entertain someone so easily, so it’s addictive, but somehow you are learning as well—makes you exercise your mind.

It makes you think, but not as much as chess of something else would. Its basic rules are quite easy to understand, so easy that the second we read them, all of us were playing and really getting into it.

It’s tricky too. The way in which you can’t have a ‘suicidal attitude’, and all the possibilities and strategies that you can use, that only one is really the correct. It’s a process game, either you start off right, or wrong. When you start the wrong way, I guess it’s hard to get back into the good road again.
It confuses me, though, the fact that we are learning this. Yet, I am existed to look more a fond into it, and play against other people in the class, though I’m almost sure I will loose, therefore need to practice more