hopelesshappiness.com

Omphalos. I discovered a word today. Omphalos: and from that, this; the central fact.

First I must determine if I believe Humanity is the central fact of the Universe. Is our species the omphalos?

And from this, I am compelled to ask, am I the central fact of Humanity? Am I the omphalos?

In some sense, to consider myself the omphalos is unavoidable. Depending upon my bias or persuasion, I can only influence the expansiveness of this consideration.

This brings me to purpose. If purpose is “the reason for which something exists” and if Humanity is the omphalos and/or if I am the omphalos, then is it consistent and reasonable that my purpose becomes my existence? Do all other considerations such as goodness and contribution and compassion and productivity and justice and patience and creativity fall by the wayside? One may believe that they exhibit these characteristics, but if these characteristics are secondary to the central fact of one’s existence, how can they be truly judged? Saying this, one might misunderstand and be inclined to argue that “my” characteristics can only be judged by me, but that is the question; how can my judgement not be influenced favorably by my belief that I am the omphalos? How can our judgement not be influenced favorably by our belief that we are the omphalos? So even if I want to believe that I am good and compassionate and productive and just, this belief in my character cannot and will never supersede the central fact of my existence. Extending this thought, if I want to believe that my purpose is altruistic, for example to serve my family or my nation or my constituency or my fellow man or my God, I am distracting myself from my true purpose which is to justify my existence.

So, what if purpose is “the reason for which something exists” and I claim to believe that the act of creation (instead of that which has been created) is the omphalos. First, I must acknowledge the unavoidability of the fact of my centrality and recognize my Humanity in order to realistically limit the expansiveness of my existence. Once I have mechanisms in place to keep me in my place, I must acknowledge and actively recognize that goodness and contribution and compassion and productivity and justice and patience and creativity come from, (like me and like Humanity), creation, and I must work to create, and I must understand that my character comes from these acts of creation and cannot and will never reside in the results. Extending this thought, it is okay to begin with an end in mind, (i.e. goodness, contribution, compassion, productivity, justice, patience, creativity or …whatever), but I must find my purpose within each act of creation; I must expend more energy and effort on the act, and not focus solely on the result – and this greater focus on the act must remain consistent before the act, during the act, and after creation. I will learn more by examining my actions, than I will ever learn from partaking of the fruits of my labor. To define myself according to the results, (merely perceived or actual), is to believe that I am the omphalos.

This brings me to truth. If truth is “actuality or actual existence” and if my purpose is always in some sense existence, then in some sense, (perhaps a greater sense?), purpose is always truth. And, if I work to find purpose in the act of creation and not in the result, and if I successfully limit the expansiveness of my existence, then truth and purpose (at least in some sense) become verbs.

To review: I see four possibilities for finding purpose. To consider them I will choose Goodness as an example of a (possible) commonly stated overarching purpose.

1. I can state that my purpose is to do good, and I can endeavor to maintain a semblance of (unplanned and/or spontaneous) public consistency, and from this I can believe my words equal my objective. I could stop here and find purpose in my proclamation and in my intention.
2. But if I examine that proclamation and the inconsistency of my consistency, I cannot stop. I will understand that I am saying I must act to create potential for good. (There may be instances or unforeseen dynamics in which my actions do not result in goodness, and if this happens frequently, others may question my character; but if I mitigate or correct and learn from my mistakes, this evolution may actually strengthen my character.) And by acting to create potential for good, I am saying that the creation of potential naturally replaces intention because it extends it by acting upon it, and, because the act of creation comes first, it supersedes the resulting circumstance, thus becoming purpose. I could stop here and find purpose in the act of creation.
3. But when I am the omphalos, I will not stop. I will continue by considering the significance of my existence in bringing about any resulting goodness, and suddenly, because I came first, my existence supersedes any act and becomes purpose. I could stop here and find purpose in my existence.
4. But if I believe there is a greater central fact, (be it Humanity or Nature or my God or another Universal), I will not stop. I will continue in this way back and back and back to the first creation, (whether I believe that to be Civilization or the Big Bang or God or a Stack of Turtles or …whatever), and because that First Miracle of Creation came first, it supersedes all else and becomes The Ultimate Purpose. This is disconcerting (for me) because if Purpose was fulfilled at that moment, where / how / why do I seek and/or find purpose. I could stop here, at this point in this scenario, and to avoid overwhelming feelings of futility, I could find purpose in the promise of an afterlife, or a legacy, or fame, or infamy or sometimes simply no hard feelings.

