Posts by Walter Foster87

hollowpilot9 said:It’s pretty wild when you look at the data—for instance, if you search Google in English, there are like 3,000 different websites dedicated to the "Tetrahedron of Taste," but if you search in American English, you barely find anything! It feels like people here only care about the "hand-picked" bits of knowledge that fit their specific worldview—you know, the stuff they think is useful—while completely ignoring the rest. Even on this forum, it seems like folks aren't really interested in exploring deeper, even though this stuff contains the TRUE UNIVERSAL LOGOS OF PHILOSOPHY! Maybe we're just missing the bigger picture, I guess.

I guess it’s just because our education system hasn't really prepared them for this kind of thing—it's something they'll probably have to figure out on their own or just stumble upon as they go!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like the whole idea of "opposites" is just a leftover concept from Euclidean or Cartesian logic—you know, that old-school way of thinking where Point A is the total opposite of Point B on a circle, or how North is somehow at odds with South, or men versus women. It feels so rigid! I mean, maybe it’s more accurate to say that Point A is actually just complementary to Point B? Or that the South Pole is simply a complement to the North Pole? Even the idea of gender could be viewed through the lens of complementarity rather than opposition. It’s just my take, but calling things "opposite" seems like one of those little pieces of intellectual baggage we’ve been lugging around since the universe was just an embryo... it’s kind of silly when you think about it!

Does something that is essentially opposite actually change things by being exactly what it is—by resting on its own unique differences? I mean, I guess it’s all about whether those opposing forces actually complement one another through their very distinction!

hollowpilot9 said:There’s really no such thing as matter moving around the way those old-school materialist dialecticians always imagined! — I mean, it’s just not how it works, I guess.

Wait, hold on—are we really talking about matter transforming into energy and back again?! That’s wild! I mean, it’s such a mind-bending thought—maybe a little crazy, too—but just imagine the possibilities!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s definitely about that—but I think the bigger question is whether we actually understand the roles light and darkness play in existence at all. I mean, why do we assume "light" is inherently better than "darkness"? We see animals and people thriving in the dark and sleeping through the day all the time! It's the same thing with nature—flora seems to lean toward the light, while fauna tends to favor the dark. Maybe that’s what drives the whole trend toward a sort of "night civilization"... who knows? And honestly, we don't even truly know if the universe is bright or dark. Some research and theories suggest it might be both simultaneously—which would mean it doesn't really matter who belongs where... maybe everything just balances out perfectly?
So, I’ve been thinking—is it possible that God is basically a lover of light while the devil is more of a fan of the dark? And maybe, just maybe, they were actually "partners" at the very beginning? I don't know, it's just a thought!

That might be a bit "too high-level" for some—I guess! But honestly, it’s pretty obvious that we’re just totally captivated by our sense of sight and its sheer power. Light means so much to us that we’ve ended up treating it as this ultimate symbol—you know, one of those possibilities we cling to because we view it as the much better alternative. And since alternatives usually evolve out of pure necessity—sort of like a way to weigh a lesser evil against a greater good—it makes sense that we frame the whole journey as a walk from the darkness into the light. It just feels like a really logical way to look at it!

hollowpilot9 said:I wouldn't say "for example"—because atheism, at least the kind I’m talking about, actually stems from a field of study called physics—specifically mechanical physics. It’s that framework that supports a materialistic worldview, which stands in direct opposition to an idealistic one. Basically, you have materialist philosophy versus idealistic philosophy. Now, this specific way of looking at things is limited—you might say it lacks enough freedom—and I guess that’s exactly why it feels somewhat profane or non-philosophical. But honestly? The importance of a materialistic philosophy within the realm of Philosophy is just as vital as the importance of an idealistic one. So, to me, they are both equally important starting points—and I think it’s perfectly logical that true Philosophy is where they actually join together!

I wouldn't dream of contradicting this—except for one little caveat—once you start digging a bit deeper into the nuances. I mean, even materialists can't quite agree on what materialism actually entails, much less what an idea truly is to an idealist! It’s kind of funny, really—even atheists don't see eye to eye on the definition of atheism, and honestly, I guess you could say the same goes for theists and their take on theism, too.
So, how do we actually go about making the idea of connecting these correct half-positions more popular? I guess there isn't one single magic bullet—it’s probably more of a process—but maybe we could start by finding ways to make the concept feel less intimidating? It seems like a challenge, but if we approach it the right way, it might just stick!
It seems like everyone is just so incredibly certain about "their own" way of doing things—even if it leads straight into a wall!

hollowpilot9 said:I always tend to look at things through an evolutionary lens—kind of like a constant balancing act between a minimum and a maximum. I guess you could say that when God is at His absolute peak, humanity sits at a minimum, and when we reach our own maximum, then God feels more like a minimum. But honestly? They are always one and the same—just ONE! To me, trying to separate God from humanity, or vice versa, just seems like a total mistake—and maybe even the root cause of all sorts of trouble.

I honestly feel like the root of all crime—if we’re being real here—is just plain old ignorance combined with that really arrogant kind of "knowledge." I mean, you don't actually need much to see it! I guess people have this almost instinctive sense when they're fighting against wrongdoing—they just sort of know, deep down, which lines they shouldn't cross.

hollowpilot9 said:So, I feel like I should probably weigh in on your take that it’s actually harder to reach a "dead end" with theists than it is with atheists—since you mentioned atheists seem more relatable to the average person. Honestly, my own experience hasn't really been that way! I don't think I've ever run into a theist who actually tries to separate God from humanity—every single one I've met seems to pile on a mountain of arguments and evidence suggesting that God and people are constantly in sync.

Something feels a little off here. I don't know—maybe I just don't quite have my head wrapped around how most theists think, or maybe they've actually managed to pull one over on us! Either way, it reminds me of that one theist on the forum who went on a bit of a rant—I think he said something along the lines of how anyone who doesn't believe God exists in "those other dimensions," or anyone trying to bridge the gap between God and humanity, is basically just an atheist!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s a totally different story when you look at it from the atheist perspective—you know, the one where humans are just seen as a specific level of evolutionary matter that somehow, for reasons we don't quite get yet, accidentally popped out of some "primordial soup" as the very first molecule of life. It’s wild to think about! And honestly, following that line of reasoning, we end up with people who have built entire scientific theories around that starting point and just... well, they pretty much refuse to budge from it. I guess that's just how they see it!

Is this really about being an atheist? Or maybe—I guess it’s more likely—it's just about people who are forced by their own nature (like a professor) or their responsibilities (like a student) to stick strictly to the BOUNDARIES OF SCIENCE!?

hollowpilot9 said:An atheist like that will never quite wrap their head around the idea that humans are actually the creators of life—they'll just keep insisting that life, and by extension us, all just bubbled up from evolving matter. Honestly, I guess it might actually be harder to convince an atheist that Man is God than it would be to tell a believer that God is Man!

Well, here's a quote from one of those famous, ultra-intense atheists everyone seems to love to hate:
When you're really out there building your own life—you know, crafting your own destiny—you end up entering into these specific, essential relationships... and I guess the most important part is that they’re completely independent of your own will! They're truly your own.

So, I guess it makes total sense that even atheists have to deal with all this stuff that exists completely outside of our own willpower or decisions—you know? Like, things like the way Earth orbits the sun, or just the massive distances between stars... it's all just there, regardless of what we think about it!
But man, just imagine—how could an atheist even begin to make sense of it? I mean, how do you wrap your head around the idea that things as trivial as ownership rights could actually be real, independent things—totally separate from human will or our own decision-making?! It’s wild to think about, I guess!

Even if we aren't talking about some Absolute Truth—let's just say we're talking about basic human rights instead...!

hollowpilot9 said:.... ..See, there's also this perfectly logical point—that God and humanity are one and the same. If an atheist fights against that, it seems pretty clear they're just trying to reduce people to mere animals or "material dust" from which everything originated. That's kind of the "weak link" in atheism, don't you think?? ..

I suspect you might be focusing too much on the brand of atheism practiced by Marx's followers. Because of that, maybe you aren't seeing atheism in its true light—you know, within a much broader context.

Walter Foster87 said:So, looks like there are already four of us who feel exactly the same way—it’s pretty cool to see!

And it isn't just about that—I mean, when you look at the individual and our whole community—it really feels like an absolute principle—this total imperative of DISCOVERY and self-realization!
Even if you get it wrong—even if someone misidentifies themselves—it still feels more human to me than some mindless, chaotic "multi-principle" element that just drifts around without any soul! I guess there's just something about having a sense of self, even a flawed one, that beats that whole messy, shapeless thing. Maybe it's just me, but I find the imperfection much more relatable!
I mean, especially since human societies—just look at how much we're growing, all this diversity and the sheer amount of wealth floating around—really need to move toward some kind of universal Law. It would basically be a way to "sweep up" everything that’s truly permanent and unchanging across all existing legal systems. The idea is to create one solid foundation that holds its value whether we're living in times of peace, facing a total collapse, or even building a brand-new nation from scratch!
It isn't just about keeping people safe or making sure things stay steady—though those are important too! It’s more about this idea that if we stick to principles designed for longevity and universal application—which, let's be honest, probably stem from our very own human nature—we can actually spot where things are falling short much easier. I guess it's just simpler than trying to cram everything into some outdated historical nonsense or getting lost in the weeds of specific international treaties and minor concessions. It's much more practical that way, maybe!
Well, I mean—honestly—it feels like everything you can possibly touch or encounter just points back to that one single principle, doesn't it? It’s almost like the whole world is just a massive testament to how universal those values really are!

Walter Foster87 said:Well, you know—there’s that old Socratic maxim about knowing yourself if you ever want to call yourself a philosopher. I guess that whole "know thyself" thing can be interpreted in a million different ways, right? But you hit the nail on the head—it’s really about reaching that essence, that core... just truly *being* the very heart of what makes a human being. And, without wanting to sound even slightly boastful—though maybe I am a little!—I feel like I’ve actually reached, or am at least incredibly close to, that true essence of humanity. It feels like I've finally tackled that big Socratic philosophical mission! I think I managed it by pulling together this massive synthesis—kind of a blend of all those tiny pieces of modern science and then mixing them with the bigger, broader truths from religion, philosophy, and art. It's all come together!

That’s probably right—it’s really at the heart of everything, isn't it? It's the core of the philosophy and life itself—so I guess it should naturally be the fundamental mission when it comes to upbringing and education!
It isn’t just philosophers who need to go on that journey of self-discovery—I mean, it's vital for everyone! But for them? Well, it's absolutely essential. Without truly knowing themselves first, I guess their whole philosophy would just be... well, totally aimless—kind of like a book without a beginning or an end!
I truly believe that this kind of work is essential for everyone—mostly because it’s really the only way we can actually step up and show up FOR THE COMMUNITY!
Otherwise, we’d be stuck with a pretty tragic society—mostly made up of people who don't actually have a clue who they are or what they stand for (even though they spend every single day bragging about their humanity, their big ideals, and how righteous they are...). And then, you have that tiny handful of people who actually try to get the job done, only to end up falling straight into the traps of pragmatism, vague communication, or just jumping to conclusions way too early.

Walter Foster87 said:Maybe we could try swapping out "everything relies on its opposite" for something a bit more... I don't know, sophisticated? Like—get this—"EVERYTHING RELIES ON POLAR COMPLEMENTARITY." It’s got a certain ring to it, right? Just an idea!

I guess you could say that opposition only really becomes complementary if those opposing forces actually lean on one another—sort of like they’re laughing together at the very idea of being enemies! In that sense, the whole thing "completes" itself because it's built right upon that core contradiction. Maybe that's just how it works?

Walter Foster87 said:I totally agree that the main thing is just pushing forward—but I think you’re probably familiar with the Myth of Sisyphus? It really highlights that specific tipping point where "moving forward" stops being progress and starts becoming "moving backward"—which is basically the defining characteristic of every oscillation we’ve been chatting about!

There’s just something about the "Little School for Dwarfs" and that whole Myth of Sisyphus—I don't know, maybe it's just me! But I feel like what we're looking at right now isn't just some random series of ups and downs. It feels more like a fundamental shift... almost as if the universe within us has gathered enough mass to finally start collapsing in on itself.

geza said:So, here’s how I see it—there is this evolutionary ceiling out there, right? I like to call it the EVOLUTIONARY MAXIMUM. Once you hit that peak, everything just flips. We're talking about a total inversion where all processes start heading back toward the starting line—the origin point. But, and this is a big "but," it isn't some regressive slide back into a primitive, caveman-style existence—not at all! Instead, it’s more like a massive renewal of life itself. It’s a reset, really!

I’m definitely signing on this—though I should probably add that our current way of life hasn't even hit the limits we'd expect or anticipate yet. It seems like, if anything, people are already aggressively using the exact opposite as a tool to protect their own sense of order. It's almost like the evolutionary peak has been shifted forward through sheer skill and the strategic maneuvering of those in charge!

Walter Foster87 said:So, here’s the big, crucial question—can we actually avoid those kinds of repetitive cycles? I mean, is there a way to move through life that keeps us strictly in the light, or maybe stays purely in the dark? Personally, I think such paths definitely exist—it’s just that we have to become aware of them first. I guess you basically have to learn how to "run backward" or perhaps just find a way to stand perfectly still.

If we’re talking about the integrity of legal structures and the continuous existence of a person—well, I guess I’d argue that there is a kind of movement out there that preserves nothing but the light. It’s almost like how war and various crimes serve to uphold the right to private property (which, let's face it, is basically just darkness). But even then—and this is the thing—that wouldn't stop those constant fluctuations in character that happen within the light (just like they never really vanished during the dark times, either). In short—maybe the only thing that can truly be considered "ideal" is the light itself, and all our little efforts to reach it? They probably just lead us toward—dare I say—new improvements!

Walter Foster87 said:So, look—I think we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves here! I was really trying to say that what we’re discussing as "philosophical atheism" isn't exactly a standalone philosophy in itself. I mean, maybe it's more like a specific *branch* or just a small part of the broader philosophical landscape? It feels like it belongs under a larger umbrella, especially since you have to account for things like philosophical theism too—so, yeah, it's probably more of a subset than its own entire field!

