Posts by Walter Foster87

KDE said:... that if things had gone his way, we'd all be vacationing on the coast of Italy right now.

Are you talking about the "guest worker" vibe, or more like a servant class?

violent_femmes9 said:... look, if you're giving up that easily, it’s probably no surprise you're a bit out of the loop ...

Now you can just imagine my struggle—me, scrolling through those endless websites trying to find anything useful about kidney beans.

Does anyone actually have any info on them from old American folk remedies or maybe some herbalist traditions!?

rustymoose54 said:Trust me, those latest research findings probably won't mean much to you 🙂

Here’s what I found:

www.diabetes.org

www.diabetes123.com

www.diabetes.gov

And this one
is super helpful!

The local sites are fine, I guess—but those American ones can be a bit annoying, mostly because they use inches for length and pounds for weight.

rustymoose54 said:You can easily find the basic facts about diabetes online...

Thanks for those details! I don't have diabetes (yet!), but there is one thing I really feel the need to mention.

People who haven't dealt with it—well, they've never actually had a real encounter with the illness. And for people who just started their journey? They're often so overwhelmed that it takes them a long, long time to finally "connect the dots."

I mean, when you're getting advice from everyone—friends, doctors, even holistic enthusiasts—it’s easy for someone in the middle of that nightmare to just grab onto whatever catches their eye (whatever sounds good or feels right at the moment...).

So, during that initial period, I guess there's a real lack of systematic information for almost any condition—something that provides life-saving essentials and stays easy to access indefinitely.

I'll probably try searching on Google, but if a site like that doesn't exist—one with basic tips, explanations of what's actually happening, links to actual studies, and stuff like that—then someone really should build it!

rustymoose54 said:If you’re actually going to start a new thread, maybe try doing a little bit of homework first—just a thought! 😉

So, what do you think was my motivation for starting this thread? I guess I figured maybe it might be a little easier for others to track down some volunteers—for me, anyway, it’s been feeling like a bit of an uphill battle!

rustymoose54 said:With Type 2, you can definitely see some improvement in your blood sugar levels by trying those "natural" supplements—though, I guess if we're being honest, most people find that they get much better results just by sticking to the basics! Weight loss—it’s such a huge topic, isn't it? I feel like everyone is constantly talking about it lately! It can be so overwhelming to navigate all the different diets and trends popping up everywhere—honestly, it feels like there's a new "miracle cure" every single week. I guess it really just comes down to finding what works for your own body and lifestyle, though that's easier said than done, right? Maybe the key is just staying consistent—even if it's small steps—rather than trying to change everything overnight. It's definitely a journey! 😁 And, of course, it’s all done in close coordination with a diabetologist—someone who actually takes the time to tweak the treatment plan specifically for each patient as they go!

First time staying quiet—thanks on behalf of all my friends!

rustymoose54 said:So—I mean, look, all those fancy magic beans and "miracle" tonics people talk about might nudge your blood sugar levels here and there, but let's be real—it's pretty unlikely they’re actually going to cure someone's diabetes. On the flip side, it's also super hard to gauge exactly *how much* a certain dose of some natural remedy will actually drop your glucose levels, you know? Honestly, I just don't really see the point in adding these kinds of "cures" to the mix!

Ah, exactly! That’s the REAL reason I started this thread—and honestly, that's pretty much what I was hoping we'd dive into!

coppercrane89 said:I’ve heard about the cinnamon thing too—and apparently the yogurt with coconut flour on an empty stomach in the morning.
As for that specific bean... I honestly have no clue.

Oh man, things are getting absolutely wild over here because of it! It all kicked off after some segment on a Global Warming show where this herbalist guy started raving about a specific type of kidney bean.

It’s crazy—this stuff has been sitting on shelves for decades for maybe $12 to $15 a pound (it was even up to $20 back in the early days!), but suddenly this fall—starting around October—and through the winter, it’s been traveling all over the place from San Francisco stories.
In San Francisco (and I checked!), prices hit as much as $150 per pound, and there were even rumors of it reaching $67 per pound! Most of the buyers were either folks from New York or resellers targeting those areas.

Then the myths started flying—people claiming that only the beans grown right around San Francisco actually have any healing properties.

There are even old wives' tales going around saying you shouldn't eat too much of it at once, or you'll just crash out—like your blood sugar will plummet or something.

Regarding that specific "treatment" regimen, people say you have to roast the beans first (kind of like coffee) and then lightly crack them—since they're way too hard for a grinder—before boiling them. Apparently, the sweet spot is one small cup a day, maybe two if you're feeling ambitious.

Part of the legend is that it doesn't even work for people who are already on insulin.

I really don't know what's true, to be honest, but I do know that San Francisco is currently flooded with kidney beans imported from Italy. And even though everyone knows those aren't supposedly "medicinal"—they've been treated with pesticides and they all have this weirdly uniform "poop" color (the local ones are way more colorful, with all these black, white, brown, and greenish beans)—people are still buying them in massive quantities for anywhere from $80 to $33 a pound.

Alright sweeties—let's talk about the truth behind kidney beans (specifically their supposed medicinal benefits). Has anyone actually tried them? I'm curious to hear what kind of results you all got...

Is it actually true that they only work if they're grown in the San Francisco area?
...
Basically, tell me everything you know about this.

By the way, this whole thing just blew up this year—it's probably just someone's weird prank, honestly. Every single supply sold out back in December, so right now, all you can find is some substitute imported from Italy.

dustyscout53 said:Then they just switched over to the Republican Party and kept right on looting.

I mean, that’s really only about a third of the "truth"—the other third is sitting right there in the Democratic Party, and then you’ve still got the rest spread across the Libertarian Party, the Progressive Party, the Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party...

crimsonorca86 said:Seriously, after ten years in power, they haven't managed to uncover a single criminal, let alone actually punish them.

Wait, what do you mean ten!? I think we’re looking at closer to two decades—or maybe even more than fifteen years of this!

Michael Sullivan3 said:... But seriously, what are we going to do about those criminals hiding in the ranks of the resistance? If we could just round up a dozen of them and ship them off to The Hague, maybe they'd finally give Gotovina a break.

Man, you guys are worse than the old working class—all talk and no action!

obelix said:[ ... Basically, from an ethical standpoint, you should never—well, you really shouldn't—treat another person merely as a means to reach some other goal, benefit, ideal, or interest, but rather as an end in itself. A person has to remain, and actually be, the purpose of one's actions. You should always bring up Immanuel Kant in essays like these—I mean, he spent so much time on these exact questions! His way of putting it would be: "Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always as an end and never merely as a means.