I am better to choose #2 because creation precedes, thus supersedes, existence. Without an act of creation there is no truth.

I cannot deny or ignore the centrality (i.e. distraction) of existence, and I am not disputing an Unmoved Mover or the validity of (in some way) being remembered. But I believe I personally will come closer to the truth of purpose by working (on my small scale) to emulate that first miracle of creation.

This leads me to a new thought consistent with an act of creation as omphalos. I frequently remark that Truth is an unattainable ideal. Perhaps I am actually referring to the truth of purpose because purpose will always be diluted by my existence. Because I cannot remove myself from the centrality of my self, I will never experience the purity of creation. My acts of creation will always be tied to their results and to my existence. The best I can do is to continue to find purpose in the act of creation, influence the expansiveness of my existence, and constantly remind myself that the act of creation (not that which has been created) is the omphalos.

Alternatively, those who find purpose in their existence will believe they have found a less diluted or (even) a pure truth in their existence and in the existence of other nouns, most especially those nouns they may attribute to their existence.

Essentially, to find purpose in an act of creation is to prompt or inspire continuous acts of creation, thus driving and/or urging one forward. Whereas, to find purpose in existence is to stop to admire successes and to justify failures, thus impeding productivity, contribution and progress.

I do believe that the act of creation is the omphalos and to find purpose in an act of creation is to come closer to truth (or Truth) than any other path to purpose. I can look at my 463 successive weeks of posting written thought as evidence that supports my belief. In these acts of creation, I have prompted and inspired more acts of creation, and in so doing, I have limited my opportunities to stop and admire, and, (due to lack of readership), I have not been tempted to justify my thought to others. Yes; I constantly assess and judge my thoughts and actions, and my thoughts do influence my reactions to others and guide my side of serious conversation, which all goes to character, but more importantly, this habitual creation translates to personal learning and growth enabling potential for progress. Yet, I understand as well that by presenting this evidence, I am also presenting evidence that I do consider myself the omphalos and to do so is unavoidable. I remain both yin and yang.

To go to sleep is good. In sleep, I forget; and/or I don't recognize it for what it is. It is reality; it is the thoughtlessness of we as a people, as a culture, as a nation; it is the sadness and the anger that wells up inside of me; it is the realization that the improvements many of us plan and hope for are baby steps, too little and perhaps too late.

…

Today I read news about skyrocketing evictions and increasing food insecurity. Today I touched instances of eviction and food insecurity, at arm's length, but still personal. The all-encompassing heartache and grief that accompanies this anxiety and suffering, even at arm's length; I feel like I am drowning. We could solve these problems, but we continue to insist that the rich get richer, and suffer less, and live longer. And we continue to insist that the poor are different, undeserving, lesser beings who have trapped their selves. And we continue to insist that misfortune and scarcity and oppression do not justify an uprising.

…

Today I read news about an immunocompromised Florida teen who contracted coronavirus and died after attending a large, maskless church party and after being given at least one dose of a drug championed by our president and denounced by the FDA. Her mother is a nurse; her father, a physician assistant. An education, a title, the ability to google, does not substitute for thoughtful uncertainty, careful consideration and a sincere desire to learn. The widespread ignorance perpetuated by today’s widespread refusal to admit ignorance; I feel like I am suffocating. I am ignorant in so many ways, of so many things, as we all are. Yet we continue to insist there is a right and there is a wrong. And we continue to insist that tradition justifies fatuity. And we continue to insist on fighting fire with fire.

…

Today I read news about controversy surrounding new rules taking away some protection for targeted poor people regarding payday or (the often-used synonym) predatory loans. The payday loan industry welcomes the changes in the midst of tens of millions of additional consumers now out of work due to the coronavirus. I am not out of work, but I am one of the working poor who now comprise, (according to some estimates), 50 to 60 percent of working households, living paycheck to paycheck, likely unable to come up with $1,000 for an emergency car repair. I have managed to reduce my high interest credit cards and loans to fewer than 10, but it has taken years. It confounds me how those who pay the most in interest and fees are those who can least afford it. I suppose I am fortunate that I have never needed a payday loan; only usurious credit cards that will outlive me. The different levels of financial distress and desperation and hopelessness translate for many (perhaps most) to personal feelings of distress and desperation and hopelessness and failure; some days I feel like I have been buried alive. Yet we continue to insist that financial and material goods define the person. And we continue to insist that taking advantage is marketing. And we continue to insist that poor and desperate is a consumer group, and 400% interest is a just punishment.