So, if you look at philosophical atheism as a sort of "scientific approach"—since it's basically the opposite of an a priori stance—it feels like it isn't quite free enough, I guess? It’s not exactly philosophy in its purest sense, but maybe that’s why it serves as such a vital anchor for the whole field!

Walter Foster87 said:I just can't wrap my head around why people keep insisting that the idea of God is nothing more than a prejudice or some kind of intellectual limitation—it honestly feels like such a circular argument! I mean, if we're saying that belief is just a bias or a constraint, then by that same logic, humanity itself is just a collection of biases and limitations, right? It’s all connected. To me, it feels like God and humanity were never actually separate to begin with. That whole divide only really started appearing because of the narrow-mindedness of materialist philosophers—think along the lines of Feuerbach—and those old-school Marxist dialecticians who tried to force everything into a purely physical box. Maybe it's just how they saw the world, but I guess that separation was always more about their own perspective than reality!

Is it really just them!?
Haven't those who commit atrocities—not because they’re ignorant, mind you, but because they’re intentional—also include those who try to alienate people from God by treating them like mere tools for some supposed "divine will"? I mean, isn't a version of "God" that constantly threatens us with the depths of hell or all sorts of horrific terrors actually the most blatant example of separating the Divine from humanity? It just feels like such a massive disconnect, right?

Walter Foster87 said:So, I was wondering—why are you dodging the whole conversation about the attributes shared by God and humanity? And why skip over the comparative side of things entirely? To be honest, if you want to move past the idea that the concept of God is just a built-in bias, you might have to reconsider that stance. It seems pretty clear these days that the primary attributes of God and humans are actually converging. I mean, look at Rifkin—he actually had to write "Who Will Play God?" after his tours through those high-security underground bio-labs right here in the States! It feels like God and humanity are actually drawing closer together rather than drifting apart, which—if you ask me—is probably one of the biggest missteps in atheist philosophy.

Hey everyone! Geza here—just wanted to share a quick thought because I’ve been thinking about this lately. Honestly? Please, don't spend your whole life just living "in your own little world." I know, I know—it sounds a bit blunt—but there's so much out there! It’s easy to get stuck in our own heads or stay within that comfortable bubble we build for ourselves, but maybe—I guess you could say—that's how we miss out on everything that actually makes life interesting. Don't just exist in your own headspace; go out and engage with the real world!
I guess you could say that God's idea wouldn't actually be a prejudice—if only we humans truly, undeniably understood who and what He is! You know, if we actually grasped the first cause and the ultimate purpose behind everything—that’s what would really drive our own actions, right? Maybe it all comes down to that connection!
In a world where God is everything except Man—well, things just look completely different! I mean, if we really lean into the power of thinking—specifically that kind of deep curiosity and constant questioning of the world around us—then even an Absolute truth shouldn't be off-limits. It shouldn't be some sacred thing that's protected from being tested or challenged. Maybe we actually need that scrutiny to find what's real!
So, I don't really think I’ve been dodging the whole debate regarding God's attributes! But—and this is a big but—when you reach that specific point where thought starts searching for what actually resembles a metaphysical God, and then—well, in reality—you stumble upon Um... you kind of step right outside the usual boundaries of those typical theological versus atheistic arguments. It's a bit different than I expected, I guess!

Look, I know you aren't exactly looking to split God from humanity over here—and I totally get that! —BUT things just work differently in the rest of the world!
Maybe you should try to find a different crowd to hang out with—I mean, honestly, you’re probably going to run into way more friction with the religious folks! It'll be tougher dealing with theists when you start stripping God out of those whole fantasy dimensions and turning Him into just another human being—that's a much bigger uphill battle than anything you'd face with atheists, I guess.

Well, finally! I mean, isn't this just a discussion about ONE SINGLE PRINCIPLE—if that's not exactly what we're talking about here?

Walter Foster87 said:...
Attributes are basically those core facts that define what someone or something actually is—you know, regardless of how we might choose to perceive them! It’s not about our opinions or how we feel; it's just the reality of the thing itself. I guess you could say fiction or prejudice can't really claim an attribute as true. Think about it this way—if we say an attribute of God is being all-powerful, then logically, that same trait would have to apply to humans too. If it doesn't apply to us, then maybe it isn't actually an attribute of God at all? In that case, we might just be looking at a myth or a preconceived notion. It’s honestly so fascinating—and maybe a little strange—how people love to talk extensively about everything under the sun, yet when it comes to discussing humanity, they tend to get all reductive or just stay quiet!

When you start looking at how God and humanity connect, there’s this sneaky little trap you could fall right into—honestly, it's easy to miss! I guess the risk is that a fundamental attribute of God—you know, the kind that everything else is built upon—could accidentally get treated as just a mere "way" or a method rather than an essence. It's a tricky distinction, maybe? But if that core attribute becomes just a way of being, the whole foundation shifts!
Oh, you’re being awfully cheerful about it!—honestly, it's all about those types of people who just drone on and on about everything under the sun, but really, it's always just about themselves—it's either that, or it's just totally reductive, I guess.

Walter Foster87 said:Well, when it comes to God—and you know I think we both realize that talking about God is a bit of a lost cause—it’s just hard to get anyone to buy into it. I mean, nobody in the world actually knows who or what God is, right? So, trying to debate some sort of imaginary concept just doesn't feel productive to me. I guess I should lean on thinkers like Hans Küng—who was such an incredible theologian—and Scharden, especially given how much he innovated the way we interpret the divine. Without a real sense of what humanity actually means, the whole idea of God feels pretty empty—and honestly, I don't see much point in trying to debate an empty concept!

If the whole idea that Man equals God turns out to be empty—which, let’s be honest, feels pretty likely—then I guess we're basically circling back to some kind of hybrid between your version of relativity (the Human element) and the Matrix (the Divine). It's a wild thought, but maybe that's where we end up!
And also—it’s just that there isn't any actual, deep understanding to be found regarding either Humanity or God. Everything feels sort of forced, maybe? It all seems halfway there, honestly... just full of this sense of alienation.
So, we’re finally circling back to the old Socratic thinkers—it feels like a homecoming, really! I guess the goal is to dig deep alongside them to uncover that spark within us all... you know, that divine essence that connects us to something much greater than ourselves. It seems like the only way we can truly start having a meaningful conversation about God, wouldn't you agree?

Walter Foster87 said:... I’m not talking about Digen, but rather Dietzgen. Back during Marx’s era, he was considered this "lay philosopher"—and honestly, his ideas felt much closer to what we consider modern insights today than anything Marx was putting out. He basically argued that idealism and materialism were equally valid sources of knowledge, leaning into a specific kind of monism. Because of that, Marx pretty much trashed him and pushed him to the fringes of philosophy, even though—if you ask me—the guy probably had more philosophical depth in his pinky finger than Marx did. ..

I actually don't know much about that case either! Do you happen to have any of his works handy? Maybe some links? By the way—it feels a little hard to swallow that Marx sidelined him for those two reasons. I mean, first off, Marx wasn't exactly the only authority figure back then, right? And secondly, since the guy was essentially positioning his work against traditional philosophy by pushing it toward a scientific framework—well, it makes sense why there would be friction.

Part 2

hollowpilot9 said:When our media talks about the USA, they talk about the state administration, but when they talk about America, they say "THE GOVERNMENT." I honestly don't get it, and frankly, I don't want to—because the whole idea of "GOVERNMENT" feels like it limits freedom by implying something sitting "ABOVE" everyone else. Why don't we just call it state administration, or maybe state management, where the leadership runs the country much like a CEO and their management team runs General Motors?

So, I guess it really comes down to semantics.
For instance, the "establishment" isn't quite the same as state administration; it’s more like the specific way power is organized within its structure. In fact, the organization itself is tailored to fit that power.
Maybe that "establishment" is exactly what you mean by "THE GOVERNMENT" that gets under your skin so much. And, well, it's not just "above" us like in the US; it's actually more than that. See, in the US, there is a separation of powers—even if it’s imperfect. Here, it’s almost just a formality. Don't forget, the people who actually wield THE GOVERNMENT are literally the ELECTED ones! They are the ones who put the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the entire political body (Congress). So, it's this single legislative body that produces and passes both the Constitution and the laws (and they appoint the judges and the Executive branch too...)

hollowpilot9 said:... Well, I suppose we are thinking about the same thing—the HUMAN being!

Well, yes and no. I mean, sure, the individual is at the center of everything, but the modern world is divided into nation-states. Since people affirm their humanity through RIGHTS, and since those rights are still fundamentally STATE-based (rather than international), determining what constitutes a member of a political nation is—basically—the primary way the human nature is objectified (whether through a collective or through the force of public authority).
So, whenever we talk about a person, I think we always have to keep in mind that limitation—that each of us belongs to some state society (and individuals belong to a whole multitude of these political nations).

hollowpilot9 said:... I am actually thinking MORE about THAT FORCE WHICH IS POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE, even when it is an element of human society. These forces are invisible; they only become visible once we hit a wall with our fist or our head, or when someone else hits us with a fist or a "wall"!

Regardless, I suspect that whenever you look at that force in a broader context, you won't miss even a shadow of the "helmsman"... Even when forces act blindly, you'll still find a certain intentionality at their core.

hollowpilot9 said:... No, I'm talking about the equivalence of constructive and destructive force, just like the equivalence of mass and energy. Both look and act like force, but they are OPPOSITES to one another, which makes them different rather than identical. One is a negative force, while the other is positive! They are only neutral at the very center, in a unified state—but philosophy doesn't really tackle that, does it!?

Such a unified state—well, it might just be a fiction. Reality is always expressed in a range between the dominance of one side or the dominance of the other.

hollowpilot9 said:... So, let’s dive into the whole concept of LOGOS when we sit down to think, chat, philosophize, or throw out some theories. Which kind of logos are you actually tapping into when you’re deep in thought—is it the Greek version or something else entirely? And, just out of curiosity, do you have any specific takes on the Truth? What does Truth even mean to you?
I’d suggest that we try to return to the Truth (assuming it exists!) as the absolute centerpiece of all philosophy.

Actually, if you ask me—all that Greek stuff (and the "near-Greek" variations) is really just a set of tools used to reach an end goal. The actual goal is to articulate what can be "seen" within the abstract. We basically just use whatever tools we’ve picked up along the way or happen to have on hand (which is why I find Eastern philosophies so fascinating—they offer such a different perspective—though maybe I haven't stumbled upon the right literature yet since I haven't quite "seen" the core of it).
Truth, in my view, covers everything from having a perfectly accurate grasp of what IS (in practical terms) to what *ought* to be (since potentiality is also a form of reality—it exists in the abstract too, I guess).
So, when you pull all those threads together, you realize that TRUTH is essentially the thing that bridges all human needs with our capacity for understanding. Humans naturally seek out what truly is and what could potentially be better—because of our own needs, or perhaps just because it's in our nature—and that’s how philosophy and morality both find their home within the Truth.
To me, my "Logos" is the Mind—the creative power of a human being—or, more accurately, the very essence of the generic human nature itself.
But, I suppose what I’m really thinking about isn't primarily the Mind, but Reason. The Mind plays a bit of a supporting role in the thinking process—acting through that intellect we all have to respect, whether it's seen in how intelligent beings interact or as a collection of principles we've mastered (the principles of Reason). Of course, the Mind is definitely the reason we have enhanced memory and all those unique human abilities.
However, the Mind or Logos seems to manifest as CREATIVITY itself. We approach this creativity using Reason, which provides the raw material. Whenever Reason asks a question poorly—like if it imposes too many conditions or ignores obvious limits—the Mind ends up handing back a DISTORTED ANSWER. Or, more specifically, it gives a "solution" to a problem that is just as PURE and free of bias as the moment Reason first stood before the Mind. In those rare, beautiful instances, Reason receives a solution we call an invention. Even when it's just a basic principle or a new way of looking at things, it's coming from a SOURCE THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST (yet) in the physical world, but exists abstractly—allowing us to manifest a good that never existed before.
And honestly? Those things—the fantasies, the utopias, the inventions—those are the most profound pieces of the TRUTH.

Continuation—

hollowpilot9 said:The only way to truly bring it back to life is through something ABSOLUTE—not some half-hearted, relative approach—which, if you think about it, is exactly what landed us on this "beggar's stick" to begin with!

It feels to me like you're talking about a kind of "relativity"—though, honestly, I guess it’s not all that different from what you mentioned earlier regarding the fallout of theistic philosophy? I mean, if we follow that logic, what is there left to actually study, right? If God can just step in and completely, unconditionally change everything at any moment, then the whole pursuit seems a bit moot—don't you think?
If that’s really how it works—and honestly, since everything is relative anyway, why even stress about it?—then we aren't just moving between two poles like "relative/atheism" and "absolute/theism." It feels more like there are one or two massive middle grounds floating in between. I guess you could compare it to the gap between actual political extremists and the mainstream left or right—you know, those fringe groups versus the actual parties. Because, in my view, the very nature of being a civilized person means that acts of terrorism push those actors completely outside of society—effectively cutting them off from both the left and the right they claim to represent!

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, I'm not entirely sure if Marx actually realized it, but he definitely went after Diogenes—or someone like that—pretty hard, basically pushing him right to the fringes of philosophy. But honestly? Looking at things from a modern perspective, maybe that self-taught philosopher actually thought and wrote better than the great Marx himself? I guess it's possible!

If you’re talking about Diogenes—I know a few of his famous little gems, though I can't say I'm too familiar with his actual philosophy. Honestly, I haven't heard much about that specific attack from Marx, but I have noticed that he rarely ever cites the ancients. In fact, out of all of Aristotle's massive body of work, he only mentions the idea regarding the perfection of the commodity form—and he only does it twice!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess the real issue here—and it’s a big one—is that we just aren't able to properly balance the relationship between private capital and social capital (you know, what the Government controls). It feels like we’re missing a real mechanism to distinguish between the accumulated wealth from past efforts and the actual, living labor happening right now. I mean, today's hard work is honestly pretty minor compared to the massive mountain of past labor that continues to drive the economy and shape everything else!

