âMonkey see, monkey do.â
Letâs say the monkey is blind.
Would they not be able to monkey see, monkey do? Because they donât fulfill the correct parametersâŚ
Stay with me nowâŚ
What if the blind monkey doesnât see, but still does?
Then that completely invalidates the whole saying. It would just be: âmonkey doâ
The monkey just does.
But what that monkey does, other monkeys will SEE, THEN THEY WILL DO.
So does that mean that there has to be an ultimate first monkey that first DID, for other monkeys to then SEE.
Letâs say you put a monkey in a plain room. Thereâs nothing for them to SEE⌠so what would they DO? I would assume they would continue to do SOMETHING. Which means a monkey doesnât have to SEE for them to be able to DOâŚ.
That leads me onto my next set of questions:
What came first, the monkey that SEES, or the monkey that DID?
If you had a monkey that could SEE everything, does that mean they can now DO everything?
What about a monkey that could SEE everything, but could DO nothing?
What if there were no other monkeys he could SEE? What would he DO?