…

Today I read news about a supreme court decision in which 7 of the 9 justices interpreted that teachers at church-run schools are not protected from anti-discrimination laws because in their role they are religious leaders. Okay; perhaps I disagree with the lack of protection, (I definitely disagree with the lack of protection), but I can follow the reasoning. What I do not understand is that in the two cases presented, one had her teaching contract canceled because she had been diagnosed with breast cancer, and the other refused to retire after decades of teaching so her contract was simply not renewed. In the majority opinion, Justice Alito wrote “The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools… [and] …Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the 1st amendment does not tolerate.” Is there a commandment I missed about teaching into retirement age? And where in the bible do we find the verse about breast cancer and sin? I do understand the court's logic behind the decision, but for the church it appears to serve as a loophole allowing for a complete lack of accountability; and here I thought that’s what God is all about. The double standard coming from subjective interpretation and/or precedent and/or fine print and/or politics and/or who can afford a lawyer and/or who makes the rules and/or who decides who has to follow what rules and/or the way the wind is blowing, (Yes! That Double Standard!), is not a valid substitute for Wisdom and Goodness coming from a search for Truth; I frequently feel like I am literally tied in knots. Yet we continue to insist that every individual is equal under the law and that justice is just. And we continue to insist on piling laws upon regulations and agencies within departments and precepts protecting status and covenants breaking backs, all in an endless procession of incomprehensible bureaucracy. And we continue to insist that legal = ethical and not-caught or not-brought-to-justice or not-held accountable = not-guilty.

…

Today I read news about how more than 10,000 religious organizations have received at least $3 billion in coronavirus financial aid from our government, including wealthy televangelists accused of fraud, and advisers to president Trump. These loans are through the Small Business Administration, Paycheck Protection Program; (PPP). The highest loan amount category available for any organization, from this report, was those who received between 5 million and 10 million dollars; and of the 19 organizations who received this amount, 7 were religious organizations affiliated with the catholic church. These are secretive organizations that do not pay taxes, they do not have to reveal where they obtain their funding, and they are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. I understand that the spirit of the program is to keep workers from losing their jobs, but when only 60% of the funds must go to salaries for the loan to be forgiven, we could add a “P” and say Powerful Pretentious Piety Pays. I feel sick to my stomach. Yet we continue to insist that religious organizations are untouchable. And we continue to insist that the separation of church and state is a convenience to be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. And we continue to insist that God is on our side.

…

Today I read a story that contrasted written thought with written memory. If there were a device with which I could scroll back and see the reality of a memory, I am confident that I would find my memory faulty. To write down thoughts helps one to think and analyze, deconstruct and reconstruct, merge and flow, and seek (and perhaps glimpse) the unattainable Truth. But to dispute perceived reality (i.e. memory) with reality (i.e. written or recorded memory) creates conflict and divisiveness both within and without, and further establishes entrenchments and fortifications. There is no way to argue perceived reality without a written or recorded memory. And there is no way to argue that the written or recorded account is 100% objectively accurate unless it is seen and understood completely in context. And there is no way to understand a moment completely in context without considering perceived reality. So, there is no way to argue perceived reality without threatening the very essence of the moment within which an individual resides. And to destroy an individual’s moment is to threaten the very essence of the individual. And to consider my essence in the midst of conflicts and divisiveness and entrenchments and fortifications and written thought and memory and context, and perceived and unperceived reality, and a Truth that is unattainable, I feel like I am simultaneously lost at sea and lost in a massive desert, with no sign of land or water, but still with the will to survive. Yet we continue to insist that I am most important and we have all the answers and they are wrong. And we continue to insist that we are not lost and that this land is my land and that this water runs deep. And we continue to insist that the Truth is attainable and that my story is Truth.