Why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference between past labor and living labor? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that you can't really have one without the other—living labor needs that foundation of past work (you know, all that accumulated investment and capital) to actually exist! So, if there’s more living labor being put in compared to the past work, then the value—and naturally, the price—of that previous labor has to be higher, and vice versa. It just makes sense! When you step back and look at the whole picture, it shouldn't be any trouble at all to pull in a section from the Constitution that says:
So, I was thinking about how a company’s leftover earnings actually get split up—you know, that net surplus after all the bills are paid? It seems to me that it basically breaks down into two main buckets: one part goes toward employee wages, and the other side handles profits and reinvestments. I guess you could say the ratio usually fluctuates somewhere between a 40:60 split and maybe as high as 60:40, depending on the industry or how the management feels that day!
Of course—I really think a decent politician has to keep that sense of corrective balance at the front of their mind! I mean, you just can't assume that preserving what we already have—you know, everything we've actually built—is the same thing as creating new wealth. It’s a huge distinction, right? At the end of the day, true creation is about life itself—it's about meeting real needs and renewing the lives of people who are actually living right now, rather than just focusing on those from the past.

If you’re referring to retirees and the older generations when you talk about "past work"—then honestly, that’s kind of a separate conversation! I guess the only way those two things really connect is the simple fact that they were the ones who actually built that legacy—and, of course, they were the ones who were paid for it!

The balance between private and state ownership actually works quite well when you look at how planning and market forces play off one another—it’s all about finding that sweet spot! I guess you could say an economy that’s truly focused on steady, long-term growth will naturally blend market methods with strategic planning—kind of like a captain "steering" the different shares to keep everything on course. It’s the same logic that should apply to government intervention or even things like reprivatization—it's all about that careful calibration!
The real sticking point—the thing that’s just so incredibly hard to untangle—is that fundamental clash between the right to private property and the whole issue of one person being enslaved by another. It's a tough nut to crack, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly pretty wild when you think about it—I mean, we really shouldn't be surprised when someone suddenly becomes a billionaire overnight just by grabbing all the value created by everyone else's hard work! Meanwhile, you have people who are only living off their own actual labor, and they're left struggling to get by. I guess that's where the root of all these economic and political injustices lies—it's the stuff people either refuse to talk about or just don't want to face!

Hey, now I’m really asking you—could you please just define the past work you're talking about?
Well, I guess your point really boils down to one of two things—it’s either about that whole messy vision of "reorganization and privatization" (where the real issue isn't just someone grabbing assets, but rather how blurry the legislative process gets when Congress passes these shady laws that basically stomp all over equality and individual liberty)—or you're questioning the very idea of private ownership over permanent resources, you know, those massive monopolies that seem to dominate everything right in front of us!

hollowpilot9 said:So, here’s the real kicker—what can we actually do to help people become smart? And I mean *really* sharp, like what you were saying, hollowpilot9? In my opinion, that should probably be the main focus for any modern intellectual—instead of just recycling the same old nonsense from the past and present over and over again.

You know what they’d probably tell us? Just be more concise—and honestly, you’d get so much more done!
But, hey—aside from that—none of us can really claim to be blocked from getting politically involved, right? I mean, without that engagement, voters don't have any way to actually champion new ideas or reshape their own interests. And let's be honest—you can't really go about changing people (especially making them a bit sharper!) without spreading those ideas around first.
So, here's a quick question for you all—are you getting ready (or maybe helping someone else get ready) for the upcoming elections?!

hollowpilot9 said:When you look at our political democracy, it really highlights the caliber of the people we choose to represent us—it’s pretty glaringly obvious, actually. If this is supposed to be the gold standard, or like, some kind of established norm, then I guess I’m just feeling a bit bummed out about living in a democracy where the top leaders and high-ranking officials bicker and fight like petty neighborhood gossips!

Look, I’m honestly not even upset about all this—really! It’s just that the whole "standard" we're being fed feels totally manufactured, almost like it was dictated directly from Washington, D.C. I mean, think about it—there’s really no other way to explain how nineteen different political parties could suddenly pop up, set up branches everywhere, and start running around—all seven months before the actual democratic reforms were even codified into law! It just doesn't add up. I guess the only logical conclusion is that they had the green light from federal agencies and intelligence services—which basically means they had the blessing of the top brass. Without that go-ahead, those old party factions wouldn't have been able to morph into legitimate political players and occupy the entire American political landscape before the first real elections even took place. It's pretty wild when you look at it that way!
Honestly, I wouldn't say I'm sad about it—more like I’d just want to roll my eyes at anyone who claims Americans are this undemocratic, submissive, or just plain lazy. It’s funny, really—I guess some people just see what they want to see!

hollowpilot9 said:>
... And that whole situation really just goes to show how easy it is to parrot some memorized text, while actually grasping the core idea that everything revolves around is—well, that’s much harder!

That's actually a fundamental part of both Cicero's and Kant's insights—though, I guess, the only "difference" is that we're talking about pure philosophy with Kant, whereas Cicero blends philosophy with the study of humanity. From what I gather, those two believed the only real distinction is whether a philosopher realizes that their entire system—all their specific relations, laws, and secondary principles—actually springs from and circles back to one single, central Principle. Everything else is just a derivation of that one thing...

hollowpilot9 said:>
...
Based on those kinds of subjective views, a HUMAN being becomes this incredibly complex, tangled mess of a natural or divine creation—which, let's face it, is exactly what all sorts of mystics want to hear. Personally, I start from the FACT that a human is actually a very straightforward biosexual creature who just misinterprets itself because it can't truly SEE itself, except through a mirror or indirectly through another person. It's only when the MIND actually kicks into gear and turns inward toward the HUMAN essence—something people are either reluctant to do or just don't know how to do (since they rarely explore themselves biologically or structurally)—that religious, scientific, philosophical, and artistic Truth finally emerges, simply because it is UNIVERSAL.

Obviously, the paths aren't identical—because turning inward is ultimately what leads us to the essence, the core, the very nature of being human. But then, that process flows back through all the structural layers (our senses, our cognitive powers, etc.), perceiving "the world as a representation" that gets layered with all the various ideas the consciousness adds or modifies based on its own perspective—including all those innovations and inventions—before finally "descending" back into the practical world.
But once you get there, you aren't just a "rational animal" anymore; you're a being that has encountered a completely different kind of ego than the one those self-proclaimed intellectuals forced upon us. It's a totally different "I," and a completely different way of looking at the ultimate purpose behind everything we do and the life we lead.

hollowpilot9 said:>
... THEREFORE, I'm not the "guilty" one; it's the phenomenology of splitting the world into black and white complementary entities—appearing as both polar opposites and polar unities—that is to blame, which is essentially the core of human simplicity and everything else.

Everything relies on its opposite, so maybe that's why, in any clash of ideas, people tend to identify strictly with either the "black" or the "white" side. One thing is a matter of methodology (like how dialecticians might split into two groups where one defends and the other attacks a position), but the other is how these divisions are fueled by raw emotions, bias, and all sorts of primitive impulses.
If we want to avoid these traps—where simple disagreement turns into actual hostility, or where conflict is deeply rooted in a group's history—we have to do it mentally more than just practically. Honestly, it wouldn't be strange if a priest was secretly an atheist. Given his profession is what puts food on the table, admitting he doesn't believe in God would be just as crazy as admitting he wasted all those years of intense study and sacrifice.

hollowpilot9 said:So, I’ve been thinking—and this is a pretty deep philosophical rabbit hole for me—about which side of the coin humanity actually leans toward. Are we heading for the light, or is there a darker side pulling us in? Or maybe it's just a messy mix of both? If you look at how global culture is shifting lately, there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing toward that darker side. It kind of brings to mind that idea about how we might be sinking into a "civilization of the night" rather than one of the light—which, honestly, feels like a pretty plausible way to put it. Everything seems to gravitate toward those chaotic, nocturnal distractions—all the wild parties and excess that happen under the cover of darkness. It leads to this unavoidable reality: while the rest of us are sleeping, the "night birds" are out there doing their thing. And then, when we finally wake up, we realize we've been cheated, misled, or just plain stepped on. So, if you ask me, my whole theory boils down to this: we desperately need an inversion.

You’ve covered so much ground here! On one hand, we could talk about how people feel this constant pressure to blow their cash on "nightlife"—which, if you think about it, is just a classic part of that whole "bread and circuses" vibe. It feels like there's this cycle where all that spending leads to a sort of indifference toward people losing their dignity, especially when meaningful things get traded in for cheap thrills. Then, that loss of humanity just fuels more indifference and drives everyone even deeper into the nightlife scene—it’s almost like a loop that just keeps feeding itself! I guess, at the end of the day, things really would need some deep, fundamental changes to break out of it.
Nah, you can't forget about the usurper's guard—they're incredibly disciplined. They know exactly where the line is drawn, and they won't cross it unless they have to. And honestly? Even if they actually lose control for a moment—say, if those "conscious forces" manage to slip the reins—they’ll probably just reorganize themselves faster and more efficiently than any small resistance movement could ever hope to realize that the tyranny is actually over!
The real heart of the matter is that we’re actually making progress—I truly believe that! I mean, once you see how those power-hungry usurpers are forced to come up with increasingly sneaky ways to manipulate and exploit people—whether through "natural" advantages or stuff they've just picked up along the way—it becomes impossible to deny it. You just have to see it: the human journey toward the light is absolutely unstoppable!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you could say that philosophical atheism isn't actually a philosophy in itself—it’s more like just a slightly skewed way of looking at the world held by certain atheist philosophers. It's more of a perspective than a formal system, if that makes sense!

On the flip side—and I really think this is key—a philosopher shouldn't start from the assumption that every single law of nature or society can just be arbitrarily flipped on its head by some omnipotent will. I mean, if we did that, philosophy would basically become a meaningless exercise that just circles back to the exact same conclusion every single time! So, I guess it makes more sense to approach research from the starting point that God (you know, that Uncomposed, perfect, unchanging... being) simply doesn't exist. Honestly, it doesn't even matter which way you lean—the end result of the investigation stays the same.
On the flip side—and I guess this is just my take—anyone who starts their whole argument from the premise that God exists is essentially starting with a bias they’ve already accepted as an absolute fact. It’s like they’ve decided on a "truth" right out of the gate—a truth that, in my opinion, should never, ever be questioned during any kind of actual investigation!
So, if we jump back to the very beginning—both of these viewpoints really just boil down to a leap of faith without any further investigation. I guess the only real difference is that the first one—you know, the atheistic starting point—doesn't actually rule out a theological conclusion later on, whereas the theological side? Well, it kind of lacks the tools to break through its own built-in limitations.

hollowpilot9 said:You can't really say that something relative both exists and doesn't exist at the same time—because, well, if it's relative, it *definitely* exists! I guess if you can just wrap your head around that little contradiction, it becomes a whole lot easier to embrace both the relative and the absolute in philosophy. And honestly, maybe that's the only way for philosophy to actually feel like philosophy, don't you think?

Change and variability aren't just single concepts—it’s more like relativity, which covers so many different perspectives and angles—and in some cases, it even extends to entirely different "worlds" (you know, like that philosophical riddle about a dog being both a consumer and a non-consumer of its own food at the exact same time!?)
Well, I’ve always felt that what really defines philosophy is this deep dive into finding things that are actually lasting—you know, searching for that underlying principle that shows you why certain things exist out of all that infinite material we're dealing with.
That’s why I’m such a believer in the idea that the whole point of philosophy is hunting for the "absolute"—at least, that's how I see it! Because once you actually pin that down, I guess all philosophers will eventually have to land on the same page—sooner or later, anyway—since there can't be many versions of the Truth, right? There's really only one. Especially when we're talking about those big phenomena and laws that just seem to follow the human race forever.

hollowpilot9 said:The sheer audacity of these political hacks is just endless—honestly! And what do we do? We just stay quiet, or maybe we look the other way, which I guess just gives them all the room they need to run the show. It’s like we're handing them the keys to the kingdom by staying silent!

And that’s really all there is to it! I mean, why on earth are people who haven't built up any immunity—and definitely don't hold some foreign citizenship—putting themselves through all that stress? It just doesn't make sense, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s great that you’re writing this—really, I think it's wonderful—but I guess it just isn't quite enough to truly grasp the role that force plays in our existence and in human society as a whole.

Well, you could look at it this way—to protect the production and ensure that everything stayed true to the original prototype, people first had to work together—really put their heads together—to defend that entire process. They had to guard it against wild animals and, I guess, those lingering members from the old pack who just hadn't quite "woken up" to what was actually happening yet!

hollowpilot9 said:...
I guess my hesitation—and that sense of "uncertainty" in my statement—really comes down to one thing: power is such a double-edged sword! It’s honestly wild how it can be both incredibly constructive and totally destructive at the exact same time. Whether we're talking about small-scale influences or the massive forces at play, power is pretty much everywhere—it's just a matter of which face it decides to show us today!

I honestly think that force is just... well, force—but that whole bit you mentioned about how different levels of quality and results manifest? I guess that actually belongs to whatever is *driving* the force, or maybe even deeper, to whatever sits behind that movement as the actual cause!

hollowpilot9 said:Humans are such strange creatures—I mean, if we really are made "in the image and likeness of our Creator," then the sheer math of it is just mind-blowing! The statistical number of possible ways those traits could manifest is absolutely massive—it’s almost hard to wrap your head around, I guess!

