ZYRA's Website

ZYRA

Application of philosophy to how to GET RICH

In 1987 Zyra invented Direct Drive. Direct Drive is an industrial-quality philosophy which is effective at solving various problems in life. In the period before that, Zyra had a religion which was very good at predicting the future and having spiritual experiences but was no good at making money. If your philosophy doesn't get you what you want in life, like getting RICH, then it may be very cost-effective to get a philosophy that ACTUALLY WORKS at getting you what you want.

DIRECT DRIVE is shareware by Zyra 1987. Use of it is at your own risk. It may be distributed and used freely, but if you find it useful you should consider paying a voluntary contribution to ZYRA, especially if you become very rich.

This is released as SHAREWARE. So if you would like to use it, DO use it, and send a voluntary contribution for what you think it's worth to: Zyra, c/o the shareware office address. Cheques made payable to Zyra Electric.

DIRECT DRIVE:

The key feature of Direct Drive is the application of "chess-playing" logic and strategy to LIFE. You declare your independence in your own mind and then set about using logic to win at living life. By making decisions by means of a strategic logic, after a while you start to actually win.

An important aspect of the philosophy is the calm state of mind. The decisions are made in a mental environment of calmness, which can be achieved by consideration of the fact that the things in the physical reality can not directly affect your thoughts.

Support modules required to avoid some of the consequential problems are: That you should like yourself, and that you should enjoy life. (These have to be implemented internally in the paranoid model of the philosophy, in order to deal with knock-on phenomenological problems).

This is only a brief summary - MORE DETAIL to be included soon!

Also see How to Set Up and Run Your Own Business... Oh yes?


Further elaboration has been requested on the explanation of Direct Drive, so here goes:

At the time Direct Drive was invented, there were still considerable numbers of people who had religion-based systems of belief where the believer assumed that the powers that were in control of the universe were benevolent and/or that the tactic to best use was to give-in to the deistic entity hypothetically in charge of the unfortunate state of life which the believer found themselves to be in.

In sharp contrast, the assertion of Direct Drive assumes that any hypothetical deity, Matrix-like virtual reality projector, alien chickenfarmer, or other perpetrator of substandard reality foisted upon us would at best be "neutral" in alignment, and at worst, some kind of supernatural enemy, maybe even some powerful godlike figure sitting "up there" gloating at the misery which humanity was putting up with.

In any sensible evaluation of the situation of life, the metaphysical powers-that-be ought to be regarded as "the opponent", or maybe even "the enemy".

Undaunted by the notion of being up against an unseen (and by some people's guesswork almighty) opponent, the plan was to use whatever powers I happened to have VERSUS the opponent. (Let's call it "the opponent" as a diplomatic term of speech and avoid the emotive slant which my usual terminology of "the enemy", or worse, gives upon it).

(Incidentally, it had been suspected that religious beliefs had been invented by ancient tyrants to justify their own place in society by devising a "bogeyman" and that the meek had been strung-along persistently and fooled subsequently on an ongoing basis).

The first move in the game of chess versus the supposedly all-powerful entity we're tactfully terming "the opponent" was to figure out what powers I actually had with which to fight it. It doesn't take a lot of working out that a person actually has FREE WILL, at least inside their own head, to think what they are able to.

Also, the mind clearly has rational thought, if you put your mind to it. In a game of chess you're more likely to win if you keep calm and make well thought-out moves. Even if your opponent is very clever, you have a better chance of doing less badly if you think about what you're doing and make the best moves you see fit might best defeat the opponent. Even if the opponent is infinitely good at playing chess, you won't do yourself any favours by giving in or making random moves just because you believe by faith it will somehow get you the sympathy vote.

So, by this free will and by rational thought and planning, as seen in a game of strategy, I set about making decisions in life as if it was a strategic contest versus the hypothetical opponent.

(If the opponent did not exist, and in absence of evidence either way, it would simply be a matter of playing a logical game against a random nature of an opponent. So, the strategy was still good and did not require there to actually be an opponent there to play!)