…

I wake up every day to the underlying reality of oppression and ignorance and exploitation and double standards and disdainfulness and dogma and inflexibility and failure; sometimes close-to-the-bone, sometimes personal, sometimes hazy or distant, but always there. It is good to wake up. So many of us prefer sleepwalking through our days; imagining land, and water. Awake, I am at sea. Awake, I am in the desert. I see the thoughtlessness of we as a people, as a culture, as a nation; I feel the sadness and the anger that wells up inside of me; I realize that the improvements many of us plan and hope for are baby steps, too little and perhaps too late. There is a time for sleep. Not today. Today, it is time to wake up.

Last week, I stopped with – “I cannot undo what has been undone.” To review, I also said, “to do for oneself is to undo for others and to do for others one must undo for oneself.” And I said, “as an individual human I am incapable of unadulterated unselfishness.” So, I suppose that I am essentially saying because I am incapable of strictly undoing for myself, with the same being true of all other individuals, and because doing is purposeful and undoing is concomitant, all the influential undoing in the world is naturally meant for others, never for oneself, and every action begins in selfish doing and extends through selfish undoing, therefore it is impossible to undo human selfishness, thus oneself. As I also said last week, “if there is even a smidgen of selfishness, I am doing for myself, thus undoing for others.” Before acting or in the midst of acting, one may consider others and pull back to mitigate undoing; and after acting one may counteract or work to repair; but one cannot not undo and one cannot undo what has been undone.

Perhaps this effort to better understand this complexity is why in recent weeks in varying instances I have both given myself completely to my selfishness and worked to undo myself from myself. I have found that to immerse myself in me is straightforward and lacking in thoughtfulness and even consideration, but I see now, (as already inferred), that my efforts toward a semblance of unadulterated unselfishness are little more than a façade likely motivated by my desire to assuage my guilt; guilt created by the regret and blame that I believe in some form accompanies each and every act, (no matter how large or small), of doing for oneself; (on occasion, regret or blame mistakenly manifests as pride). Granted, my immersion is likely not genuine either in that it appears to be largely (if not wholly) comprised of physical comfort; and how can the body’s desires be selfish when they do not account for the heart or mind or SoulSpirit that is how most of us define and characterize the concept of me? Or is this consideration perhaps telling me the opposite of what I would prefer to think? That I am only the corporeal being and the basest of instincts, exactly as represented by my tangible self and my brain bent on survival, and that my concept of me is lofty and completely inaccurate.

After reading the paragraph above for a first and second time, my immediate thoughts were, “God Damn, that’s honest.” [and] “Insight.” Upon a third reading, I want to examine and account for regret and blame and their role in driving and/or being driven by the compassionate heart and the higher-minded mind and the peace-loving-god-fearing SoulSpirit. As implied, I want to consider the questions:

1. Is regret and/or blame the mother of my heart and my mind and my SoulSpirit? Or,
2. Is my heart and/or my mind and/or my SoulSpirit the mother of regret and blame? And,
3. Is there any question that my body and my base instincts are the father of it all?

Psychology Today says, “Regret is a negative cognitive or emotional state that involves blaming ourselves for a bad outcome, feeling a sense of loss or sorrow at what might have been, or wishing we could undo a previous choice that we made.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, “Cognitive theories of blame hold that blame is fundamentally a judgment or evaluation that we make about an agent in light of their actions, attitudes, or character.” Some theorists believe that to be blame, it must be accompanied by negative emotion, which is more consistent with the relationships introduced above. Regardless, there is a general consensus that negative emotions, properly moderated, are valuable. And as I connect these dots, it appears to be more logical that regret and blame spring from base instinct as a mechanism that works to justify undoing. Whether driving one to consider, pull back, mitigate, counteract, or repair, or obliging one to defend and excuse, it makes sense to me that regret and blame bridge the gap from instinct to compassion, multilayered thought, and a desire for peace.

It does not make sense that the heart, mind and/or SoulSpirit are driving, because if this were the case, there would be no need for regret or blame or forgiveness; there would be no need for anger; there would be less need for undoing; there would be less sadness, less divisiveness, less fear; and there would be less undoing. Best case scenario, the heart, the mind and/or the SoulSpirit are navigating from the passenger seat; but more often I believe they are securely belted in the back seat, or packed away in the trunk; and without regret or blame to on occasion acknowledge them, there they would stay, silent and unmoving.