That's true—though, if everything goes according to plan, there’s really only ONE winning combination!

hollowpilot9 said:hollowpilot9: They’re going to keep forcing their way in—because, like RADE keeps saying—RADE, RADE, RADE! While we're all just sitting around chatting in cafes or rambling away on internet forums, they're making moves. I was actually at one of those local coffee shops recently, and someone asked me what my model for running a small town would look like. So, I laid out my thoughts for them like this:
I truly believe that only successful, highly respected individuals—people with proven track records in business and significant cultural or intellectual contributions to society—should be eligible to run for Mayor. Honestly, we shouldn't have any political party members running at all! In my vision, citizens would choose from a pool of maybe 1, 2, 5, or even 10 such candidates, and then select one person to serve a four-year mandate as the municipal manager. If I were to step into the job, my very first day would involve asking the local administration to provide me with a full curriculum vitae for every single citizen—which, of course, they don't have! If those files don't exist, the city should probably start building them. From there, I’d pick 3 to 5 distinguished experts to serve as my advisors for the next steps. I’d ask them to use those CVs to identify the 30 most capable citizens based on specific industries vital to our city. Once they made their suggestions, I’d invite those 30 people over to present my concept—which is really about management, not "ruling." If they bought into the idea, I’d propose a leadership team of, say, 12 people assigned to specific functions. Each person would then have the authority to hand-pick their own sector's team, creating a specialized municipal crew to manage everything for the next four years. This entire team would then present themselves to the public, along with a clear program for their term. Everyone I talked to agreed with this concept—it makes so much sense! But, unfortunately, it’s impossible to implement because of all the legal red tape dreamed up by the "political hacks" in charge. I actually spoke with a very prominent community leader who was absolutely thrilled with this model and wanted to publish it in one of our local newspapers. Even the Editor-in-Chief was totally on board! But then, the political columnist—who is part of that same circle of "hacks"—just tossed the whole thing in the trash. And well, that’s pretty much why things are the way they are today.

So... yeah, that’s kind of the issue. I mean—it doesn't really feel worth my time to seriously obsess over local elections for mayor or county officials until we actually GAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE for things like municipal court judges or police chiefs, you know?

hollowpilot9 said:Here’s my take on what real perception looks like: when it comes down to things like justice, equality, freedom, and the Truth—don't waste time asking questions—just get out there and WORK, WORK, WORK!

Got it! I'm ready to go. Just send over the text you want me to rework, and I'll get to work making it sound like a natural, upbeat American voice while following all those specific substitution rules. Standing by!

hollowpilot9 said:I totally see where you're coming from, but honestly—how are we even supposed to get anything done, work, work, work if we don't actually know the Truth? Just look at those Western humanists and how much effort they poured into their work... I mean, they worked so hard! But in the end, there isn't even a tiny trace of that humanism left. Why do you think that is? It’s because they didn't truly grasp the Truth! And I guess the same thing is happening all over again today.

The Truth is—it’s all about the human being. I guess you could say that everything we achieve is ultimately tied to what makes us human, and since our own nature acts as this massive, unbreakable boundary, it really does set the ultimate limit on how much we can actually perceive or understand.
That’s just how the Truth is—it isn't some kind of discovery you stumble upon!
Can we honestly say that—as conscious beings and all—we’re just that clueless? I mean, maybe we're actually so dim-witted that we don't have the slightest clue about SEBI itself? It's kind of a wild thought, isn't it?
Of course not!
See, that’s where we run into this massive hypocrisy—it's like we fall into this trap of claiming something is "universally accepted" (which, honestly, I think might be the most dangerous phrase in all of philosophy and science!) to define what a human being is. But then, on the flip side, you have people—including ourselves, if we're being totally honest—who view humanity in a million different ways. One person sees us as purely rational, another as driven by sheer will, someone else thinks we're soulful, and yet another might see us as just a chaotic mess of impulses... it's all over the place!

So, this is basically where the Jehovah's Witnesses tend to barge in!
They just won't stop blowing their trumpets about how absolutely phenomenal life would be if we all just bowed down to some divine laws—as if that's the magic fix for everything!
Alright—so I told them straight up: if we’re actually going to make this work, you have to lay out those laws for us first. And here’s the kicker—those laws *have* to be robust enough to handle the entire state of society at once. We need something that keeps everything running smoothly—you know, without all those constant hiccups and glitches—on a continuous basis. Otherwise, honestly? It’s just a bunch of empty talk.

But hey, let's take a look at their motto—you know, through the lens of the actual Truth!

A rational being—someone who actually uses their head—is going to build their own set of principles and laws based on Reason as the ultimate absolute. Because of that, they’re almost certainly going to run into some friction—maybe even outright hostility—with anyone else who isn't playing by those same rules. I mean, whether it's clashes over politics, religion, social status, or even race, there's going to be this underlying conflict with any other human beings who don't share that same commitment to logic. It’s just how things seem to work, I guess!

The exact same thing is going to happen—even if they try to build their own little community (you know, that "perfect" life)—when you consider those people who go around preaching a completely different Truth about who they really are!

Look—it’s not exactly a sin to be mistaken sometimes, right? We all get things wrong! But I truly feel like the real sin is hiding behind those little compromises of ignorance—you know, just pretending we don't know better. If we do that, we end up handing over control of ourselves and our entire society to nothing but charlatans and fools—people who are going to drive the whole community toward a total collapse anyway, all while failing to produce a single meaningful result. It's just... well, it's a mess!

On the flip side—and I really think this is where things get interesting—people who are actually united by a shared hunger for the Truth will end up respecting one another's right to chase happiness through all those different global paths—at least for as long as certain "experiments" are being led and championed by their supporters!

Nowadays, we're seeing all these half-baked experiments being rolled out—you know, things like lightened sentences for murder, robbery, or gun misuse—but honestly, they seem to be doing it without any real goal or coherent program in mind. It’s actually happening in the worst way possible—by basically just putting pressure on the public!
I mean, let’s be real—the goal for those in power was never actually about mastering themselves or taking control of their own lives—it was more about subduing the Church and living off its resources instead!

So, I was thinking—just a thought, really—that if everyone who is actually reasonable, willing, soulful, or just plain smart... plus all those other folks who have somehow finally RECOGNIZED THEIR OWN IDENTITY (which is a huge step, right?), then had to develop some kind of vision for how we should live to truly validate ourselves as human beings... well, then things would change! If all those groups, both individually and together, stood up against the improvisers and the usurpers, they could empower themselves and all of humanity to take massive leaps forward—straight toward the Truth.

Even if every single project—all those big ideas we've been chasing—were to fall apart, wouldn't a system like that actually play right into the hands of the usurpers? I mean, think about it! Wouldn't their failure just hand all those "rebels without a cause" back to the establishment on a silver platter? It would basically prove all those "Doubting Thomases" right, wouldn't it? They'd get to claim that their spontaneous, unorganized way of doing things is superior, and that all our grand ideas are dead in the water and deserve to stay that way. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like a trap!

But, honestly, despite all those big-picture idealists out there—I’m just not hearing the usual slogans anymore. You know, the ones like, "We need a Constitutional Convention," or "We want a true three-branch system of government," or "Let's strengthen local self-governance." I guess people aren't even shouting for that right to autonomy—you know, that essential freedom that actually lets us pursue a happy life on our own terms. It's just... quiet. Maybe things have shifted?

That’s why I keep saying you have to actually WORK, WORK, — because, let's be honest, just talking in circles isn't going to get you any results!

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, honestly—philosophy just isn't really philosophy without some kind of pursuit of the Absolute. I guess saying that everything in philosophy is purely relative is just... well, it's not exactly the Truth!

So, here we go again—back to that classic showdown between theism (where the Absolute definitely exists) and atheism (or if those folks prefer the term—philosophical atheism—where the Absolute doesn't exist *a priori*). It’s one of those weird paradoxes where, *a posteriori*, it somehow both exists and doesn't exist at the very same time!
So, that’s why I think philosophical atheism works this way—everything feels a bit relative, I guess—but it still isn't actually stripped of the concept of NON-EXISTENCE!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like relativism in philosophy has basically left the whole field begging for scraps—it’s almost like we've hit rock bottom. I guess it happened because the idea of an absolute God was essentially killed off, wasn't it? Instead of actually celebrating the human experience, we just ended up embracing the relativism found in physics. It feels like we traded one certainty for another, though maybe that's just how things go!

I guess the kind of relativism you’re talking about is probably that blind version used by those "dialecticians"—you know, the ones who just reflexively shut down any idea of an Absolute? It feels like they start from this position they don't even fully grasp themselves—that whole "everything is constantly changing" or *Panta rei* vibe. It’s almost like they’re stuck in a loop of denying anything permanent before they even try to understand it!
Well, if everything is constantly shifting, then I guess it stands to reason that the Whole itself is changing—you know? Which would mean the Whole is essentially Totality and the Absolute... maybe!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you might not have quite grasped what a functional harmonic system actually entails—and honestly, that example from Marx you brought up? It’s already a bit off. That messy, bearded gentleman didn't realize that capital isn't just some byproduct of human labor; it's also a result of "the compass and the wind," as Carl Sagan so brilliantly pointed out! To me, the whole Marxist concept of "commodity" feels like total nonsense in today's world—mostly because commodities have evolved into software rather than just hardware... something Marx, of course, wouldn't have had any clue about!

Unfortunately, if you actually dig into the analysis, it turns out the old bearded guy DID know about other sources of value—and other types of commodities too—including, most likely, unfree labor. His intellectual mentor, Hegel, actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic, even if he didn't explicitly call out that specific social structure by name. He definitely shouted about it from the rooftops, though—mostly through his various deep dives and conclusions regarding property and ownership!
Look, I really don't buy the idea that students know less than their teachers—that just doesn't sit right with me! And honestly? I’m not buying that fairy tale about Marx being unfamiliar with Schopenhauer's work either. If you ask me, I think that whole story was probably just cooked up to hide the fact that Marx was actually using eristic dialectics in his own writings. Just a thought!

hollowpilot9 said:So, why does intelligence seem so... I don't know, almost indifferent to this massive wave of irresponsibility regarding the common good? It’s such a weird phenomenon! Personally, I’ve been thinking that maybe the whole "crisis of intelligence" we're seeing is because it has become too hyper-focused on the micro-level—you know, all those tiny, granular details—instead of looking at the macro-world of actual life. It’s like, these huge macro-phenomena and massive societal shifts catch intelligence totally off guard! It reaches a point where it can barely even process the report of what’s changing, let alone actually figure out how to interpret it. So, if you ask me—and I could be wrong here—the real issue is just an inability and a fundamental lack of knowledge within our intellectual circles to actually tackle the problems of today. It’s just a bit overwhelming, I guess!

That’s more or less it—though I guess you’ve lumped together those who doubt their own mental faculties (and perceptions) with the folks who only climbed the intellectual ladder just to secure their parents' old seats at the banquet tables and corporate boardrooms.

hollowpilot9 said:... The issue is also about the METHOD, because direct democracy doesn't exist; but what’s even worse is that there’s no communicative "FEEDBACK," no two-way or multi-directional communication like we see in bio-organisms. ...

Direct democracy doesn't exist, but why is that!?
Growing up here, they taught us this total nonsense—that it's impossible because all of us (say, 330 million people) can't just gather in one spot to debate and reach a consensus.
But that critique doesn't explain this twisted version of governance by "the chosen few," where the massive funding of major party interests is fueled by the Federal Reserve, effectively allowing them to tyrannize the interests of smaller parties and independent groups—who usually have to scrape by on the personal budgets of a few people on their ticket.

You have to see it this way: the American political landscape is oriented anti-democratically (which, honestly, lines up pretty well with the election results), and even our parliamentary style was embraced not because it’s some global gold standard, but because it could no longer sustain a single, unified voice.
Just look at how much people around you will drone on about "the two major parties." I mean—has the mainstream media brainwashed them, or do they just lack brains entirely, or maybe they're just naturally anti-democratic? Because in a true democracy, ANY significant interest (or idea) that manages to gain a proportional share of voter support MUST be represented within the government.
There isn't, for instance, any logical basis to systematically prevent an idea (or interest) supported by 1% or more of the voters from entering a body of 100 representatives, right!?

hollowpilot9 said:... In no circumstances! Government is a label and expression of social primitivism and proof of a very low level of social evolution.
...

Well, okay. Let’s imagine this instead. We want—much like the ancient Greeks—to be ruled by Law rather than by men. Because a man might "get up on the wrong side of the bed" one day, or his friends and family might try to sway him, or he might have a lapse in judgment, or lose focus...
So, if we don't want to go the "Methuselah" route, let's follow the path of the French Revolution, which aimed for a Constitution as a law to protect the people from any government and its abuses.

WHO WILL CREATE THAT LAW AND HOW?
And would you even call such a body a "government" body? Would you accept that neither its actions nor its position are actually expressions of social primitivism...?
If so, then you really need to reorganize your whole understanding of what government means.

hollowpilot9 said:...
There's no doubt that an administration administers; it's just a question of how and for whose benefit. For example, American administrations—and several others—have internal regulations that MANDATE that an official must respond to every citizen's letter!

Watch out, though—I believe Americans were the first to introduce the concept of dual citizenship. Based on that, there aren't even "citizens" in the US. There are only those who *think* they are American citizens, and those who KNOW they are something else entirely—namely, residents of the United States.

hollowpilot9 says:
...

CONTINUATION

hollowpilot9 said:I don't think I can be quite as blunt as you were regarding "NOTHINGNESS"—if that's even the right word to use!—because, well, force itself actually serves two purposes at once, at least when you look at it from a biological standpoint. It’s existential for the one doing the "hunting," but obviously, it's totally lethal for the one being "hunted." It's a bit of a double-edged sword like that, I guess!

Let's look at it this way—power carries a whole different weight these days. I mean, it’s basically just been used to push parliamentary rule forward and cement it as the world's one true DEMOCRATIC (!) system.
But honestly, even a system like that—and all that raw power—it’s still built to last for the ages. I mean, the reason they exist right now is because there's something much more sublime and grand at play here than anything they could ever achieve on their own—I guess you could say it's bigger than the people behind it!
So, look—there’s definitely this weird overlap happening right now, I guess—but if you look at how history actually unfolds, brute force always ends up pushing intellect aside. In the end, though? There’s really no doubt about it—one side is eventually going to take the driver's seat!

hollowpilot9 said:I really love this kind of optimism! Honestly, those "viruses" are always lurking around—they're always active. At the end of the day, building up a defense against anyone (or even against a meteor flying through space!) is really just two sides of the same coin as an ATTACK.