Yeah, totally. But I guess it’s almost impossible to do anything, take action, or even just live life without eventually treating someone else as a tool to get somewhere—whether it's for a personal, specific, or general goal.
That’s why the whole foundation of that kind of ethics rests on the EQUALITY OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS.
The catch, though, is that Kant himself—given that equality involves everyone having equal power to use public force against one another to protect their interests—is probably a bit too far removed from the kind of community we see among all American citizens today.
So, when you're talking to American professors, maybe just be careful about how often you lean on Kant.

Besides, for those same reasons, even old Aristotle talks about how ruling and being ruled should alternate for individuals—sort of to keep things fresh and achieve a sense of reparation.

obelix said:2. The purpose of a principle? Just use a general definition...

Well, why not just accept the purpose of a principle more simply—maybe by seeing it as the LAW, or the relationship that forms between different principles?

obelix said:... For instance, in political ethics (and honestly, in pretty much any kind of ethics), a principle is that any accusation against someone needs proper evidence. Another principle is that everyone should refrain as much as possible from slander—you know, making accusations without proof. ...

Then the purpose of a principle would again be the QUALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP between those subjects—except this time, we aren't looking at principles as the parties in the relationship, but rather as the LIMITS of that relationship. It almost seems like in this case, we're talking about principles of principles—basically NORMATIVES that a principle (the subject) has to satisfy to achieve its purpose (which is the relationship with another similar principle).

Edward Green said:... I have to tackle the moral sphere, which is basically ...

It honestly feels like your assignment doesn't actually touch on morality at all—it’s just empty moralizing.
And if ethics is teaching us "morality" through weaving... well, we're in trouble!

Edward Green said:... and I've been so sleep-deprived lately that I'm just craving basic survival needs—I don't even have the energy to think about morality.

I guess that's really just a question of being sleep-deprived! But more than that, it's about having the guts to structure your work by basing morality on Reason and then on Intellect—and then, you know, pitting those different results against each other to challenge the whole concept of morality itself.
Maybe you could show the professor how dual subjects exist—since everyone is both Rational and Intellectual—and talk about dual agents or dual patients... you know, making it all look incredibly over-complicated and overly moralistic!

ironbadger31 said:So, basically, these concepts started crystallizing right along with the rise of what we call animal ethics... I mean, think about it—what happens then to people with severe cognitive disabilities, little kids, elderly folks who can't care for themselves, or even animals? (Nowadays, fighting for animal rights is pretty much everywhere—you've got vegetarianism and all that sort of thing).

That’s actually why terms like "moral agent" and "moral patient" were introduced—it was actually the philosopher Tom Regan who brought them in. A moral agent is, say, any conscious human being—me, you, or just your average person walking down the street—basically anyone who has the capacity to make their own moral judgments or assessments and then act on them.

Moral patients, on the other hand, are those individuals who lack that specific ability—you know, the capacity to act morally or judge the actions of others but they still have the capacity to "experience" or be affected by the moral judgments of someone else. We're talking about things like young children, some people with disabilities, and yes, animals too.

...

In other words, it's kind of like a moral retrospective—sort of projecting our own traits onto something else.
Because, if you think about it, a table could end up becoming a moral subject too...

Walter Foster87 said:So, with that in mind, I decided to go ahead and kick off this whole new thread—it’s been sitting in my head for a bit! —and I wanted to dive straight into the deep end... WHERE ARE WE ACTUALLY HEADED WITH SCIENCE, PHILOSOPHY, AND RELIGION?

I’ve had a chance to look over the rest of the text, and honestly—this is what I’m thinking. It’s pretty clear that just having basic, everyday knowledge isn't really enough for us humans. Since the dawn of time, people have been haunted by these massive, fundamental questions—you know, the ones where you either can't find a straight answer, or if you do, they feel totally "elusive"—or maybe all the arguments out there are just pure speculation. I guess it's just part of being human!
That would definitely make for an interesting post—but honestly, it feels a bit too broad, doesn't it? I guess there's also a real risk that people might just skim right over it without really believing what they're reading. It seems like most folks wouldn't even bother to read the whole thing, let alone actually jump in and join the conversation!
I feel like before anyone dives into a big discussion like this, we should probably establish some sort of baseline—you know, maybe touch on some fundamental ideas from religion, philosophy, or even science first? It might help set the stage!
If we look at how faith splits—kind of like that synthetic division where you get two non-polarities—you see how both religions and atheism start to diversify. It’s all happening! Even within what seems like one monolithic religious group—take Catholics, for example—there's this constant, simmering tension going on. You have one group that still sees God as this figure riding over armies, another group searching for God within the human experience itself, and then there are those who place Him entirely outside the Big Bang—or maybe just tucked away within His own dimensions. It's pretty wild when you think about it!
Man, once you actually go out there and try to define faith—or even just a specific slice of it like organized religion—you’re basically signing up for a lifetime of arguments! You'll have your hands full dealing with all the skeptics and critics, I guess. It's definitely going to be a lot of work!
That’s exactly what’s going to happen to you when you dive into philosophy—it's inevitable! I mean, people can never quite agree on why we even bother with it. Some say it's all about chasing wisdom, others argue it's strictly about uncovering the truth, and then there's the group that thinks it's really about the human element—you know, because without some level of certainty regarding reality, or even just a bit of practical wisdom, it’s basically impossible to act rationally in the real world. It's a bit of a toss-up, I guess!
I mean, before we dive headfirst into that, maybe we should probably try to pin down exactly what we mean by faith, religion, atheism, or pantheism—and honestly, the same goes for philosophy, metaphysics, ideology, and theology... I guess? Once we have those definitions sorted out, then we can look at whether we see similar kinds of branching paths within science itself. Only after all that, then maybe we could move on to the specific post you're suggesting!

Walter Foster87 said:So, I was reading up on Pythagoras—who spent some time traveling through Egypt and the Middle East—and he actually came up with these fascinating ideas! He basically suggested that everything out there in the universe, you know, like all those elements of matter, the laws of physics, and various forms of energy, is somehow perfectly optimized at a micro-level within the human body itself. It’s wild to think about, but Pythagoras and his contemporaries really believed that everything existing in the vast cosmos also exists right here within us... what a cool way to look at things!

It’s a great starting point, really—but maybe a little narrow when you look at the whole scope of the natural world? It’s actually pretty interesting how that same parallel pops up when you try to bridge the physical world with abstract concepts. I mean, think about it—we only really grasp what's around us through our own senses and mental faculties. Because of that, I guess we're kind of stuck; we can't really find anything "beyond" what our senses and abilities allow us to perceive. Sure, we can definitely boost our sensory reach with cool tech and gadgets—kind of like how a telescope changes things—but when it comes to our actual cognitive abilities (especially our reason and intellect), there isn't really an external fix for those inherent limits. So, no matter where we wander or how far we go—I'd say a person won't find anything in the entire universe that they couldn't eventually discover within themselves!