On this fourth of July, our culture and our nation appears to be stirring from our comatose slumber in the back seat. I do not trust that we will not collectively yawn, adjust our positions and fall back asleep. In fact, I believe this likely. On this fourth of July, as an individual member of this culture and this nation, I am not proud to be an american.

There is no way to revoke instinct, survival, comfort, loftiness, and undoing. The best I can do is to acknowledge, consider and moderate regret and blame and their surrounding negative emotions, in order to move compassion, multilayered thought, and my desire for peace to the front seat. As previously said, I am seeing signs of life, but we are expending far too much effort in a losing battle against those who represent the corporeal being and the basest of instincts. Instead of working to eradicate, (which is likely futile), we must work to establish a direction and persuade the path.

From dictionary.com: “righteous - characterized by uprightness or morality; morally right or justifiable; acting in an upright or moral way; virtuous.” To be critical of righteousness is to risk giving an impression of moral superiority when that quality in others is exactly what I am criticizing. On the one hand, I am allowed to think and surmise, but on the other hand, I must acknowledge the possibility that I am wrong. It is a dilemma. To excoriate righteousness is to promulgate and perpetuate righteousness. But to allow the active realization and consequent justification of (what I perceive as) wrongs, with no comment, is to promulgate and perpetuate disparity and injustice regardless of if I am right or wrong or somewhere in between. One could wait for a consensus and join up. But how does a consensus come about if no one speaks up? This consensus method of change slows progress because it takes considerable effort to properly load the bandwagon. Yet, we find forward movement, (which is not always progress), difficult without a consensus. In this current era of divisiveness though, I believe consensus is moreso a vocal rather than an actual majority; I believe the bandwagon is improperly loaded with sheep and driven by wolves; and I believe that is how some factions are moving forward though progress is at (best at) a standstill; and I believe the imperious righteousness of these drivers is exactly what I am speaking out about; and I believe this scenario is equally present and active on both sides of our nation’s political aisle. But in today’s environment, how do I state an opinion and work toward progress without seeming righteous and without seeming to take sides?

A few weeks ago, I asked myself a similar question: How do I influence compassionately with urgency? These questions are similar in that in both efforts I am working to connect, not divide; and I am working to progress, not maintain any sort of status quo. A few weeks ago, I determined that there were simply some individuals and some factions so single-minded and so entrenched on their path that they are incapable of reason. Considering this parallel effort toward tempering imperious righteousness, I am likely to face this same unmoving mindset if I am perceived to be fighting righteousness with righteousness.

It is interesting that, (regardless of the frequent dead ends, continued isolation and brick walls), I continue to seek ways to convince others of the wisdom in uncertainty and reason and actual expertise and active hope. In this climate of clashing confrontation, it feels like

• no one wants to admit that they may be wrong and so no one is willing to listen;
• no one wants to admit that their concept of how things should be is selfish and likely a relic from a different place and time;
• no one wants to admit that they are only as necessary as any other random individual from any other random city, state, nation, or continent anywhere upon this random planet;
• and no one wants to believe that to do for oneself is to undo for others and to do for others one must undo for oneself.

I am often wrong. I am willing to listen. My concept of how things should be will always be (to some degree) selfish. I, on occasion, harken back to better times. I acknowledge the objective rationality of the impartiality of comparative necessity, but my actions tend to reflect my self-perceived importance and superiority. I, on occasion, purposefully undo for myself as a reminder; but it is difficult. All of these factors contribute to competing divisive hubris, and this collection of individual hubris will ultimately determine our fate as a species; and that is scary.

Many would argue that confidence is necessary and that days gone by really were better and that randomness does not apply to them or theirs and that one must first love and help their self before they are able to love and help others. I argue that when a belief is strong and/or entrenched, it becomes true; for that individual. So, in turn, widespread strong and/or entrenched belief creates some form of consensus and often leads to imperious righteousness. I argue that even the most benevolent, kind, generous and seemingly unselfish acts cannot be done for both oneself and for others. Yes, others may benefit from my selfish actions, (and I do not belittle this consideration or devalue its contribution), but if there is even a smidgen of selfishness, I am doing for myself, thus undoing for others. At this point, many would argue, (and I agree), I am essentially saying that as an individual human I am incapable of unadulterated unselfishness. The best I can actively hope for is valuable overflow contribution. Still, on occasion, I work to find a way to exclusively undo for myself as a reminder to add some undoing in my doing. This consideration of doing and undoing is a very fine distinction, but I believe it is an important one.