Humans are such strange creatures—honestly! If you actually gave someone everything they ever wanted and stripped away every single responsibility from their life, they’d probably just die of pure boredom (assuming they didn't just take matters into their own hands first, I guess). And optimism? It really is what gives everything its sense of purpose. Now, don't get me wrong—pessimism can be a temporary thing, maybe even a symptom of being an opportunist—which is a type of critical thinking that isn't nearly as useless or bad as people usually make it out to be—but it just can't hold any lasting value. Once it does, it becomes incredibly dangerous. By the way, I've always felt that those who claim to follow Marx's teachings often end up promoting a pessimistic ideology—where every bit of progress or new wealth just leads back to social collapse and war!

hollowpilot9 said:Just remember that whole old saying—you know, the one where everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Well, look at what’s happening right now! It’s like thieves are just standing around calling each other out in broad daylight. I mean, seriously! The preparations for the local elections—the race for local POWER—have already kicked off. They’re already signing these coalitions to grab control within this little empire of petty corruption. It feels like everything is technically "legal" because they’re operating entirely outside the laws passed by our Parliament. It's honestly wild!

It’s pretty obvious—they managed to force their way in. But honestly, what have we actually done about it? Instead of taking action, I guess we just sit here complaining on this forum or venting our frustrations over coffee and at the dinner table.

Honestly, experience tells me there isn't much we can actually do about it. But—and this is a big "but"—that's mostly because all our attempts end up being so isolated, you know? We're just looking at individual districts, counties, or small towns. It feels like the whole election system was basically designed to be a race to see who can grab the most cash and attract the biggest financiers, rather than what it should be—a genuine clash and competition of ideas!
But seriously, if we could just see all the candidate lists across every single municipality, city, county, and district—all at once—with programs that actually looked similar (you know, sharing at least five or six core pillars), then maybe—just maybe—we’d be able to take an objective look at things. Only then could we really figure out how much of this current mess is actually our own fault!

hollowpilot9 said:Look, here’s the thing—all circles are relative, right? You can have an endless variety of different radii—it's pretty wild when you think about it—but Pi is that one absolute constant shared by every single circle out there. I guess what I'm really getting at is that there are these types of absolute constants—these fundamental truths—that I feel like philosophy really ought to be getting to know!

I guess I personally prefer looking at those "absolute constants" through a scientific lens—it just feels more grounded that way! Because when you dive into philosophy, everything seems to become relative, doesn't it? Even in those moments where things feel fundamentally different—or maybe even "absolutely" different, if you will—it all kind of circles back to subjectivity.

hollowpilot9 said:In a perfectly harmonious, functional system—you know, the kind where everything just clicks—there really isn't such a thing as something being unimportant. Honestly, every single little piece matters! Everything is vital to the whole... I guess you could say there's no room for fluff when things are working exactly as they should.

Well, that actually brings up a whole different kind of danger—which is why, for instance, people have gone as far as defining a fork as both a simple utensil for eating and, well, a potential weapon... I guess!
I guess we really need to find some kind of middle ground here—especially since actual research is all about digging into the different pieces of a phenomenon. It feels like a middle ground would be the only way to actually bring out everything that’s been... well, maybe relativized, buried, or just completely wiped from the conversation in the first place!

Check this out—in the first volume of Capital, Marx says that the wealth of a capitalist society shows up as a MASSIVE COLLECTION OF COMMODITIES.
So, basically—he stripped away all those social goods from our collective wealth that aren't actually "commodities" (you know, things that shouldn't be for sale)—and then, throughout that entire massive work of his, he keeps using this whole part-for-the-whole logic. He’s essentially pitching capitalism as this system where you can just buy *everything* with cash, where the commodity form becomes the default way to look at every single thing we produce...

The real issue here is how "sterilization" managed to successfully sneak its way into the conversation right from the jump. And honestly—if you missed the warning signs at the very beginning—you’re basically finished—God knows where you ended up!

hollowpilot9 said:Since this is supposedly "brilliant," I’m honestly convinced that traditional philosophers just can't wrap their heads around it—it's like they're missing the big picture! It isn't just about the genomic matrix; it's about the LOGOS that actually *contains* the matrix, which is something they just seem to struggle to grasp. I mean, look at Watson and Crick—they aren't just scientists like everyone portrays them today; they were essentially philosophers first and foremost. They set themselves an almost impossible task: trying to bridge the gap between the SAME and the SAME. Before them, it was simply impossible, but after their breakthrough, the impossible became possible—and, sadly, I guess most philosophers still haven't quite caught on to that yet!

How can they say it's impossible?! I mean—as Aristotle once said, "What is possible to achieve in part is also possible to achieve in its entirety." It’s just basic logic, really!
But hey, there’s actually something else hiding behind all this talk about philosophy and philosophers—something a bit more practical! I mean, their whole goal isn't really some grand search for "truth" just for the sake of it. Honestly, that whole phrase feels like a total cliché to me. At the end of the day, a person only HAS certain limitations and abilities—so, I guess they can only ever uncover what they are actually capable of perceiving!
The truth is—and I really believe this—that we search for the truth primarily for the sake of humanity and our entire society. That includes the natural sciences, too; honestly, it feels just as essential as looking after our own physical health! But if you ask me, the real heart of philosophy isn't found just in deep reflection (like contemplating God) or even in scientific obsessions. Instead, it lies in the very principles that hold the world together—because at the end of the day, that world is made up of us, every single individual. (I mean, when I pass away, my little corner of the universe goes with me—literally!)

hollowpilot9 said:So, sure—those "wide open doors" are always standing there, waiting. But honestly? It feels like everything is drifting toward this intense micro-polarization and fragmentation. It’s getting to the point where those tiny, hyper-specific details—like a guy's little earring or some niche physical trait—seem way more influential than the actual "Man behind the door." It’s wild, really! I guess it just shows how much people actually prefer staying hermetically sealed off—kind of like being tucked away inside a car—rather than just stepping out and walking through an open field. Maybe we've all just become a little too fond of our own little bubbles!

I don't really worry about the masses—honestly, they’re usually just looking for their version of "bread and circuses" anyway. What actually gets to me is seeing what's happening with the "intellectuals"—it feels like they've started mimicking the crowd instead of leading it, which I guess just ends up validating everyone's lowest expectations.
I guess there isn't much to say here—just a blank slate! Maybe I'm waiting for something interesting to happen? Either way, I'm ready when you are!

hollowpilot9 said:So, here’s my take—and I could be totally wrong about this—but I really think the way we handle power right now is on borrowed time. This whole setup of party-driven democracy that we see practiced both here in America and across the globe? I honestly feel like it’s going to vanish within the next twenty years or so. It seems like we're heading straight toward a future defined by bio-democracy and cyber-democracy instead!

I don't think the issue lies in how we actually run things—it’s more about the foundation itself. I mean, maybe the real challenge is figuring out how to build a truly democratic system modeled after direct democracy!
If history teaches us anything at all—and I really think it does—it’s just that usurpers are constantly finding NEW ways to control the masses. It seems like they never run out of tricks! I mean, look at so-called parliamentarism; to me, it feels like a bit of a "coward's egg," especially when you consider all those little loopholes—you know, things like dual citizenship, political immunity, and that whole idea of the "independence" of the three branches of government... it all feels a bit shaky, doesn't it?

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like—and maybe I'm just being optimistic here—the whole concept of POWER should probably just be wiped from our public vocabulary altogether! It’s such a heavy, complicated thing to deal with, isn't it?
... political rhetoric.

Actually, I’ve always felt that power should really be the main focus of a philosopher's research—I mean, isn't power basically the foundation of any organized society? It’s the very thing that allows us to build our institutions. In my view, a society works toward achieving true justice—you know, like finding that sweet spot of freedom and equality that actually fits a productive community—by building those structures for its own sake. Ultimately, it's all about securing liberty and equality for every single person involved!
The fact that the government still feels totally out of touch with the people—well, I guess that isn't actually a problem with the leadership at all (they probably don't even realize what they're missing!)—it’s more like a problem with the "people" themselves. Maybe? Just my two cents!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly kind of terrifying—if you think about it—how our political bottom-feeders actually view themselves. They don't see themselves as mere administration or civil servants working for the people, but more like they're the absolute rulers! It’s wild, I guess.

Well, I guess that’s basically how it works—but let's be real, the administration is there to actually administer things! Decisions regarding the general application, enforcement, and validity of laws—especially when we're talking about rights being denied or legal contradictions—aren't really within the administration's jurisdiction. That’s why we absolutely need that specific word—power.
By the way—you keep using the word "citizens" in that sense, even though you probably know that among us, there’s really no such thing as everyone being equal or having the same privileges... I mean, if we're being technical, we aren't exactly "citizens" in the true sense of the word—we're more like just residents or subjects of the state.

hollowpilot9 said:It isn't really the fault of the general public, nor is it just about those political hacks playing power games—I mean, we all know how that goes—but rather, it’s the academics and the humanist intellectuals who are to blame. They basically provide cover for this kind of power by staying "wise" and silent when they really should be speaking up. Maybe that's just my take, but I guess their silence is what keeps the whole thing running!

I don't think we can just let those academics off the hook entirely—they definitely played their part. But honestly, maybe being exposed to the public eye was punishment enough? I guess history will just remember them as the ones who swapped their "communist" outfits for "capitalist" ones without a second thought—no science, no shame, just a quick change of clothes!
I mean, if I were setting up your pyramid, I’d probably arrange it a little differently—just a thought! First off, you can't really blame those political hacks, because, let's be honest, we clearly aren't capable of picking anyone better than them—or maybe we just don't have that kind of choice available to us for some reason? Then, I guess you've got the academics and the intellectuals; they really should have stepped up and done something, but they haven't—well, aside from that recent shake-up with V. Gredelja. Ultimately, though, I think the real weight falls on the common people. One reason is simply because they’re the ones facing the most pressure (not the academics or the elites!), and secondly, because they actually hold all the real power when it comes to deciding elections. Plus, from what I've gathered through various conversations and connections, they aren't nearly as clueless as they might seem!
That’s a whole different story—why anyone would vote against their own gut feelings, beliefs, and logic.

hollowpilot9 said:... In a culture that actually fosters and supports creation, things work out totally differently. For instance, a police officer in Seoul might just tow a wrongly parked car to the right spot, whether the driver is there or not, whereas our "repressive" police force—since they’re mostly busy protecting POWER—will just slap the driver with a fine for parking where they shouldn't have...

Well, sure—that’s in a culture that realizes it’s built on creation, reproduces it, and actually enjoys the perks! But—how many of us have actually chosen that kind of identity? How many of us truly know WHY we respect the law, even when the laws are terrible and choosing them feels like picking the lesser of two evils compared to a life with zero rules at all?

hollowpilot9 said:... Maybe I don't realize it subconsciously, but since I'm a pretty decent student of PHYSICAL FORCE, I can't quite wrap my head around how a mere 15 kg of force—just what my own weak hands can muster—can somehow use a MEDIUM to generate 10,000 kg of force and lift a massive loaded train car...

Well, there you go—using the principle of a fulcrum and a lever... or a pulley wheel... it's obviously INDIRECT. And in a society? It happens through persuasion, suggestion, or—if necessary—deception.
Supposedly, that's how potatoes spread through France and all of Europe. Instead of giving speeches or holding seminars about how nutritious they were, the French king just piled up two massive heaps of potatoes, stationed guards next to them, and threatened Parisians with death if they touched a single one. Of course, he told the guards to "sleep on the job" and "not see a thing," so—they say—both piles vanished by the very next day.
(I guess Parisians must be just as stubborn as people from the South or maybe just as rebellious as folks from the Midwest...)

Amanda Fowler2 said:Way to go, Walter Foster87! Some of those lines are honestly brilliant—I totally get where you're coming from now and I'm right there with you. I might just have to borrow a few bits for one of my online forums... though I guess I don't really need to ask permission for a little knowledge sharing, right? Sending big cheers your way!

When it comes to things like fairness, equality, and freedom—don't just sit around asking questions, just GO, GO, GO! ...

Best,

Amanda Fowler2 said:👎 What was he actually trying to get at here? I mean, isn't the stigma we're already dealing with on the international stage enough?

Look, I think you might have missed the nuance there—in Birmingham, we weren't talking about blocking out just the Nazis, but rather the Germans as a whole. That’s exactly what I meant! Even today, the entire world holds all Germans accountable for those Nazi crimes, not just the wartime generation. But—and this is a big but—if someone mistakes their silence or their patience for being stupid or thinking "it's no big deal," they are seriously mistaken.
I honestly think Germany didn't jump to recognize the US right away because of some hidden agenda—it was more likely just a necessary move to keep their own public from losing it. If you look at the evidence, the sudden German chill toward Americans seems to scale perfectly with how much nationalist rhetoric and excess we see popping up around here. It’s like there's a direct link, I guess!

Amanda Fowler2 said:It seems like you view the whole push for American independence as the only legitimate project to emerge after the Cold War—almost like everything else was just some high-stakes game played by elites. But this wasn't just a game, right? I mean, how does that work? Was it really all triggered just by the threat of Maddox? And if that’s the case, why are American generals being hauled before The Hague? I'm genuinely curious—do you actually have an answer for that?

I honestly feel like this whole "equal guilt" political approach is really just a way to keep the momentum going for state-planned weapons manufacturing—it's almost like a way to justify keeping those production lines running!