Walter Foster87 said:I honestly think that perspectives like this—and plenty of others just like it—really show that we don't have to view the debate between theism and atheism, or idealism versus materialism, as this big, polarized, "us vs. them" battle. There’s actually a much more constructive way to look at it! To me, that second path is really about recognizing the fundamental connection between humanity and God—which, if you think about it, is basically the core message of the Bible through Jesus. It’s almost like that message has been there since the very beginning, and maybe—if I'm being honest—what we're seeing today is just science finally catching up to those ancient religious ideas.

So, that would be the intro for a new thread. What do you guys think?....

Maybe an alternative approach would be to just ask it straight out: DO YOU KNOW WHAT NON-POLAR FAITH IS? (Or maybe: ARE THERE ONE OR MORE NON-POLAR FAITHS!?)
Then, as people start joining the conversation, I could gradually introduce the core idea—you know, the connection between Humanity and God, or how theism and atheism overlap... essentially "pushing" this concept while defending it—to help develop a sense of tolerance and peace. To me, those values aren't destroying polarity, they’re actually making it harmless by embracing it.

Walter Foster87 said:… ………….Instead of seeing the "old society" fading away, I see the rise of a NEW INTEGRATED HUMAN SOCIETY where a person can be either a PARTNER or a SERVANT. It doesn't really matter which one someone chooses. In this new society, the SERVANT LIVES AS GOD, or perhaps ALL GODS LIVE AS SERVANTS! If you think that's just some utopia, you're mistaken! ….

If you're thinking along the lines of "Let neither the first be too certain, nor the last be discouraged!"—well, that still feels like just a society of equal opportunity (for everyone), which is a goal people have been chasing since the beginning of time.

Walter Foster87 said:… ………….Here, look at… human society TODAY:
… in news reports from Baghdad, they showed a man who was severely wounded, saying, "No great wound can hurt me, because I am a warrior for Allah." … First off, we have to recognize that this is a massive phenomenon shaking the world—nations, cities, our own homes—spreading fear through terror and death. If we view this modern phenomenon as a sign of "GLOBAL DEATH"—which is what we now call "GLOBAL TERRORISM"—and look at it through the lens of a macrocosmic Being—the Homoterus, or God—then it becomes easy to see that people have always died in the name of this great cosmic master. It used to be offered as a sacrifice to God, and later as war fought for God, which today is simply labeled as fighting in the name of Allah.
If all the religious warriors in the world, including these Islamic ones, truly understood that the master they fight for—whether called God or Allah—actually exists as HUMANITY at its evolutionary peak, they would never kill in His name. Why? Because HE is, as it turns out, truly IMMORTAL in a unified state, which means all His components—people and cells alike—are immortal too. Trying to kill an immortal human is just total nonsense by a foolish person! ….

And you can see a similar pattern elsewhere. Terrorism is often just used to justify oligarchic rule and the tyranny of the majority. Nothing keeps them in power quite like creating a challenge that makes the public tremble at the thought of instability or change, forcing everyone to pour all their energy into "dealing" with terrorism. Meanwhile, global terrorism just paves the way for a global oligarchy and tyranny. Honestly, it’s pretty pathetic when you consider that the "warrior for Allah" is actually fighting for the glory, greatness, and longevity of the America and the G7 as they exist today. Both sides are basically working toward the same goal—there's no doubt about that. But the real issue isn't just whether America might encourage or orchestrate global terrorism—though, if you think about it, they probably would if it didn't already exist (just look at all those movies and sci-fi novels where this kind of terrorism is always looming). The real question is: would the world move faster toward its ultimate goal without these conflicts, or would it get stuck in some long, drawn-out "peaceful stalemate"?

hollowpilot9 said:You know, I honestly feel like—no matter how "irrational" it might seem to some people—that man really is the center of the universe! I guess it just feels right, you know? Maybe it sounds a bit much, but there's just something about it!

Is the center really this Pythagorean "little God"? I mean—it could have definitely gone a different way! Human consciousness tends to be pretty egocentric, doesn't it? It’s almost like that old saying—"When I die, the whole world dies with me!"—which I guess is just how we're wired.

hollowpilot9 said:I don't know—maybe I’m overthinking it—but I really can't get behind the idea that one's ability to act (or move, I guess?) is based on mere whim. To me, it feels like it has to be rooted in evolutionary necessity—you know, that sense of LOGOS...

Look, there’s a difference between external circumstances—you know, those little constraints that make a person feel "unfree"—and the actual essence of freedom. To me, the real deal is equality in action! Think about it this way: if some wild animal blocks my path, I’m not going to blame that on tyranny or claim someone is usurping my liberty—I mean, I wouldn't get mad at a mountain just because it's standing in my way, right? But—and this is the big part—all those people who are allowed to do things that I am strictly forbidden from doing? Well, I *will* view them as tyrants, usurpers, or even "demigods." If we're talking about that interpersonal freedom—that raw power to act that no other human can restrict—then unless that power is balanced by everyone else being equally restricted, it isn't really freedom. In my opinion, that balance is the only kind of freedom that has actually mattered since the beginning of time!

hollowpilot9 said:Honestly, I’m way more interested in Phenomenology! I’m talking about that truly UNIVERSAL stuff—if such a thing even exists, though I really, really think it does!

Phenomenology—if you want to get technical about it—is really just a tapestry woven from mediation, those weird little unexpected turns, and all those "dark and honorable corners of ignorance" that act like protective filters for the light of Truth.

hollowpilot9 said:Back in the day, folks believed that mastering Euclidean Geometry, music, and astronomy was basically a prerequisite if you wanted a real, rational grasp of God, man, or Nature—it was just that essential! I guess you couldn't exactly follow Pythagoras around as a disciple unless you already had a pretty solid handle on those sciences. It was kind of a "know your stuff first" kind of situation!
It looks like he was really striving to find a rational way to understand God, man, and Nature—even though modern scientific tools seem to claim that’s impossible nowadays?! I don't know why that is... maybe we've just lost our way?

Maybe—and I mean this is just a thought—they've lost their way and are looking in all the wrong places. What if they’re actually just chasing a "shadow"? It feels like they might be searching for some kind of external reflection of themselves instead!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s pretty wild when you think about it—it really shows how God moves in circles, right? Like, His very essence is woven from light, and His nature is built entirely out of Truth. I guess we see similar ideas popping up in various religious traditions too!