It also has to be realised that the state of mind is important. A calm and rational meditative state of mind with no interruptions and impending ongoing events is a requirement. Clearly if the opponent was in charge of the reality, it could trump up events such as to disturb the mind of the player, in order to gain an advantage. Bad chessplayers sometimes call this "gamesmanship" where they deliberately upset their opponent to try to get them to make poorer quality decisions. In the game I was playing I had good reason to hold the opponent in low regard, and it was considered very likely that such cheating would typical of its way of working.

To gain and maintain the philosophical state of mind I generated my own INSULARITY where I declared independence from the physical universe (which I was assuming was controlled by the opponent). I also had a self-generating internal life generator as part of my philosophy I'd made inside my mind, so even if the opponent made life look very grim, I could look at my own self in my head and have dominion. Plus, I deliberately pursued a policy of liking myself but despising the imagined deity. (This is exactly the opposite of the notion in some religions where the self is put down and the universe ruling entity given support).

Having got Free Will, rational thought processes, and deliberately devised calm states of mind to preserve the internal freedom and quality of thought processes, and internally created support modules to maintain that self-power in a calm state, I set about putting my plan into effect.

This was much easier than expected. I simply made good decisions and as with a logical game I tried to figure out what kinds of moves the opponent would make if it was trying to make me lose.

So, to take a ridiculous trivial example to illustrate the concept, if it looked like the weather was inclement and it might rain when going outdoors, a religious person might pray that it didn't rain and chance it, and then blame themselves if they got rained on. An atheist might figure there was a 50:50 chance of it raining and so take an umbrella. But I would be more "Aha! I can see it! It's got it planned that if I go out without an umbrella it WILL rain to catch me out, and it's trying to trick me into not taking an umbrella, so I WILL take an umbrella to stop it getting its way!", and then of course the opponent would have to have it NOT rain so as to make me wrong on that account, which would mean, guess what, that someone else's parade would not be rained on even though the deity was previously intending it to be rained on for some other "mysterious ways" sinister purpose.

It's important to understand that I suspected the deity would be some type of self-sanctimonious bully as described in some quasi-generic religious belief systems and would probably have in place some kind of alleged punishment system with which to threaten believers into submission. Possibly some kind of afterlife myth based on Father Christmas checking his list, which of course we can notice is a brilliant invention which grown-ups might just have invented to govern child behaviour?! However, as we know from evidence versus school bullies, it is still best to stand up to bullies and defy them, and to try to disregard such threats however dire, on the basis that the deity/bully/opponent's power over the submissive victim is largely based on threat, not the actual punishment. Also, in the case of Darth Vader versus Princess Leia in the first Star Wars movie, Princess Leia's complying and giving in to Darth Vader's threat did not avoid him carrying out that threat (to destroy the planet) anyway. So, in the same kind of way, and considering the deistic opponent had already in theory got an "it is written" track record of being at least as bad as Darth Vader, it was clearly a better strategy for me to avoid any submission or giving in to threats of wrath or punishment of any kind, but instead to pursue the best possible strategy against the opponent.

The result was quite surprising. I had expected the opponent to have godlike powers of decision making and to have near omnipotent powers to put those decisions into effect, and I would be humiliatingly defeated at each move just for daring to defy the entity in the first place. But no, this is not what happened.

Also, had the reality been more of an atheist one, where there was no opponent and that the events in life were all just "life", the results would also have been different.

What in fact happened was so odd that it takes thinking about. The opponent played spectacularly badly. I won at each point, not easily, but by applying good sense to the situation. The opponent made moves which weren't just bad but where AS IF I HAD MADE THE MOVES IT HAD ASSUMED I WAS GOING TO MAKE. This made the supposed deistic opponent look very stupid. This level of inadequacy on the part of the opponent went further than simply making poor moves, but was at the level of "well actually you can't move your queen to rook four because I took it three moves ago when you assumed I was going to make that bad move you supposedly knew I would make". There were times I was starting to see how made-of-cardboard the scenery of "reality" was, and what a fake reality it was.