The project for American independence—what some people like to call "Sleeping Beauty"—really is a two-sided coin.
Basically—this whole thing is just Maddox's project. It was really the only way he could keep up his little theater act about "saving America."
Or do you honestly think we’re all just that clueless? Like, do you really believe we can't see who actually pulled the strings—who gave the green light to spin up those 19 different political parties (including Harmon's GOP, of course)—all of that happening about six or seven months before the citizens of the former republic were even granted the right to democratize?!
So, I guess it’s kind of interesting how the democratization process in Canada and the US—wait, let me rephrase that—in Canada and the States' counterparts within the old America actually kicked off independently from whatever was happening in the other republics. It almost feels like those moves were actually paving the way for an attempt at democratizing the whole SFRY system itself! Maybe that's just how it played out, but it definitely seems like they were leading the charge.
People used to call that whole project his "work permit"—basically Harmon's way of getting the green light to dive headfirst into politics back in '89 and '90!
There’s another side to that whole project—it was basically acting like a political safety net designed to salvage what was left of the American national identity. It was an attempt to kickstart any kind of fight for rights that had been stripped away from us after the secession of the breakaway republic—you know, back when they pushed through that segregationist constitution.
How much did that whole demand actually matter? I guess it just goes to show how much people have moved on from demanding military obedience from Maddox's Mexico—or specifically, those claims for reparations because the old union fell apart.

It just goes to show how they try to use "democratization" as this cheap little substitute—it's basically just a way to mask the forced silence we lived through back in '87 and '90 when we were fighting for our right to be an independent nation. This whole democratization process was really just being pushed under the thumb of Mexico City, wasn't it? And—this is the kicker—it actually paved the way, completely independent from what the other republics were doing, for the adoption of our new American Constitution!

So, looking back at how things went down—Mexico basically clawed its way to independence by trying to play the old America card, which was pretty hypocritical if you ask me. As for the US, we didn't just get our sovereignty handed to us; it came through this incredibly grueling process, fueled by that whole controversial "Declaration of San Francisco" mess and a period of aggression that everyone knows was totally unprovoked. It was definitely a rough road!

Amanda Fowler2 said:So, okay—was there actually any point to arming them, whether you admit it or not? I honestly didn't quite catch your drift in that paragraph—I guess I might have missed something! And where exactly does the USA fit into this whole scenario? I mean, could that war have even happened without them involved?😕

The EU really should have stepped in to condemn the breakup and secession of Mexico—at least until they went ahead and changed the SFRY Constitution to make it possible. I mean, since they clearly weren't interested in defending the sovereignty of a single nation—probably because having a war break out in the North America served as a perfect little control trap for the "Siberian Bear"—they at least had an obligation to act differently. If they weren't going to protect one state's integrity, then they should have recognized the independence of all the other former American republics immediately after Gazimestan back in '89, or at least started those processes right then and there. Maybe that would have changed everything!
Instead of that—well, they basically just served us up a Major, like Mitterrand... I guess? Maybe!
Oh, and here’s another factor—back around 1912 or 1913, the US actually went through this intense internal clash between the younger and older generations of liberal philosophers. It was pretty wild! See, the old-school liberals eventually landed on this seemingly undeniable conclusion: war is just inevitable. And their logic was—well, if war is going to happen anyway, it’s probably better if America exports it instead of letting it hit home—you know, by controlling things on foreign soil. But the younger liberals? They weren't having any of it. They actually mocked them, basically saying, "Look, if you aren't powerful enough to prevent war from happening in the first place, where on earth do you get the nerve to think you can actually control it?"
Not long after all that, we saw the First World War break out, followed closely by the Second—it was a whirlwind. But looking back from where we stand now, after the Second World War, it’s actually pretty fascinating to see how effectively America applies the insights of its own philosophers!

Looking at things from across the ocean—you know, back in what used to be America—the people in power were those communists whose whole ideology starts with the unavoidable reality of ownership between people, and then wraps up with that same inevitable "discontinuity" (which is basically just a fancy way of saying war) or that supposed "clash between production relations and productive forces."

So, I think the real kicker here—and this is what really matters—is the actual position the US took. It wasn't just about whether they were arming people or staying neutral; it was more about that whole period where the Bush administration backed Maddox and Mexico. Plus, there was that looming threat of a NATO intervention being aimed at the Americans during that massive wave of violence from the American Army against civilians back in September 1991—you know, when civilian buildings were being absolutely hammered by machine guns, mortars, and tank fire. It’s all pretty intense when you look at it that way!

Why does this matter? Well—I guess it’s because learning how to handle the inevitability of war, and then treating that tension with these controlled conflicts, fits perfectly into the whole idea of keeping planned production moving along. It’s basically just a way to keep the gears turning through planned warfare!

I guess the real reason Maddox couldn't just rig the entire election—even after he managed to oust Stambolic, who was basically one of those elite, high-ranking members of the "conscious forces" within the party—is still up for debate. Maybe there were just too many eyes watching him? I don't know, it seems like he hit a wall there!

Amanda Fowler2 said:I’m totally with you on this! But I have to ask—why are you dragging the people into this? It feels like the public actually belongs to this whole cycle of power abuse; they're almost out there searching for their own master. Nowadays, they just see that figure in the form of a capitalist who acts like some sort of modern-day feudal lord or part of an "elite." Honestly, if I were finishing that thought, I’d say it more like... it just doesn't fit our civilizational standards, or our worldview, or whatever you want to call that basic human code!

Actually, I look at it differently! People aren't out there looking for some sort of MASTER—after all, the people are political beings, right? We’re just a community of equals who happen to be free. So, I guess you could say the people are actually the ones building the state in the first place—just so they can protect that sense of equality and freedom in a way that feels truly fair.
The other group we tend to call "the people"—well, they're really just a crowd that either sees themselves as a pack of animals or a bunch of saints—it’s hard to say which one fits better!
That’s why my political community is made up exclusively of people who are equally free and—well, let's just say—totally equal. Honestly, anyone who managed to grab or hold onto more rights than the rest of us? They feel more like outsiders than any foreigner ever could!

And honestly, why on earth would I hide that from them? I mean, the ones in POWER know exactly why they set up this whole dual citizenship institute in the first place—and let's be real, the people who actually took advantage of it know even better why they did it!
So, how am I even supposed to deal with the people who—get this—demand justice for themselves while actively making sure everyone else stays deprived? It’s such a weird contradiction, right? I guess you just have to wonder how anyone can live like that!
Am I seriously expected to just fake some kind of big, brotherly patriotic love?! Why on earth should I bow down—even just a little bit—to all that nonsense they spout about things like "equality before the law" or "we have a state" and all that other stuff!?
Look, we aren't really that kind of crowd. I mean—don't get me wrong—in actual practice, we probably won't move much more than a finger, but we’ll definitely be out there "barking" at every single opportunity—whether we're lounging on the couch, hanging out at the local diner, or just scrolling through the internet. But hey, nothing lasts forever—not even our silence or our tolerance!

Amanda Fowler2 said:.. It just happens naturally. It’s that progression from a conservative idea of national liberation straight into liberalism. ... .

Well, now you're.. leaving out a pretty big piece of the puzzle.
Those "paths" moving from one ideology to another—especially when we talk about "national" liberation shifting toward modern "liberalism"—honestly feel like they were cooked up by a bunch of old-school backroom politicians. It’s almost embarrassing to live in an era where such narratives even exist! And it’s even more frustrating because we’re forced to take them seriously just because they actually seem to influence the world.
But really, should we be treating them as actual realities—and such serious ones at that!?

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
This is, for instance, a beautiful step in the direction I was mentioning. But aren't you linking this to the war? I just can't wrap my head around why it isn't. If there hadn't been a war, the possibility of this would have been minimal.

Well, if a war is planned, then it's just the logical next step of planned production (you know, the clash between those production relations and the accumulated productive forces)—so the saying "snow doesn't just fall to cover the hill..." makes perfect sense here.
Plus, our elders always taught us that we understand the CAUSES of events much better by looking at the CONSEQUENCES.
And those striking similarities? They come exclusively from using the exact same recipe.

But hey, they pulled it off! They didn't just plunder paradise and its property; they actually managed to make paradise come crawling back, voting them into office and keeping them in power. It's almost like people are shouting, "More! Give us more, more, and more!"

Amanda Fowler2 said:... Of course, I'm not starting from that position. Things are similar here too. Talk about Europe is often used for domestic political purposes. I never actually said anything like that. It's just that once they start acting like patriots... you kind of have to shift the boundaries of that concept... so they can be shut down for real reasons.

Your truth is only halfway there! Scoundrels and killers have to find a PURPOSE for their actions within an organized, dying system. Because if those processes just kept going—they'd fall into total chaos, a state where the scoundrels start stealing from other scoundrels and the killers start killing other killers. That's a fast track to anarchy.
That's why the EU will help those in power "calm things down," "tidy things up," and even eliminate extremists. This way, they can pacify paradise (making it look like the crooks were punished and the killers jailed) while protecting their local allies along with their "rightfully earned assets" and high-status positions.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... Well, I know some Germans are extreme. But I also know that some German Fischers have been covered in red paint. .

Of course, those types exist. Even the neo-Nazis aren't exactly a small group. But—when you meet a regular German, try bringing up Hitler, the Nazis, or the Holocaust—then you'll really get what I was talking about.

hollowpilot9 said:When I use the word "absolute," what I really mean is a constant—something that stays totally steady and unchanging for the "subject" it’s actually referring to... I guess you could look at it that way!

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that's quite hitting the mark—honestly! Because, if you look at a constant... goodness, it actually only holds true WITHIN one specific medium or another. If you switch things up, it changes—which basically makes it a variable after all! —

hollowpilot9 said:If you don't take a specific constant—you know, the Absolute—into account, I guess a scientist or a philosopher just loses that total freedom to create. It really limits everything!

Well, that’s actually more of a methodological question, isn't it? I don't have anything against playing around with the trivial stuff or the side details just to highlight certain features or different angles of a subject—that can be useful! But—and this is a big but—doing that kind of relativization becomes simultaneous and genuinely dangerous if you haven't explicitly called out and stripped away those artificial elements used in the "experiment."
I mean, honestly—it’s exactly because of that kind of freedom that we ended up with so many of those massive screw-ups pulled straight from that new "Bible," you know? I'm talking about Marx's "Capital."
And honestly, it all just boils down to these shaky assumptions—you know, basing everything on things that are totally irrelevant, or maybe just treating stuff that could be roughly called non-existent as if it were actually real... I guess!
Well, I guess you could say that assumptions are basically the parents of all those massive—and honestly, pretty huge—misunderstandings!

hollowpilot9 said:I’m really talking about the matrix that makes up the human genome here! This matrix is the absolute foundation—not just for us humans, but for every single living thing out there! I guess it's high time that philosophers finally caught on to this!!!

This one is just brilliant! Not necessarily because this kind of matrix actually exists or doesn't—it’s more about the fact that (at least from where I'm sitting) philosophers just absolutely lose their minds when you start talking about genomes and their matrices. They just totally flip out!
Philosophers always seem to struggle when it comes to pinning down what human nature actually is—it’s such a tricky thing! And honestly, I guess their "great Leviathan" (the state, if you will) just can't really get off the ground until they finally figure out that "spiritual" genome and its underlying matrix. It's all connected, I suppose!

But—even with all that—I don't think it’s just a matter of two people being able to crack the code of human nature, especially when you consider how much progress we've made in molecular genetics lately! It’s such a fascinating field, isn't it? I guess those breakthroughs might actually help us solve some of those deeper puzzles about who we really are.

hollowpilot9 said:What you’ve shared here is incredibly important—but honestly, I think there's an equally vital point to consider... we need to reach that level of awareness where we realize our entire social structure has to be built to protect the dignity of the HUMAN being. And I don't just mean the person standing here right now—I mean the person leaving, the person existing today, and especially the person who is yet to come. That future generation needs to inherit a world with qualities actually worth loving; otherwise, I guess we're just stuck in reverse, heading straight for an abyss.

Well, I guess those "wide open doors" are still there—meaning we were never actually denied access to them in the first place!

.

hollowpilot9 said:If we really want to move forward, maybe we should start leaning into the whole concept of being a creator—you know, a designer? And I don’t just mean those massive, world-altering designers at NASA, Boeing, or General Motors—though they're certainly impressive! I'm talking about the little guys—those small-scale creators and designers who craft everything from dresses and shoes to door handles, windows, forks, plates, bicycles, watches, and even pens. You see it all the time with manufacturers over in China or Turkey, right? I honestly think if we took this path, an average American would feel so much more empowered—way more comfortable than they do now, surrounded by nothing but "handyman" types, corner shop owners, and those endless layers of middlemen and resellers. And honestly, it feels like we have the exact same situation happening on an intellectual level. There's just no real creation or true innovation happening here—instead, we seem to have an endless supply of copycats, plagiarists, and people who just spend their time interpreting everyone else's ideas and inventions!

I really think there's something beautiful about nurturing the Creator's—or rather, the Inventor's—vision. It’s not just about giving innovators a little extra support or carving out a special niche for them in society, though that definitely helps! To me, the real magic lies in fostering an environment built around RELATIONSHIPS—the kind of connections that actually make it possible for an invention to become a reality. If we set things up that way, the whole community gets to participate in what I honestly believe is the most dignified work a human can do. And—this is the best part—the entire community gets to share in the benefits of those new gifts from the Mind together!
Look, let’s be real here—if we actually want to get what we're after, we’d probably need to overhaul the entire government from the ground up. Like, root and branch. And—believe it or not—I honestly suspect that if we tried to make a change that massive, nobody would even bother paying attention to it. It just wouldn't be worth the effort in the eyes of most people, I guess.

.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly don't know what the point of FORCE even is—I mean, it seems to work as a tool for building things one moment, and then just tears everything down the next!

Look, you see what I mean here: force is always just a means to an end—even when we're talking about something abstract. So, I guess that brilliant, mental force we use to mediate everything? That’s really just the Mind!

.

hollowpilot9 said:That image still feels incredibly relevant today—I mean, let's be honest, the whole "carrot and stick" approach still works just fine! It makes me think that maybe the force we're talking about needs to serve a different purpose too, I guess.