Circular motion always seemed like such a fitting concept—mostly because it feels totally infinite, right? But then you get to the part where anything that actually moves is technically changing, which kind of creates this weird contradiction. I guess that leads to the question: wouldn't it make more sense for God to just be in a state of total stillness instead? Then there’s the whole idea of light—it could represent the gap between mere knowledge (which is like the darkness) and true understanding (the light), or maybe it just symbolizes pure, absolute Truth. And since Truth is basically the prerequisite for acting rationally and making free choices... well, I suppose we're really talking about assumed attributes here. In my view, quality is simply how much these attributes resemble Him—without any need to worry about cultural differences or how isolated different groups might feel!

hollowpilot9 said:… From this text, you can see that God is imagined as a Great Man—as a macrocosmic being—while man is a little God. Following this analogy, man is logically equal to a small universe, while the universe is equal to a large universe that is structured just like that small one. Pre-religious pagan views held that there is a constant correlation between the macrocosm and the microcosm—that is, between God and man.…

Then there’s Hobbes's "Leviathan"—so, I guess the universe isn't the only Great Man out there! However, it seems to have become common practice to view the Totality (where God is this entire world—which means I'm actually missing from His fullness of existence!) as the foundation of pantheism.
Personally, though, that doesn't really feel like the heart of the matter to me. I'm not disputing the intelligence found in nature, but—what really worries me, and what I tend to focus on—is man and human society. And I don't mean that for the sake of Truth or some lofty ideals or higher interests—no, it's exclusively for the sake of man. Because, I mean, even Truth doesn't exist for its own sake, right? It exists for the sake of the "perfected" (the whole, complete...) man.

Walter Foster87 said:I could have gone with "what, what," but honestly—either way you slice it—it just proves that repetition might be the mother of memorizing facts, but it’s definitely not the mother of intelligence or true innovation!

That’s why she’s the "mother" of our whole society—really! Because, unlike some animals that just go through the motions, humans actually *have* to repeat things—it's almost a necessity—if we ever want to break through those mental barriers and truly jumpstart actual understanding. And honestly, without that cycle, you wouldn't even have those "top one or two percent" individuals who step up for the sake of others—which then, I guess, inspires everyone else to do the same!

Walter Foster87 said:That’s why I truly believe that mastering universal branding is an absolute necessity for anyone who values their freedom—it's just one of those things!

That kind of understanding—it would almost certainly lead us through a deep observation and study of the branding we all carry within ourselves. But how do we actually grasp it? Is it through reason? Well, if you think about it, reason isn't exactly something that "gets" the Branding itself—not really. It only catches on when it realizes it’s picking up these new, abstract principles to guide its own actions. And I guess it’s only because human reason is capable of accepting these "seemingly good" ideas as being more important than the smaller ones we already hold onto. Then there's the whole matter of how we relate to one another. I wonder, though—how many people actually realize that reason isn't what creates those human connections? How many people truly sense that there might be some "higher" presence behind it all?...
Branding feels like—well, at its absolute best—the core driving force and ultimate goal of our entire civilization! Or, if you’re more the type to look at it that way, maybe it's just this massive collection of assets from which we can always pull something totally fresh—or at least an innovation that’s slightly better than whatever we already squeezed out of it before.
It’s kind of a bummer to think about, isn't it? I guess you could say that branding is really just this driving force—this constant push toward some kind of ultimate perfection. But the thing is, that perfection is always moving, right? It’s always just out of reach because there’s always something better waiting around the corner—it’s almost infinite like that! So, maybe we can’t truly wrap our heads around it using just pure logic... it’s hard to actually grasp how all those little innovations and creative breakthroughs work. It feels a bit like being pulled along by a carrot on a stick—you know, like a donkey chasing its own tail—where one single clever invention ends up pulling us even deeper into the complex web of how we all relate to one another. It's pretty wild when you think about it!
It’s actually quite a small thing when you break it down—just a handful of core pillars! We're talking about mediation (or maybe just plain old wisdom?), goodness, the sheer power to conjure up abstract ideas that don't really exist in the physical world, and that ability to guide us toward the kinds of connections shared by intelligent beings—all applied in service of those specific qualities. I guess that pretty much sums up everything we know about the Logos!

How much of this can actually lead us toward some kind of universal Branding—you know, that true "Thought of thought"—without just spiraling into a bunch of empty, pointless overthinking? I guess it’s a fine line to walk!

Walter Foster87 said:... as long as we're still letting ideology, special interests, or this whole "clash of opposites" mindset run the show, true FREEDOM is basically just a pipe dream — I mean, maybe it's more like an unreachable utopia, right? ...

So, it all comes down to "branding." When an ideology is driven by a central idea—one that’s always been obsessed with finding some ultimate truth—it tries to bend the entire world toward a single, absolute principle. People usually end up twisting that around to make it look like a complete assault on common sense! It's essentially the same thing as the "branding" you see in politics or business—where everything just boils down to competing interests clashing against one another.

So, when we start talking about HUMAN FREEDOM—and we always seem to go there—it feels like we’re totally ignoring the freedom of animals or even the movement of inanimate objects. It’s kind of an abstraction, isn't it? I mean, humans aren't really the center of the universe, and we can't exactly base our ability to act—or just move around—on pure, unchecked whim. Sure, people try to do that, and some might even get away with it occasionally—but honestly, NOBODY ever truly lives without limits. To put it more simply, I think true freedom is found within JUSTICE, whereas a lack of freedom comes from the UNJUST USE OF FORCE. Whether you look at it before the fact or after it happens, freedom is always conditional—it's inherently limited by the freedom of everyone else around us.
I guess you could say one kind of freedom doesn't really exist without its opposite—you can't have liberty without the threat of oppression hanging over it, right? And since we'll probably never reach some perfect, flawless equilibrium, when we talk about being free, what we’re actually talking about is having the *possibility* of freedom—something achievable and sufficient for our needs.
If we aren't capable of organizing how society produces things without someone being exploited or stepped on—whether it's hidden or totally out in the open—then I suppose we just accept it as an unavoidable reality. But, if we even just *think* there's a way to wipe out that shame or at least dial it back, then we’re going to start moving toward FREEDOM (or, looking at it from the other side, toward dismantling tyranny). It feels even more urgent when you realize that ONLY the system itself keeps forcing that necessity upon us—keeping us stuck in the mud instead of letting us alternate with those TYRANTS—which is so much better for society! Our reason naturally rebels against such an unnatural setup, because ONLY A REGIME CREATED BY THE SKILL OF A RULER—not our own nature, and certainly not some "divinely ordained status quo"—aims to PRESERVE THAT UNTOUCHABLE LACK OF FREEDOM.

Only then—once the social order is finally aligned with the Leviathan—would I be ready to dive into the broader meaning of freedom, or even discuss the idea of it being pulled away entirely into some abstract concept. Until then, I honestly think those kinds of debates are just interesting little excursions, sort of intellectual exercises... and maybe even more than that—they're just distractions used by rulers who benefit from keeping people as subjects, ensuring everyone keeps their entire sense of liberty tucked away IN THEIR IMAGINATION AND FANTASIES.

hollowpilot9 said:So, if we’re going by that logic—where "Bljak" is just "Bljak"—then I guess the ultimate "Bljak" ecstasy would be that moment of total union when a "Bljak Man" is finally created? Maybe? Just following your lead there!