I am again come to a conclusion that some paths are so well-worn, they will forever be trod upon.

I cannot undo what has been undone.

In this age of animosity, this era of exaggerated ego, these dark days of divisiveness, I have to add fuel and ask: Is poker more luck or more skill? There is some debate on this. Of course, the cards themselves are simply luck of the draw as long as they are dealt fairly and from the same standard deck. The skill comes along in what a player does with the cards they are dealt. Odds can be calculated and strategies evolve.

But these decisions made are based on the object of the game as perceived by each player. If one player is playing for incremental wins and long-term security, their strategy will include more frequent folding and working to understand the psychology of the other players who have influence over their communal deck. If another player believes the object is winning the current hand, (Carpe Diem!), they will seldom fold a hand and likely not leave a game until they have no more chips. The first player settles, the second player dreams. These two players play from the same standard deck, but they are playing two essentially different games with multiple varying, (admittedly) sometimes overlapping strategies.

There are other players.

…players who are playing one or the other of these two basic games but are playing with different decks. Some are fortunate to be playing with fewer numbered cards replaced by additional face cards, aces and jokers. Others are forced to play only with even-numbered cards, few or no queens and aces, and only an occasional jack or king, with the missing cards replaced by blank cards of no value.

Many of those fortunate to be playing with loaded decks, and some of those forced to play with watered down decks, believe they are playing with the same standard deck as everyone else. After all, the usable cards everyone has in hand look the same. But of course, when dealt better cards odds are better you will win whichever game you are playing; and on/in the other hand, after being dealt so many blanks you learn to quickly discard them and move on.

Now I want to talk about dice. Using the same set of dice, I do not believe there is skill in determining the result of the roll. I believe that incorporating dice into a game that involves at least a degree of skill, in the long run, lessens the odds of winning; but it does make the game more interesting, perhaps more exciting, and likely levels the playing field. Yet only some players in the poker games above, are also required to roll dice that dictate various actions with their cards and further randomize the outcome, lessening their odds of winning by reducing their opportunities for learning applicable skills. Other players above, (frequently those playing with a loaded deck), are not required to roll dice. And those so inclined, can still point to their hand and claim they are playing with the same cards as everyone else.

I have never been a very successful poker player, usually because I want to win every hand. It is difficult for me to fold. I am a dreamer. Some characterize dreamers as unrealistic or even (more harshly as) stupid. I characterize those who characterize dreamers in this way as sheep. It all comes back to what game an individual player is playing. I work to play my game. Though I am also compelled to expend effort as a sheep, I still want to win every hand. I still seek as many possible best moments as I can conceive of, no matter the odds. I believe that wisdom comes from seeking an unattainable truth, and I believe the truth demands constant questioning and evolution, and I believe that justice comes from action, and I don’t believe that wisdom or justice are possible when one folds their cards and plays it safe and/or when some are playing from a different deck; and though I do believe ultimate truth unattainable, I also believe one will come closer with wisdom and justice. Deal the cards to everyone from the same standard deck, play the cards you are dealt to the very end, and everybody roll the damn die! This is not the game we play today, and likely not in my lifetime; but a boy can dream…

A few weeks ago, I was looking at two decks of playing cards, some poker chips, a standard set of die, and a set of role-playing die. I started experimenting. I have approximately ended with the game of Dicey Poker described below. It is interesting and unpredictable and works well as a solitaire game. I am looking forward to testing the multi-player, multi-deck games and allowing them to evolve as I have the solitaire version. It will never be perfect, but it is a start. And, as I have discovered in this week's written thought, it works as a mechanism within which one can provoke thought.

Dicey Poker

1 to 2 players use one deck including 2 Jokers. 3 to 4 players use one-and-one-half decks (made up of one full deck and the spades and hearts from a second deck) including 3 Jokers. 5 to 6 players use two decks including 4 Jokers. Jokers are placed face-up, to the side; decks are shuffled. Five Chips or Markers are given to each player.

For 2 to 6 players, cut deck to determine dealer.

Deal 10 cards to each player; (if playing solitaire, deal face-up in a row). Play starts to the left of the dealer and proceeds clockwise. A “round” is considered complete when each player has played a single turn, beginning with the player to the dealer’s immediate left and ending with the dealer.