Another interesting observation was found in the spiritual state I found I had! By defying the deity and fighting it, my strategic moves were winning in the physical world and I was making money, but also I was gaining a spiritual state inside. This, when fighting the deity which was alleged to be the source of spirituality? Indeed, far from being the source of spirituality, it was becoming more evident that the deity was more likely to be a parasite on spiritual energy that we the individuals generate. In effect, those who had worshipped it were giving away their own self-generated spiritual energy like battery chickens giving eggs to the chicken farmer. (This is a clue to what the opponent might gain by running a reality which is so contrived. It's a God that feeds of your spiritual energy).

By using Direct Drive I went from being about eight thousand pounds in debt to having about forty thousand pounds of assets, in one year. The opponent was making bad moves in response to my good moves, and was falling over itself as if it was programmed to work assuming a preset programmed plan. It was as if the diminutive martial arts character deftly steps aside as the brute force opponent's superior strength goes past and crashes into the scenery as if it were a bull charging at the matador's cape. So it was with my Direct Drive versus the opponent's reputed "almighty" powers.

So, there it is. A philosophy that ACTUALLY WORKS. You can try it if you dare. If you've got a religion which works for you, that's fine and you should stick with it, be happy with it, (and be forewarned to keep it away from me!). But if you've got a religion that doesn't really give you what you want in life, I recommend you give it one last chance to redeem itself. I gave my previous religion two weeks to be sensible and reasonable and to start making me money and making life better for me. It failed. The religious philosophy didn't make money, and so Direct Drive was the preferred choice.

After that it was too late, and with Direct Drive there was no turning back, and no excuses, and I persisted in playing chess versus life and plotting how to best defeat the opponent's every move. And in the end, I WON AT LIFE!


The situation is rather more complicated than that, in case you ask. Although I have got most of the things in life I have set out to get, and I am continuing to win in getting more of what I want, I have not won on all fronts. I am bereaved and I am in poor health. But even if I die before long, I have already lived and proved I've won. We're already into the Second Innings, or winning by a Gammon or a Backgammon. And now for my next trick (if I survive to perform it, and if I win a few more tricks) I intend to confound normal reality and bring into effect Real Reality! Real Reality is a utopian futuristic ideal world. That way, everyone will be able to have what they want. Except, of course, those that don't want it and would rather put up with things the way they've been for far too long. But that's no problem. They can still have it. Let the meek inherit the earth. The rest of us will go to the stars!


These notions of hitting back at the reality because it's not good enough, and there being a hidden power running the reality to gain energy from people's life-force, may seem familiar because of The Matrix. However, it's interesting to note The Matrix movie was made in 1999, whereas the philosophy of Direct Drive was in 1987 (mid-October, coincidental with the stockmarket crash and some freakish weather in the UK). Whatever God or other entities are running the perceived reality which we seem to be trapped in, they seem to feed off some sort of mental/spiritual energy which is "wasted" by the non-ideal nature of the reality. They're not doing it just for "25000 BTU" of normal energy, but something more subtle. It's as if, by people selling themselves out to "God" or to "Normality", they somehow allow the opponent force that's running the reality to milk them of some sort of "spiritual energy".

The interesting thing about the Direct Drive experiment is that the opponent (whatever it was) could not omnisciently adapt its game-plan and was oddly floored by Direct Drive. These ideas that the reality is run by a flawed deity are worth exploring, as it may lead on to further ways to defeat the system and ESCAPE!

Escaping into Real Reality was always part of the notion behind the philosophy, but the thing about Real Reality is that aspects of it can be derived mathematically, by logic, etc. After a while Normality starts to look ridiculous. I mean, the conventions of "Normal" are so poor as to be subject to ridicule.