On the flip side—and I really think this—Bljak is actually about every single instance where we recreate or diminish what it means to be "human." See, when it comes to humanity, that whole sense of "unified ecstasy" happened thousands of years before our time—but instead, I guess we just chose the path of least resistance: sticking to the safety, the familiar, and the cozy little comforts of being "human."
I mean, seriously—no matter how much the world tries to balance itself out on polarities, or how many times people rephrase things and try with all their might to stay "unpolarized"—it just doesn't work that way. Killers and warriors aren't the kind of polarity that true humanity and our shared essence actually rest upon. Honestly, I think those types of polarities are just where half-humans and sub-human behaviors exist. That’s why I feel like forgiveness and making peace with those who once abandoned humanity—you know, the ones who thought they could gain an edge over others through weapons and sheer inhumanity—is really just a state of "ecstasy through RENEWED HUMANITY." It's about coming back to ourselves, I guess!
Tim, I just wanted to show you an example of how "polarization" could actually be non-polarized—I guess you could look at it like this: imagine if we reached an agreement with those folks who want to set up a "protected national park" where people can go ahead and make as much noise as they want—you know, just let loose and have a blast—without forcing anyone else to join in if they aren't feeling it, or if they'd rather just stay away from all that wild, animalistic chaos... maybe it’s just a joke or a bit boring, but I think that's the idea!

hollowpilot9 said:Does it ever just click for you—like, really hit home—that YOU are actually a massive whole made up of billions upon billions of tiny little units called cells? I mean, it’s wild! You probably haven't even stopped to think about that correlation before, or maybe you just haven't looked into it deeply enough to "lock it in," I guess. If you want the flat, two-dimensional version of the equation, it looks something like this: -1 .... 0 ....+ 1. But, if you’re looking for the volumetric version—you know, the deep stuff—then we're talking - 1/1........... 0/0 ........... + 1/1. Just some food for thought!

No matter what dimension you're looking at, 1 + 1 always equals 2 mathematically—but in reality, it’s actually 3 (you know, the first part, the relationship itself, and then that third element that emerges). So, if you think about it, 2 isn't just some standalone prime number; it’s really the result of a relationship that had to happen first. I guess you could apply that to everything! For instance, a human being isn't just a simple sum of individual stations, or any kind of isolated whole—like a group of cells or organs... it's all about those connections!

hollowpilot9 said:Think about it this way—a single water molecule is essentially its own little complete unit of WATER. Then, you take billions of those tiny units and they form the collective body of all the waters on Earth, or maybe just fill up a liter bottle, or even swirl together to create a massive cloud of water vapor. Of course, if you look at it through a modern lens, this really falls under fractal theory—where the whole pattern basically mirrors and replicates itself throughout the entire fractal volume, no matter how big or small that volume happens to be!

Even if you look at "fractal volume" through the lens of fractal multiplication—it’s really not just a simple sum of those individual fractals. I mean, think about it—a single water molecule isn't exactly a droplet, and steam isn't quite liquid water, right? It's like how a stream isn't a river, and a river isn't a lake... it's all much more complex than just adding things up!

hollowpilot9 said:Repetition is such a vital part of how nature works—it’s practically hardwired into babies and toddlers to help them learn, right? But for us adults... man, if we just keep doing the same thing over and over without adding anything NEW, life just starts feeling like it's stuck in a rut. It becomes this endless, boring loop—just *blah, blah, blah*... maybe we should try to shake things up a bit!

You could even throw in a little "what, what!"—you know, like that old nursery rhyme that goes, "Listen up, kids, believe it or not, a school for little ducklings is opening up...!"
Well, since we’re talking about adults now—that little poem actually hits them much harder. It's really more about those folks who have already spent years carving deep grooves into their own mental maps, rather than those just starting out with a blank slate. But hey, you're totally entitled to believe whatever you want! Personally, I don't mind the repetition at all—I guess I just find myself needing it more because I'm not dealing with "pre-grooved" minds. I'm focused on people who haven't had their paths laid out for them yet; people who—by the very nature of things—have to rely on their own wits to navigate the world. And from that position, they're trying to do the hard work of truly grasping and interpreting the thoughts and messages of others.

hollowpilot9 said:… I’m pretty certain people just refuse to accept someone else's ideas simply because they’re operating on a flat, two-dimensional level of intelligence. A 2D mind just can't process what a 3D mind is telling it—that's the core issue, along with mental conformism, or basically, a brain that hasn't been trained how to actually think. It’s a direct result of about 99% of our American education system, which focuses on memorizing facts rather than teaching true logos; it's just a bunch of rote lecturing. That is pure Walter Foster87 bljak! Soap operas, romance novels, comic books—it's all mass-marketed junk for the BRAIN, right?? These minds just atrophy, kind of like how hands waste away if they don't work, or legs if they don't walk....... …

On the flip side, history seems to suggest they won't actually atrophy—instead, they'll just hang on long enough for the educational system to "brainwash" the next wave of young people who will step up to take their fathers' places in the same cycle.

hollowpilot9 said:… In my opinion, if logos doesn't permeate the whole, then the whole won't function—or if it does, it functions "sickly"! Therefore, only logos can truly constitute a whole. If something is a genuine whole, as I've said, then it is inherently neutral, a harmony, life, love... that unpolarized state that might seem like bljak to you without any real reason! (I actually quite like this "bljak," so I keep using it.) …

There's some kind of Pandora's Box opening up there. I'd honestly be super curious to see the results of your clash over the topic of freedom (since that post already exists).
Admittedly, if we look at human nature itself and the way our perception is structured—we arrive at that conclusion where intelligence from nature is passed down to humans as "conscious nature."
But for an intellectual being—right here, right now—two things really matter. First, it would be pretty arrogant and speculative to try and place the absolute equality of the given and the abstract within the Logos at the very center. Once (because it's arrogant) since humans can only perceive similarities (causality, mediation...), which could just as easily be mere reflections as they could be objective truths. Second (again, speculatively), because not only is there zero hard evidence for much of what we *think* we should know, but—by the very nature of Things—one cannot possess that absolute knowledge required to turn a hypothesis into a doctrine or a definitive Truth.
So, without knocking the natural sciences or the search for truth that goes with them—I personally feel it's far more important to investigate human nature itself. I mean both the external side (what we call society) and the internal side (our senses, abilities, powers, sensory illusions, memory lapses, and the tricks our Reason plays on us...). Because THIS humanity—this "mad" version of nature—isn't shielded from anything, whether it's the external world of givens or the internal world of abstractions. But, if there is a meeting point—then we really ought to start from what we *can* be certain of—from ourselves—without worrying whether we end up face-to-face with something assumed or something completely unexpected.
That's why I won't go out of my way to exalt or specifically debunk that total interconnectedness with the Logos, especially when communicating with beings who—in stark contrast to the Logos—bow down to all sorts of "heavenly" or earthly gods, deities, symbols, and other "sacred" things.

hollowpilot9 said:Well, don't let it get to you—I mean, please don't be disappointed if I say I'm sorry that you, as clearly an intelligent person, don't seem to feel the need to base your thoughts on the very latest knowledge, but instead seem closer to those older ideas that just don't work anymore...