In each turn:

1. When the hand begins, and until the player has five cards placed face up, the player’s turn will consist of two die rolls. He or she will roll the base die then the face die (in that order) and follow the instructions in the rules below for each die. If the player’s fifth card is placed face up with the roll of the base die in a player’s turn, the player does not roll the face die in that turn.
2. Once a player has five face up cards, beginning with their next turn and for the remainder of the hand, that player chooses which (of the 2) die to roll, (Base Die or Face Die), but must have a minimum of 3 base cards or 3 face cards in their hole hand to roll the respective die. For the remainder of the hand, the player can roll only one die per turn.
3. If a die roll matches a card in hand, that card is placed face-up, in front of player; or, in solitaire, in a separate row toward the center of the playing area. All Jokers are wild and immediately placed face-up. The player is required to place a matched card face-up, every time they match, until they have 5 face-up cards. If there is more than one card per roll in hand that matches, the player may choose which card, (i.e. suit) to play, but can only play one matched card per die roll.
4. After each die roll, if a card has been placed face-up and not swapped for an unchipped face up card, the player draws a card from the top of the draw pile to maintain exactly 10 in hand; or alternatively, if there was not a match, (i.e. a card has not been placed face-up and/or chipped), the player is required to discard (face up to the top of the discard pile) one card of choice from hand and draw the top card from the draw pile. If a card is matched and placed face-up, the player is not allowed to also discard.
5. Once a player has five cards face up, if he or she rolls a die and matches an in-hand card, one of the following must be done:
1. Swap the matching card in hand with one of the unchipped face up cards, return the former face up card to hand, and place a chip upon the new face up card; (do not discard and draw); or
2. Place a chip upon one face up card of player’s choice, discard the matching card from hand to discard pile, and draw one card from draw pile.
As stated in Rule #4 above, if a player (who has five face up cards) rolls a die and does not match a card, the player is required to discard and draw.
6. If the card matched and placed face-up is an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two, this triggers a wild challenge round. After the player who triggers the challenge has swapped cards or draws a card to complete their die roll, the round is paused and that player begins the challenge according to the Wild Die and Wild Challenge rules below. This challenge does not count as any player’s turn. Once the challenge is complete, play resumes where it was paused.
7. Each player’s die roll and each player’s turn, (including wild challenge turns), should end with no more than 5 cards face-up and exactly 10 cards in hand.
8. Once a card is chipped, (i.e. a player places a chip on a face up card), that card cannot be swapped for any other card except a Joker. Face up Jokers are chipped immediately, (even if player has fewer than 5 face up cards), and cannot be swapped for any card; even another Joker.
9. When a player has chipped all 5 face up cards, that player will continue to choose a die according to the rules, roll and discard the matching card first, or (if there is no matching card) one card of their choice to the discard pile, and draw one card from the draw pile, working to improve their hole hand. That player will also participate in all wild challenges according to the rules. Remember: A Matching Card Must Always Go Out of Player’s Hand to the Face Up Row or to the Discard Pile. To ensure this code of honor, house rules may dictate all players’ hole cards face up.
10. Wild Challenges are not allowed in the final two rounds of play.
11. If necessary, the discard pile may be shuffled to create a new draw pile.
12. Once all players reach 5 chipped face-up cards, play continues clockwise until two complete additional rounds (ending with the dealer) have been played.
13. When these final two rounds are completed, the hand is over.
14. Each player will have 5 face-up cards and 10 cards in hand. Each player discards 5 cards from their hand leaving two hands, (one face-up and one in hand) per player for scoring. The scoring table is at the end of these instructions. The face-up hand is worth twice as much as an equivalent hole hand.
15. If the game is not finished, the deal for the next hand moves clockwise to the left.
16. For Game Flow Clarification:
    1. If a player has fewer than five cards face up, the player, (according to the rules), rolls two die per turn.
    2. If a player has fewer than five cards face up, the in-hand matching card must go face up.
    3. Once a player has five cards face up, the player rolls one die (of choice, according to the rules), per turn.
    4. Once a player has five cards face up, the in-hand matching card must either go face up, (i.e. swapped with an unchipped face up card), or it must go to the discard pile.
    5. Once a player has five cards face up, every matching die roll requires a card to be chipped.
    6. Once a player has chipped all five face up cards, the only change that can be made to face up hand is (according to the rules) the addition of a Joker replacing a chipped card.