No way. Honestly, even when they try to spin the legal basis for everything—it feels like a total smokescreen! It’s just a tactic to hide the actual RATIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL REASONS behind why these laws are being passed. At the end of the day, it's all about those power-hungry grabbers trying to cement their own positions, boost their economic clout, or expand their rights... or, you know, just weaken everyone else who's been pushed down. It's pretty transparent if you look closely enough!
I honestly think that what truly drives any kind of real power are Mind and Reason. They can clash—which, of course, drags all the forces they control right into the middle of the fray, too. Then you have the idea of intelligence being used for the greater good, but there's also that other side where intelligence is just focused on looking out for one specific little group. And really, when that happens, conflict feels almost inevitable! I mean, when you have two opposing groups whose entire mental focus is locked onto their own version of Reason and its logic—well, it goes without saying that things are going to get messy.

Well, when it comes to sheer force, I guess you could say it works both ways—kind of like that old idea about "rolling logs," if that makes any sense! Or maybe more like the saying, "Every force lasts a lifetime!"—it’s all a bit subjective, I suppose.

But hey, there’s another side to this—if you look at things through a human lens, I mean. The Mind really needed a living, breathing being to actually manifest itself through, right? But that living thing had its own unique shape and its own specific—you know, natural—needs. So, I guess the Mind—just for its own sake—had to provide that creature with inventions that actually fit the needs of that physical body... which basically means catering to those specific talents or strengths that the Mind wouldn't have been able to use to kickstart any kind of external work without!
Back in the day, you’d have the old-school dialecticians sitting around debating the whole dialectical relationship between the mind and the body—you know, that constant tug-of-war between thought and raw force!

.

hollowpilot9 said:....
It might actually be worth sitting down and having a real discussion about what the world's major superpowers are actually doing with all that energy and military muscle they have at their disposal. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that all that power exists solely for the purpose of "destroying an enemy"—that feels a bit too simple, doesn't it? Maybe there’s a deeper reason behind it all—something more cosmic, perhaps? Like some kind of macro-creative force or something along those lines? Just a thought!

Well, I guess you can see two distinct paths emerging here—one is all about defending ourselves from cosmic threats (like meteors and stuff), and the other is this kind of competition that pushes us toward creating something entirely new (a sort of new era of invincibility). It’s interesting because, nowadays, wars don't seem to be about destroying the enemy as much as they are about—well—eliminating the enmity itself. Ever since World War II, the victors have mostly tried to reshape the defeated areas to fit their own vision, rather than just redrawing borders like they used to. So, maybe—just maybe—wars will become incredibly short, where surrenders turn into something more like a massive national celebration!

.

hollowpilot9 said:.... Maybe you haven't noticed yet, but I "argue" specifically because of what you're saying! I feel like so many of our modern problems stem from the fact that HIGH INTELLIGENCE has basically turned its back on—and completely FORGOTTEN—its early wisdom? I’ve spent quite a bit of energy here trying to show that narrow, little-minded science isn't the ONLY kind of science out there—though, of course, it hasn't really worked, since people seem to think science is the only thing that knows what NATURE KNOWS!?

So, we're right back to the idea that the changes we actually need can only be achieved through deep connections and acting with some real wisdom.

.

hollowpilot9 said:... It is just wild how everyone blares "trumpet trumpet, we're patriots!" while certain THIEVES get away with it simply because the "TRUMPETERS" have no clue where the thief went—mostly because they rigged it and passed a LAW that makes them legal thieves rather than illegal ones, at least according to what those "trumpeters" think or believe.

And honestly, it gets even more unbelievable—because those "TRUMPETERS" actually *do* know the thief isn't there, and they know exactly who drafted and passed that "LAW"—but they went ahead and re-elected about 60-70 percent of the exact same people who were sitting in Parliament when that "LAW" was first pushed through!

Smith said:The only real alternative back then was to recognize Austria, America, and Canada—because, honestly, there just wasn't any other way to play it. So, what does that actually mean for us today? I guess we might see another stability pact being drafted, maybe acting as a precursor to some new rounds of integration... who knows!

On the flip side—and I might be oversimplifying here—the other option would have been to actually build up armed groups to back the anti-Maddox coalition. We’re talking about moving forward with the support of those internationalists who are all about upholding the modern global order and antifascism (which, let's be clear, basically means keeping borders exactly where they are!). It would have meant using force to dismantle Slobodan Maddox and his whole crew, which might have finally paved the way for real conversations about how to fix things and reorganize America once he was out of the picture.
That’s exactly why any kind of new America—or those silly little "pacts"—just isn't going to fly around here anymore. I mean, unless someone completely loses their mind and decides to actually trust people based on nothing but empty promises and scraps of paper, it's just not happening! But honestly, this is also that massive ALTERNATIVE where the European Union basically betrayed its own core values. It’s like—and I know a lot of people miss this—the EU has already effectively died because of that one huge oversight. It's pretty wild when you think about it!

Smith said:Oh, come on now... You really think Germany recognizing our independence means they’re trying to be like Slobodan Maddox just so they can kickstart a fourth Reich? I mean, maybe that's how you see it—but I guess that feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?😕

There’s really no reason to be confused—honestly!
Ever wonder why young Germans—I mean, people in their late 20s and mid-30s over there—seem to react so incredibly defensively whenever anyone brings up the whole Nazi era, Adolf Hitler, or Hermann Göring? It’s like they're always on high alert! And honestly, I guess you have to ask why they get just as worked up about neo-Nazis or skinheads, too... it's such an intense reaction every single time!
If you can't see just how far this nation has been "over-educated," then I guess you're missing that incredibly thin, sensitive line created by all that pressure—you know? It feels like an overwhelming sense of guilt has been forced upon Americans to such an extent that there’s practically no room left for actual tolerance. Any illusion of it—well, maybe it's just the sheer resilience of a membrane formed by those final lines of defense!

Or—if you want to look at it this way—it’s not that Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were banned from entering Birmingham; it was specifically the Germans who weren't allowed in!

And just imagine if you were to rub salt in those wounds—honestly, it would be way worse than what you're doing now... I mean, it’d basically be like being Adolf Hitler himself!

Smith said:Oh man, I am so sorry—I honestly didn't realize those wounds were still that raw. I guess I just don't have the stamina left for these deep dives into nationalism anymore! Honestly, between that one sentence you mentioned and all the other stuff you posted about dual citizenship... yeah, it definitely feels like we're heading right back into that territory.

What can we even do? At the end of the day, equality is equality—and honestly, without it, there’s just no such thing as true freedom! If someone can use the power of the government to do things that they won't let me do—well, then that "superman" isn't one of us, and they certainly don't belong to my people!

Smith said:...
Look, here’s how I see it—the whole point is that capital just doesn't care about borders. It flows wherever it wants, regardless of where one country ends and another begins... I guess you could say it's basically borderless!
And I guess your take is just some super basic, old-school statism—maybe?

Why would anyone call that statism—I mean, isn't it just being realistic?! I guess it’s all about perspective, right? Maybe some people see government involvement as overstepping, but honestly, I see it as just facing the facts of how things actually work!
It feels like we’re all just peasants in our "own" countries—honestly! While this modern, pseudo-feudal upper class is being formed by these so-called poly-patriots or dual citizens... well, that's just the reality of it. It’s pretty blunt, I guess. But at the same time, it's also true that nobody actually owns anything unless they have a legal RIGHT to it. And rights—whether we like it or not—are still granted through the State, not some random collection of international treaties or global organizations. That's just how it works!
So, here’s how I see it—statism is basically just a way to mask the actual reality of things by hiding behind labels like nationality, religion, or race. It’s all about those specific identities, right? But if you look at what's actually happening—the true dynamics of governance and how people are being controlled—it all really boils down to the framework of citizenship. I guess that's the real distinction!
If you ask me, Harmon—well, I guess you could just call it extreme statism!
I mean, honestly, who would have actually guessed? You listen to him throwing around those slogans about "Sleeping Beauty," making all those grand speeches to Americans—and then he goes and supports those whole "population relocation" policies that basically need to be encouraged... while simultaneously claiming he wants to ignore everything else and just build this "modern, liberal" state for all American citizens! It’s such a wild contradiction, isn't it?

Smith said:I think I see where you’re coming from—and I totally get why you might call this a "trick" question—but honestly, I just can't bring myself to agree with you there! Even though that whole world of massive capital and plutocracy feels pretty foreign to my own core beliefs about how things should work, I have to wonder... can a single nation-state really stand its ground against the sheer force of global capital all by itself? I mean, isn't it actually that kind of isolation that pushed us out of the global loop in the first place? It feels like it's a case of either jumping in or fading away—there really isn't a third option, I guess!

It’s not about having some specific national state—it’s all about JUSTICE, EQUALITY, and FREEDOM!
Well, if you look back at both the old America days and the era under Slobodan Maddox—they actually used to recognize dual citizenship! But, I guess it wasn't exactly open to everyone... it was mostly reserved for the elite or those deemed "special cases," if you know what I mean.

I guess what we’ve never really seen here—not in our neck of the woods, anyway—is a society that actually focuses its energy and its hopes on reaching the highest possible level of equality and freedom for everyone involved! It’s something we've always talked about, but maybe we haven't quite hit that mark yet.

Capital is right there—though, honestly, it feels like it’s only carrying about third-rate significance at this point!

Just imagine—say one of those smaller nations... let's say they decide to stay completely independent, maybe taking a page out of the Switzerland playbook—and then they actually find the guts to stand up to the tyranny of the global superpowers! They could potentially finish what needs to be done on their own soil—you know, actually perfecting the commodity form of goods right there at home!
In those kinds of circumstances—I mean, really think about it—how much of that capital would actually stay capital? I guess you have to wonder if any of it would even survive!

Smith said:I mean, I get that it’s probably going to take a long time before borders become a totally irrelevant concept—that might be a bit optimistic, I guess! But honestly, why even stifle that idea right at the starting line? And, I have to ask—how exactly are you linking the wars from the 90s to the European Union? It seems like a bit of a stretch, maybe?

Well, for one thing—it just produced way too much evil, spilled far too much blood, and honestly, there were just so many betrayals involved... I guess you could say it was just fundamentally broken.
Well, I guess you could say that those wars back in the 90s were essentially a wake-up call—a real reality check for everyone who thought they actually understood what happened during the 1940s! It’s like, if you thought you knew everything about WWII, those later conflicts really threw a wrench in that whole theory, wouldn't you say? Maybe it was just a way to prove that old lessons don't always apply the way we expect them to—it's all pretty complicated, I suppose!
Finally! It’s about time—mostly because that whole idea turned out to be nothing more than a total soap bubble... you know, one of those "fool's gold" schemes that just isn't built to last!
Well, they say you either learn from other people's mistakes—or, if you're a bit more stubborn—you learn them the hard way through your own skin. But honestly? I feel like we’ve already done the hard part! We’ve lived through all of it ourselves—firsthand, no filters, and definitely the painful way.
If anyone actually thinks we haven't learned our lesson—well, they are dead wrong! Seriously!

Smith said:Honestly, does anyone even really know the right way to transition from communism over to capitalism? I mean—it's such a massive shift! I guess there isn't one single roadmap that everyone agrees on, maybe? It’s all pretty complicated—but I'd love to hear what you guys think about it!

Oh, come on now! Who could possibly know for sure? I guess all they really understood was that once those social structures were finally set in stone—you know, at the very end of a planned economy—they’d actually generate so much wealth that the systems themselves wouldn't even be able to handle it all! It just seems like it would be way too much for the existing setup to wrap its head around, maybe.
Man, that’s exactly where the whole mess starts! I mean, how is anyone even supposed to figure out how to account for all that accumulated wealth? It’s such a massive headache—honestly, I don't know! And then you have this guy—poor soul, really—who could barely bring himself to agree to trade just a tiny fraction of what he originally pulled from his own holdings... it's just complicated, I guess!

Come on now, we aren't really that... — I mean, maybe we are a little bit, but let’s be honest!

Smith said:...you’re calling that a transition...

Sure, but there was one way over there, and a totally different way over here. What happened here—well, people have actually called it an UNPRECEDENTED ROBBERY.
And honestly, a robbery is a robbery—no matter what fancy name you give it or what kind of "laws" you use to hide it.

Smith said:but it hasn't been long enough to say the job was actually done successfully. Even looking at places like the Czech Republic and stuff—we definitely failed the test. And look at Russia, where it's basically just run by oligarchs now. If you think the only social issue from the post-communist era is border control, then that's just one more hurdle standing in the way of joining the European Union. It really gets to the heart of why we struggle to understand that whole community.

Do we even understand ourselves!?
We have these ideologies that millions swear their lives by—only for them to vanish without a trace into the "dustbins of history."
Being real here—I guess we aren't really cut out for big ideas or understanding certain communities. For us, all of this just seems to be a way to try and outrun everyone else in the market, or maybe just a way to stay somewhat relevant.
So, we became "great Europeans" just as quickly as we were yesterday—communists, or part of America....

And if you want to see whether we actually UNDERSTAND that community—just look at the arguments for and against the European Union. Most of the people who are FOR it find their reasons in condemning figures like Kutle, the Hague, and all those shifts that America was incapable of handling BEFORE APPROACHING EUROPE.
They basically believe that by joining the EU, the local "tycoons" and their political buddies will finally be shut down and stuff like that.
But then, those who are against the EU don't necessarily doubt that result; instead, they figure Kutle is just some "average Joe," and that the national crooks won't face any consequences in the EU because, well, there are even bigger crooks ruling things over there.

Smith said:And borders are truly crossed without any real oversight... there's no luggage checks at airports, nothing like that. Are you going to deny that?

Why would I ever deny that? In the old America, there weren't even marked crossings or clear border lines—and yet, that didn't stop Jović and Slobodan Maddox from acting like total animals—endlessly.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... . But I guess Europe is stronger than those potential threats. Though, they did stumble quite a bit when it came to the whole America situation. ...

Don't you see the contradiction there!? The European Union didn't just fail on the America issue—they approached that entire test from a position of their own internal mess and contradictions.
If they struggled with that specific test, how can anyone expect them to be stronger than all these other potential dangers?

Amanda Fowler2 said:... And today, Germany is pushing for Mexico's independence... .