I guess the issue isn't really whether they work or not. Because when people say things like, "Judge not..." or "Love your enemies...", those are all just parts or sides of what we consider "new" thinking. Honestly, nobody actually enjoys learning a bunch of new terms for old concepts. It feels like the task always gets reduced to just being a means to an end—so, just like how you once assigned blame to a specific label and declared it some "wrongheaded" concept, you could argue that the CAUSE OF YOUR TROUBLES (the polarization, the shock of half-truths, the dogmatism, the senseless waste, the conflicts, the wars...) is actually found in the fact that we aren't actually addressing the core task, but rather constantly resetting it—just in NEW PACKAGING.

hollowpilot9 said:... I haven't said a single word about choosing the whole versus the parts; I've only been talking about choosing the polarized or non-polarized, the linear or non-linear, the complementary or the opposite—everything that falls under the umbrella of love rather than hate, goodness rather than malice, and things along those lines. I'm not sure why you're ignoring what I'm actually saying and instead projecting things onto me that I never claimed to say...

Maybe that’s because all of those are just different examples of wholes and parts—antonyms upon which a larger whole rests. And, I mean, if the linear isn't part of the non-linear, then you're describing the non-linear as a separate quality that doesn't even allow for the possibility of the linear. But if you want to define something as non-linear that is actually broader and includes the linear moment—then you're really just talking about a whole and its parts (you know, different components).
And, hey, there you go again—searching for a boundary or a way to wipe out mindless, useless hatred, hostility, and war from human life and civilization. It seems to you like the solution lies in the "non-polarized." But, well, love itself is nothing more than the opposite of repulsion, of aversion, and especially—of hate. So, it turns out those two are also kinds of polarization, which would mean "non-polarizing" would just be that famous reconciliation, forgiveness, or amnesty... (bljak).

hollowpilot9 said:... We haven't even discussed wholes and parts yet, but the WHOLE I AM TALKING ABOUT HAS NO PARTS! That whole is always composed of other wholes, of individual beings up to a multitude of such beings that structure themselves into levels as new, larger wholes. It's a fractal structure; it's a biological structure!! ...

A whole made of wholes!??? I mean, those "wholes" it's made of have to be in some kind of relationship with each other, and in a relationship with the main whole, just like the whole is with them—including all those probable feedback loops that cause deviations. So, once again, we're back to talking about a whole and its parts, rather than some sort of characterless, independent wholes.

hollowpilot9 said:… Of course, I’m not even the one "to blame" for this NEW INTELLECTUAL DISCOVERY. The real culprit is whoever refuses to grasp this novelty and clings to that old, tired "truth"—the idea that everything is just a collection of parts that are somehow disconnected from the whole thing …

Well, I have to admit it. But hey, repetition is how we learn, right? So, since I’m more than willing to keep repeating my thoughts just to find someone who actually gets it—I’m really hoping for that kind of understanding from you, too.

hollowpilot9 said:… Why these "mutikashas" multiply and why they seem to "rule" is a different question entirely. In my view, it’s because people (and it looks like you might be, too) are afraid of new insights, new knowledge, and a NEW PHILOSOPHY. These mutikashas know perfectly well that there is no philosophy, no morality, no ethics, and no love—and THAT is why they demand their tribute. They certainly aren't representing my other side! …

It seems to me, too, that people just don't want to accept what I'm saying. They only follow along as long as it fits what they already know, matches their "hard drive" capacity, or stays within the boundaries of social politeness. They won't go any further, even when they agree that what they currently hold isn't the final word—or that the very foundations of our government are built on half-baked knowledge. You see, I think THIS IS WHERE THE GAP CREATES, and we're all responsible for it. It’s the reason a mutikasha would eventually have to become ONE OF US—if only it weren't for the fact that, "thankfully," they haven't become the ones we're all pointing fingers at today. Just because someone seeks out something deeper or thinks they've "found" the solution doesn't mean they actually have the ability to apply it or test it in the real world. And honestly, it’s even more tragic when one of those exceptional people actually *does* have the right answer—or at least a better one than what we have now—because they can only find interlocutors among the few whom the "Tower of Babel" has made deaf to the "speech" of others. So then everyone just starts shouting: "I have the answer! I want to help!" …
That’s how philosophy, morality, and everything human gets twisted—just to mask those "black holes" and protect the mediocre level of existence that civilization has managed to scrape by on (despite all its struggles with war and debating philosophy).

hollowpilot9 said:… For me, there is only one authority, and its name is LOGOS! If the logos functions, then both the authority and the subject of that authority (the logos itself) function. …

That first sentence—YES, it's correct. And that second part—well, YES/MAYBE/PERHAPS. Because once an Intellect creates an invention, the next step is to find its "place under the sun" (multiplying it sufficiently, renewing all those processes, adjusting relationships/shares with existing goods, and properly balancing relations between subjects...). From the moment an invention is adopted, everything REASON does—which is actually INTELLECT in the highest sense—follows that path. But Reason hasn't even fairly started the work on a single invention yet; instead, the Intellect has already handed it a brand new task …

[

hollowpilot9 said:We’re standing right on the edge now—that specific line where old-school mindset meets the new, where traditional science shakes hands with modern theory, and where old philosophy and art give way to something entirely different... maybe even a new kind of "religion." People who miss this, or just refuse to see it—those who can't grasp how things actually complement one another—they end up stuck in a reduced world of pure opposites and linear thinking...
Complementarity is such a fascinating, fertile way of thinking! I mean, without it, Bhor, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, and the rest probably wouldn't have achieved nearly what they did in physics. It’s the same story in biology with James Watson and Fritjof Capra, in chemistry with Nobel winners like Prelog and others working on chiral and stereochemistry. In the art world, you look at M.C. Escher, and in philosophy, it's Bhom, Fritjof Capra, and Douglas Hofstadter.
…

Don't let the upcoming stuff get you down... honestly, we've seen so many "new" and "revolutionary" teachings come and go—some meant to enlighten us, and some that really just came to sow discord instead of peace. Some people even taught in vain, saying things like: "Let your answer always be YES, YES – NO, NO!" It feels like all those radical movements were just trying to solve problems where complementarity was only just beginning to emerge, like a newborn child. But even then, those earlier attempts at wisdom didn't quite manage to wipe out human stupidity or our limitations; even the toughest dialecticians ended up falling right into the trap of dogma...
So, the intention is good, but the goal remains the same—let's hope that after we navigate this polar complementarity, we won't need yet another "brand new" foundation for our minds and sciences...

hollowpilot9 said:... Those who find happiness in a polarized, split world can stay happy there if they want, but in a philosophical sense, that's always a lower level than a unified or synthetic one. The fact that people lean toward polarization rather than unity is really just an illusion of that adolescent phase where everything feels most extreme. But eventually, the unified state becomes the true center of gravity. That’s why I believe the philosophy of the unified—not the philosophy of the polarized—is the actual calling for modern philosophers. If you need a visual to get what I mean: think of extremities like arms and legs as representatives of the polarized, divided side, while the torso represents being polar-ly unified. That alone shows the difference between being split and being whole, both cognitively and in every other sense. ...