    ---

    Base Die - 10 sided:

    • 1 = Ace
    • 2 = 2
    • 3 = 3
    • 4 = 4
    • 5 = 5
    • 6 = 6
    • 7 = 7
    • 8 = 8
    • 9 = 9
    • 0 or 10 = 10

    ---

    Face Die - 6 sided:

    • 1 = Red Jack
    • 2 = Black Jack
    • 3 = Red Queen
    • 4 = Black Queen
    • 5 = Red King
    • 6 = Black King

    ---

    Wild Challenge Die - 10 sided % die; (00 = 0%). Wild Challenge Rules:

    • Wild Challenges are not allowed in the final two rounds of play.
    • In multi-player games of 3 to 6 players, a player who has two Jokers must participate in all Wild Challenge rounds, but if a player who has two Jokers wins the challenge, that player is not allowed to roll the wild die. No player may have more than two Jokers at any time.
    • The player who triggered the challenge (considered the challenger), rolls first. The challenger may roll between one and infinite number of rolls to get as close to 100% as they can without going over. Any player who goes over 100%, loses the challenge.
    • If the challenger goes over, next player to the left must roll a minimum of two times.
    • If player 2 also goes over, next player to the left must roll a minimum of two times; and etc.
    • If all players go over, all players lose; no one rolls wild die.
    • But if the challenger or any other player in turn does not go over, each successive player may roll between one and infinite number of rolls to get as close to 100% as they can to beat or tie the challenger or the other player or players.
    • If there is a tie for rolls closest to 100% without going over, all players lose, and no one rolls the wild die.
    • In solitaire, the player must accumulate 70, 80, 90 or 100 percent to roll the wild die.
    • After all players have rolled the challenge die accordingly, if one player is closer to 100% than any other player, without going over, (or if the solitaire player accumulates 70% – 100%), that player wins the challenge, rolls the wild die (unless they already have two Jokers), and may (or may not) receive a Joker according to wild die rules. If a player wins a challenge, rolls the wild die, receives a Joker, and does not yet have 5 face-up cards, the Joker is placed face up and chipped. If a player wins a challenge, rolls the wild die, receives a Joker, and already has 5 face-up cards, 1 face-up card of player's choice (chipped or not) must be returned to the player’s hand and a hole card (of player’s choice) discarded to the discard pile to maintain no more than 5 face-up cards and exactly 10 cards in hand. All Jokers must be placed face-up with an immediate chip; Jokers are not allowed in-hand.
    • If all Jokers (two, three or four) have been claimed, an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two, triggers nothing.

    ---

    Wild Die - 4 sided:

    • Requires a Wild Challenge that is triggered with the face up placement of an Ace, a one-eyed Jack, the suicide King, or a Two; (see Rule #6 above)
    • Winner of Wild Challenge gets to roll wild die (one roll only) for a Joker.
    • In 1 to 2 player games, playing with one deck:
    • First Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 1 or 2.
    • Second Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 3 or 4.
    • In Multi-player games of 3 to 6 players, playing with one-and-a-half or two decks:
    • First Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 1.
    • Second Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 2.
    • Third Joker to be claimed requires a roll of 3.
    • In a 3 or 4 player game, if the winner of the wild challenge rolls a 4, that player may claim the first, second or third Joker.
    • Fourth Joker to be claimed (in a 5 or 6 player game) requires a roll of 4.
    • When a Joker is claimed, it must be placed face up and immediately chipped.

    ---

    Scoring:

    SCORING TABLE
    HAND	FACE-UP	HOLE
    Five of a Kind	66	33
    Royal Flush	60	30
    Straight Flush	50	25
    Four of a Kind	40	20
    Full House	30	15
    Flush	24	12
    Straight	18	9
    Three of a Kind	12	6
    Two Pair	8	4
    One Pair	6	3
    No Pair / Ace High	4	2
    No Pair / No Ace	2	1
    Each Joker	4	NA
    Each Ace	3	0
    Each Face Card	2	0
    Each Base Card (2-10)	1	0

    After totaling scores, if one or more players have reached 150 (or other agreed upon score), the game ends; highest score wins.