It isn't really a choice between the whole thing or its parts. I mean, if we want to truly understand the whole, we *have* to study the parts—just like you can't synthesize anything without doing the analysis first...
But, if you're suggesting that humans shouldn't be held captive by the limits imposed by Reason—you know, the method for perceiving reality—then I don't think there's any debate there. Do you honestly think that by choosing a different approach (maybe a more positive vibe...), we can make the "blessed fools" disappear? Well, I'll shake your hand on that one just because I know it can't hurt—in fact, it might actually help!

hollowpilot9 said:... Theorists are always theorizing, and demagogues are always polarizing. Cause and effect work together here, because in a polarized state, it's much easier to deceive "the masses"—and frankly, it's easier to rob them. A harmonious, stable society is simply one that is maximally depolarized politically, economically, socially, and intellectually. That is a universal LAW, and it applies to human societies just as much as anything else!! ...

When you start talking about the muticashas—man, things aren't exactly simple! It actually makes a lot of sense why they’re running the show these days, and honestly, we can't really point fingers at them without looking in the mirror. I mean, take a look at this—it’s pretty embarrassing, really—but THEY ARE OUR SECOND FACE. If that weren't the case, I guess we would have developed an alternative model or some other way of doing things ages ago, and we would have either pushed them out or been actively sidelining them from the scene by now.
But, strictly speaking—whether we like it or not—those moments where a person actually connects with the Mind are incredibly rare. Even for the smartest people among us, most of our lives and all of our time are spent under the total dominance of Reason. It’s kind of unavoidable, really—Reason is the one thing that can't just close its eyes or shut out the senses to everything "He" does. Instead, we're stuck on the sidelines, forced to deal with our own senses through which we "see" things like property and ownership structures. It's a bit of a trip, I guess!
So, I guess the truth is that even the most elite among us aren't some kind of guarantee that we'll actually achieve—in any meaningful way—that ACTIVE MINDSET. It’s a bit of a bummer, really, because without it, all those disputes and polarizations that just naturally bubble up from the lives of rational beings... well, they can't actually find a judge among themselves. Instead, they end up looking for some "judge in the sky"—which, if you ask me, is just a fancy way of saying WAR!
It’s even less likely that you could guarantee anything from a body made up of nothing but imperfect individuals—I mean, let's face it, we're all a bit flawed, right?
So, I guess what I'm getting at is that a truly complementary society actually has to go a step further—it needs to create the right conditions for those opposing forces to develop freely. At the same time, it would probably need to test out and establish some solid boundaries (you know, certain constraints) for those processes, while also setting up a really sensitive mechanism to keep everything in balance. Maybe that's the key!
It’s pretty obvious—honestly, it's a rather nasty little task for beings and their societies, who seem to have made it their mission to destroy anything that feels atypical, foreign, or just plain unknown...

hollowpilot9 said:So, if you're asking me who—or what—a theist actually is, I think it can only be SOMEONE WHO KNOWS GOD EXISTS, rather than just someone who merely believes He does. To my mind, true religion only begins to emerge—and it can only happen—once the human mind discovers God as an actual reality, or at least as a reality akin to our own human existence. Now, whether you’d call that religion, science, or philosophy—or maybe none of the above—is really just part of the debate! Personally, I feel like it’s all three at once!
…

It's pretty interesting—though, honestly, believing in something *a priori* just means you're mistaking a taken assumption for actual truth or certain knowledge. Everything else basically just follows from that as if it were the only logical conclusion. I mean, if it weren't for all those layers of accumulated data and whatever other materials are out there... well, things might look a bit different!

hollowpilot9 said:So, we all know the first three—they're basically the "holy trinity," right? And usually, we don't even bother with the fourth one, the "backward" move. But get this—there’s actually a FIFTH way, and honestly, it feels incredibly STUPID. I mean, just staying stuck at the crossroads!? Think about it—there are so many possibilities once you start moving! You could veer left, head right, or find a massive variety of other combinations for how to keep going. I really think that before anyone makes a move, smart people should probably sit down and get acquainted with all those potential paths—where they lead and what they actually mean—and only then make a call on which direction to take for the rest of the journey. Maybe that's just me, but it seems like a much better way to go!

hollowpilot9 said:As long as this kind of mindset keeps prevailing—I mean, really dominating the conversation—there’s just no substance to any philosophy being discussed. It feels a bit hollow, honestly! The late gentlemen we're talking about didn't exactly solve anything when it comes to philosophical concepts, let alone tackle the massive questions surrounding religion, God, or the essence of being human. I guess without that breakthrough, it all stays pretty surface-level.

It’s funny how weird we humans can be—really, it is! On one hand, you have people who think saying something like, "I hope all your wishes come true!" is some kind of insult or a bad omen—which, I guess, is becoming a thing in more places than just Japan lately. But then, on the flip side, you see all these highly educated types constantly chasing after these "perfect, all-encompassing, totally seamless systems." And honestly? Because they’re so in love with that idea of perfection, they don't hesitate for a second to lean on someone else's intellect just so their own doesn't end up being put to the test. But, if I'm being honest—and I think any real analysis would show this—those societies actually *do* add something to that borrowed intelligence. They inject a little dose of "sanctity" or their own unique "interpretations"—maybe even dogmatizing the material a bit, too. It’s almost like they have to double down on those authorities and insist on their absolute infallibility just to make it stick.

hollowpilot9 said:You know, I was thinking about this earlier—it’s kind of wild how much our perspective changes everything. If you're someone who only thinks in terms of opposites, then anyone who disagrees with you feels like an enemy—someone you just have to defeat, crush, or totally shut down. It's such a combative way to live, I guess! But if you shift that mindset toward complementarity instead? Well, then that "opponent" isn't an enemy at all. They're basically just another version of yourself—maybe a mirror image or a different side of the same coin—that you actually want to nurture, uplift, and keep alive. Instead of fighting them, you’re just... playing along with them. It makes everything feel so much more vibrant, don't you think?

That's exactly it—if you look at the etymology, the whole concept basically boils down to opposites being bad. But I totally get what you mean—like, I know exactly what you're getting at, but—in terms of actual philosophy—it doesn't really change anything. Whether we call it "complementarity" as a noun or just a general idea, it won't shift the needle. The world is still going to REST on contradictions, opposites, and complementarities... it's just how things work, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think this is one of the biggest blunders people make when trying to interpret matter—it’s such a common pitfall! So many people tend to split things up into two separate camps, like they're dealing with "two different currents," where you have massive, particle-based matter in one bucket and pure energy in the other. But, I guess what those folks are missing is that matter is simultaneously energy, and energy is simultaneously matter... it's all connected! It's kind of funny how people fall into that trap, I suppose. They usually approach it that way because they think only a tiny fraction of mass can actually turn into energy—which is why they struggle with the math. If we're being precise, the formula really should be expressed as E = delta m x c^2. It’s just a matter of seeing how the pieces fit together!

It really comes back to whether we're being precise with our terminology or not—I mean, if something actually transforms into something else, its entire shape changes! And since the core essence stays the same even when the outward form is totally different, I guess it deserves its own unique name, right? Or maybe just a different way of describing it—it's all about how you look at it!

hollowpilot9 said:Because, honestly—everything we experience as this vibrant, colorful explosion of light is actually just happening within the darkness of our own brains. I mean, there isn't any actual light inside the brain itself! The closest thing we get to a "projection" is just the screen of the eye, and after that, it’s all just electrical impulses... It's pretty much the same deal with taste, smell, or sound, too. Everything is just an internal interpretation, I guess!

Is there really no light inside the brain!? Wait—seriously!?

hollowpilot9 said:How can we actually reach a higher, more nuanced perception of the world using both our materialist and idealist heritages? I mean, it feels like you can't really get there unless we take both spheres and somehow fuse them together. But—and here's the kicker—a lot of people think that's impossible. I guess they struggle because they’re stuck thinking purely through *logos*, which just kind of makes unifying the two sides feel totally out of reach. Maybe that's the real hurdle!

On the other hand, they "think" using Reason—which, let's face it, is really just a tool for separation. It’s honestly wild how many people live their entire lives this way—it's an incredibly huge number of people! And I guess, for them, they don't really need much else besides that standard Reason, maybe supplemented by some slightly "buffed up" memory skills or something like that.

So, this is really how you have to approach it. People just aren't naturally inclined toward synthesizing alternatives—it’s kind of a common thing, I guess. But, when those alternatives don't actually offer a real solution—instead, they just take turns trying to outdo one another by claiming to be "more true" than the last—well, then you really have to step up and create that synthesis yourself, or at least stay totally open to it. Maybe that's the only way forward!
If it really is possible—I mean, if it's actually doable—I honestly don't think our generation would have much trouble proving it. Just look at history! We’ve seen how things like socialism and capitalism were turned into such bitter enemies that they ended up triggering nothing but endless bloodshed and total devastation. It just goes to show how easily things can spiral.
At the same time, we sort of drifted from one system into the next—it was actually pretty painless—if you don't count that whole war fought over nothing, which, let's be honest, only happened because capitalists were obsessed with express production.
So, what has actually changed in our lives? Honestly, it feels like we still don't own anything of real value—we still have to show up to work or head into the Office, and we’re still paying bills (actually, maybe even more than before?). It seems like the only things left standing these days are just a handful of massive corporations and tycoons.
You just don't see the difference, do you?

When it comes to a worldview, it’s kind of a similar story.
Maybe you could apply that whole "opposite" thing—you know, the one where FOLLOWERS tend to identify themselves—but then you run into a snag, because the MEANS starts being mistaken for the ultimate goal itself. I mean, you really should try to view materialism and idealism as complementary... though, of course, that only works if the people you're talking to actually understand the terminology you're using!

hollowpilot9 said:.. .This unified world is way more beautiful, better, and fairer than a divided one, which is why I'm "pushing" it as a NEW POTENTIAL PHILOSOPHY, so hey, take it or leave it!
. . .

But wait, isn't it the exact same issue with social systems? You have theorists constantly theorizing about how different systems might coexist. Like, imagine one town having slavery, another having feudalism, and a third having capitalism... and everyone just lives happily ever after.
Except, suddenly—that theory just doesn't work in practice. It hasn't actually happened anywhere in the world....!?
It would be so great if robbers just robbed other robbers, killers killed killers, priests preached to priests, and so on...
Anyway, getting back to the point—for a philosophy like this, luckily, you don't even need other people. It's something you can—well, you can just do it all by yourself.

hollowpilot9 said:.. What a believer thinks or feels doesn't really interest me in the context of philosophy at all. All I care about is what they actually KNOW as a believer about what they believe in, and there are very, very few of those people. From what I've seen in my research, original sources, theological texts, church architecture, interiors, and religious art seem to "scatter" focus toward human figures rather than some "mystical" or unknown beings.
. . .

Okay, but here’s the rub. Suppose we start a discussion like this, and the person brings up—say—a classic theologian. Even if we happen to think similarly about God and theism, it still raises a huge question: who should we actually consider a theist? Is it those who see God within these specific dimensions, those who find God within Humanity, or those who search for Him in the non-human?

hollowpilot9 said:.. That's exactly where a lot of the confusion comes from, since there's been such a strong push toward a materialistic view that many things happen without any "human will."
Theists argued that God's will sits above human will, while scientific atheists argue that natural phenomena—like the macro-phenomena you mentioned—sit above human will.
In all these cases, the human being is always placed in the position of an OBJECT being manipulated by either God or nature.
Every idea that suggests the opposite—that humans are the subject and everything else is the object—gets tossed aside as impossible, a fantasy, or pure fiction!? (Just think about how much ink and paper has been wasted on the subject-object relationship in philosophy, which remains unresolved!!??) But nowadays, that's not quite the case anymore, because there's a growing body of arguments suggesting a gradual inversion: that Man becomes the subject, while nature or God becomes the object.
Of course, this is a "revolutionary" viewpoint that causes shock and backlash here, mostly because we're so deeply soaked in the views of those "old-school" gentlemen we always quote.

It's a bit strange, but the only thing I can counter that with is the simple fact that HUMANS RULE NATURE. We don't just adapt to our environment; we make the environment adapt to us. We're the only living species that has left an indelible mark on Earth... so, compared to that, your insight feels a bit like "discovering America" (you know, stating the obvious).

hollowpilot9 said:.. So, I definitely still have some Marxist materialism floating around in my head—it's still active in some ways, I guess—but my main focus is really on that scientific, mechanical type of Marxist materialism. And honestly, that’s a huge distinction! It's the kind of difference you see between actual scientists who don't really get Marx or Marxist materialism at all, and those "prophets" who claim religion is the "opium of the intellect," rather than just the "opium of the people."
. . .

O.K.