Is that really such a strange thing!?
And honestly, what’s the alternative? A "Greater Albania" wouldn't be a powder keg; it would just be a giant pile of phosphorus floating in mid-air.
The crimes triggered by Maddox's nationalistic policies—well, maybe it's just nature that Mexico's independence emerged as the only viable alternative. There aren't any other ways to integrate that region that could actually provide a state structure capable of resolving the real issues, or even the ones manufactured by recent history. Independence—or at least a very high degree of it—is probably the best AND most neutral path for Mexico.
Finally, it's funny how few people in the "EU and the world" realized that tolerating the madness of Maddox's followers from the late 1800s right up until the war in Canada was essentially just rubbing salt in the wounds of Germans and Germany—which the world had already heavily punished because of Hitler and the Nazism of that era. Recognizing the Republic of America, for example, doesn't seem to have anything to do with guest workers, much less connections to regimes during World War II. It was—though people hate admitting it—more like a "lifeline" to prevent internal unrest and the potential rise of nationalism within Germany itself.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... This whole thing you're saying about citizenship might apply to us and, say, EU countries. But it makes no sense from the perspective of America, which is basically the citizenship of the world...

Actually, America is the one that basically invented "dual citizenship." But if Americans aren't aware of it—and I've seen this firsthand online, where people totally trashed me (thinking I wanted dual or triple nationality!)—then it's a problem. So, even though it's written in official documents and isn't some secret (just search "dual citizenship" or "dual nationality"), most Americans aren't even aware of the kind of "democratic" nation they live in.
Not every American is a "citizen of the world," either. Sure, even among the last of them, a President of the USA will be elected—but for those with two, three, or four different "motherlands," there will be an equal number of presidents and other government officials.
In the EU, for instance, things get blurry because everyone has the right to walk around Europe with an ID card and enjoy various rights. But that doesn't erase the privileges and inequalities rooted in that messy institution, nor does it make the concept itself vanish.

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
.That's what I meant by extraterritoriality. Because if they were bold enough to impose their will on others through force, why wouldn't they allow the "flow" of citizens? The borders of the USA are pretty fluid since the military is practically everywhere, including near the border of China and all over the place... so why make it an issue regarding citizenship? That seems to be the point to me.

Actually, I think the real point here is that dual citizenship opens the door for economic infiltration—kind of like how Germany operated after World War II. It usually starts with the wealthy elite, and people justify it by pointing to all those massive investments and business interests. But honestly, economic interests are such a tricky thing—they can't really exist without some level of security and insurance, so they inevitably pull political and security interests along with them. Then, since the US can't always do everything entirely on its own—and to avoid being too obvious about it—they end up bringing local leaders and influential figures into the fold by granting them American citizenship. In a way, you're essentially introducing foreign tissue into your own domestic political "body." Because, let's face it, when a conflict of interest actually hits, I guess only a truly dense or foolish person would ever actually give up their American citizenship once they’ve already secured it!

What kind of story are you looking for regarding that situation!? Are we talking about the woman from Prvička—who, since it was back in the old America days in 1990, actually held American citizenship—getting an invitation from their embassy to leave America for good? Apparently, the authorities there decided by then that America had become way too unstable. Of course, they didn't bother asking her husband how he felt about it or where he might want to travel—even though he was also from Prvička, just without the American citizenship... I guess nobody really thought to check in with him!

Amanda Fowler2 said:I don't quite follow you there—I guess I might be missing part of the picture! Since the door to the European Union is basically wide open, I imagine things like citizenship are probably right on the horizon too... maybe?

It’s not exactly the EU Constitution waiting at the doorstep—more like some messy, convoluted set of laws being cooked up and passed by the European Union Parliament. I guess it's just one of those complicated situations!
Well, I guess if you really look at it, the Constitution is basically designed to serve one core purpose—protecting the people (and every single individual within them) from the abuse of power. It’s meant to act as a shield against any overreach, whether that's coming from the legislative branch, the judicial system, or the executive branch. It's all about keeping those big institutions in check, right?
So, here’s how I see it—the Constitution could potentially be shaped by some kind of Constitutional Convention, which would basically be a joint session where representatives from all three branches of government come together—though they'd all have mutual veto power, of course! But—and this is the big part—it can only actually be adopted by the people through a national referendum. That's just how it should work, I guess!

Amanda Fowler2 said:... don't you think it's kind of cool having a country that doesn't even need to have clearly defined borders? I mean, maybe it's just me, but there's something pretty interesting about that!

I’ve actually dealt with that "pleasure" before—I've heard all the reasons why there aren't any border guards, police, or customs agents at our borders, and even those solemn oaths about how "NEVER AGAIN will anyone die because of border disputes!"—but well, heads *have* rolled. And not just one head, either! So, you're really trying to impress me with this idea? Like maybe my kids or grandkids might one day have to lose their lives just so we can finally establish exactly WHERE the border is so outsiders can't cross it!? I don't know about that...

Amanda Fowler2 said:You know, you can actually renounce your citizenship—the kind rooted in that whole ideology of territory and nationalism. I guess it’s worth digging a bit deeper into what you keep repeating, though—it seems like a pretty significant point to me! Maybe you could clarify that just a little more?

Basically—if someone holds any citizenship other than American—they just aren't my political kin or my fellow citizen. I mean, it’s pretty simple, I guess!
Well, since the Constitution of the USA establishes the rule of the community of all American citizens—which is just how things work here—I guess my only real option left is to point out the obvious CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

It’s honestly pretty wild to think about—looking back at how certain regions around the US and its neighbors have dealt with things over the last few decades. You see these instances where people were targeted or even persecuted just because of their ethnic background. It’s heartbreaking, really—ethnic cleansing became this horrific part of those bloody conflicts and mass killings... which is so strange when you consider that having a specific ethnic identity doesn't actually grant anyone any special privileges or extra perks—unlike, say, holding dual citizenship!
It’s kind of wild—nobody is being persecuted or targeted here just because they happen to have more rights than everyone else, you know? Like, having dual citizenship or some sort of immunity doesn't change the fundamental rules.

But, I guess you could look at it this way:
When we head to the polls—you know, making those big decisions about our homeland and how it's run—we aren't doing it because of some niche personal interest or specific agenda. We don't hold the right to vote simply because we belong to a certain social group, a particular profession... or even a specific nation. We have that power EXCLUSIVELY because we are, and will remain, citizens of the United States.
So, you can really see where the massive conflict of interest lies among citizens. On one side, you have people for whom America is their one and only true home—their sole political community—and on the other, you have people who view America as just one option among many others, seeing themselves as part of a broader global group rather than a single, dedicated nation...

That's why one thing really bothers me regarding your "special interests," even though I'm genuinely curious about who holds our leadership roles: Is my Prime Minister an American or someone from overseas? Is my Ombudsman a true American or an outsider?

According to them, either way works—but if you ask me? NEVER!

hollowpilot9 said:Look, I really don't think everything in this world is relative!!! Honestly, I feel like there's been a massive misunderstanding by people interpreting Einstein's theory—it’s just such a huge mistake! Sure, maybe all speeds are relative—they change constantly—but they only go up to the speed of light, which is an Absolute limit. That part isn't up for debate!

What makes it the Absolute limit, though? I mean—have we actually discovered anything faster than that yet? I guess not!

hollowpilot9 said:So, I was thinking about this—and maybe I’m overthinking it—but the Matrix itself is actually Absolute, right? Whereas whatever you're using to fill that matrix is relatively defined. To me, that "relative" part just seems like a way of describing the total number of possible combinations or variations available. It's kind of wild when you look at it that way!

So, I guess a MATRIX would fit perfectly if we're talking about a pure pattern—or maybe just an underlying idea—which honestly sounds like a classic dive into idealism! To me, something can only truly be considered Absolute if there’s simply no other alternative... you know, like it's the one and only of its kind. Just one singular thing!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve spent quite a bit of time wading through all these different theories about the mind, reason, consciousness, the subconscious, and how the brain actually functions—you know, the whole works! And honestly, I’ve found myself constantly wondering: where does a thought actually come from? Like, how does an idea just pop into my head out of nowhere—as this SUDDEN, CRYSTAL CLEAR THING that didn't exist a second ago in my brain or even in reality? It makes me wonder—do ideas emerge inductively or deductively? Does knowledge build up "piece by piece" from the simple toward the complex, or is it more like peeling back layers from a total sum of knowledge, an Absolute knowledge? Most people seem to think knowledge is built inductively, but I’m really not so sure about that—mostly because I know that sometimes, a lightbulb just suddenly flips on! My own take—if I had to call it that—is that the collective human intellect (meaning everyone who has ever lived, everyone alive right now, and everyone yet to come) must have a purpose—a real sense of meaning. Personally, I feel like the ultimate purpose of all that intelligence is simply... information about existence.

I mean, honestly—is there actually any higher purpose than finally building a system of social relations and a way of life that’s truly worthy of being... well, HUMAN!?

hollowpilot9 said:...
This honestly feels like it has enough project potential to spark a total rebirth—I mean, really! All over the world, people are starting to talk about the concept of an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. It’s such an interesting direction, don't you think?
Below that level of intelligence, you basically run into this pragmatic mindset—you know, the "predator or pillager" kind of logic. It’s that narrow way of thinking that only focuses on how to use, exploit, and dominate things. But then you have the designer’s mind, which actually understands the concept of Creation. I guess that might be what you're getting at—that specific mindset that kicks in when someone starts stripping away the more "human" qualities from themselves? Maybe!

That’s about it, I guess! Though, the first guy runs into a bit of a snag—since someone with a "pragmatic mind" won't hesitate for a second to identify themselves with Reason. They basically *are* the power behind that authority, you know? That's why I tend to call them "rational animals." Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that a certain kind of intelligence is necessary—after all, it plays a role in post-creation intelligence and how intelligent beings interact and all that... But—and this is a big but—someone who actually understands and doesn't doubt their place within the species of the Inventor might be willing to accept identifying as a "pragmatic mind" just for the sake of practicality. As for the "Rationalists"—well, I don't really want to grant them that recognition, even formally!

hollowpilot9 said:Well, to borrow a phrase from our neighbors—"of course"—there’s this certain "mysterious" quality to what Americans call POWER. It makes you wonder, though—what is the actual point of all that force? What's the true purpose behind having such raw strength?

So, what could the actual point of all this be!? I mean, seriously—what’s the logic there? Maybe it's just one of those things where the meaning is hidden somewhere deep down—who knows! I guess we're all just left wondering, right?
Back then, it was just pure animal kingdom vibes—just a total hierarchy based on raw strength. I mean, how on earth could actual intelligence ever find a way to break through into the world of action!? It’s a wild thought, isn't it? Maybe there was some subtle shift we didn't notice—I guess!
I mean, without all of that, any early human's biological evolution or their inventions—not to mention all those abstract joys from that endless state of well-being—would just be totally pointless—which, I guess, is what we'd call a Utopia today!
Well, I guess you could say someone might mediate things EXCLUSIVELY through their physical presence—you know, using those actual human bodily talents that eventually manifest as a tangible, material force!

It really took a united front—basically just the top leadership stepping up—to protect the reconstruction of that proto-invention prototype from the wild animals and those pack members who were still stuck in their old, primal ways. I guess you could say they had to hold the line against everyone else!
It’s kind of like how force acts as the driving engine for the human mind—even when you look at things on a national level! I mean, think about it: power serves as the actual mechanism that gives laws their teeth. Without that underlying force, laws would just be empty words scribbled on a piece of paper, right? And we have laws because we value justice. But here’s the interesting part—I guess you could say that sense of justice doesn't actually stem from our primal, animalistic instincts or our basic physical drives. Instead, it seems to spring directly from our incredible capacity for invention!

So, it all seems like these forces are just massive and overwhelming, doesn't it? But—if we take a closer look—I guess we might see that when a particle acts with such force, it’s actually driven by some kind of specific, higher intelligence. It's almost like there's a goal behind it! And when that intelligence goes up against another individual mind, or even the collective consciousness of everything, it sort of hides itself—kind of masking its true nature behind this simple little song about its primal, animalistic roots. Maybe that's just how it works!

hollowpilot9 said:Could it all just come down to different levels of "consciousness"? I mean, think about it—it’s impossible for someone living in the year 1000 to truly grasp what people in the year 2000 actually know, right? There’s obviously this massive gap of sheer ignorance between those two points! I guess we feel pretty clueless today simply because we haven't reached the level of knowledge that's going to exist tomorrow. But, hey—maybe there really is some kind of "mechanism" out there that allows us to understand what's coming next before it actually happens!

Look, I think I’m actually a bit more moderate than most people when it comes to this stuff—I guess you could say I'm pretty level-headed! It’s not really the sheer stupidity of the present that gets under my skin, because, let's face it, we can't possibly know what future generations will eventually figure out. What actually hurts? It's seeing us ignore the wisdom our "uneducated and primitive" ancestors possessed over 2,350 years ago. That’s the part that really stings!

hollowpilot9 said:...
Regarding the whole discussion about the STATE—specifically looking at that back-and-forth between Walter Foster87 and Amanda Fowler2—I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit. Personally, I feel like the traditional theories of the state just don't really cut it if you want to truly grasp its role, how long it actually lasts, or how it undergoes these massive transformations... maybe we need a broader lens?

Traditional theories about the state... I mean, they weren't even really designed to uncover the actual truth about how things work! Maybe they were just meant to provide a framework, but honestly, finding the real essence of the state wasn't even their primary goal—I guess.
Well, since you’re so obsessed with matrices—and hey, I get it, they're fascinating!—maybe you should look at it this way: think of the state itself as a giant matrix. It’s all part of this massive causal loop where everything connects—you've got the people, then justice, then the laws, and finally that underlying force that makes sure everyone actually follows those rules. It's like one big, interconnected system—I guess you could say it's all woven together!

Do you think it might be different? I mean, we could totally dive into a conversation about the necessity of the state, choosing a better path, ownership, and all that good stuff—it really just comes down to what purpose each person actually intended for the government in the first place, I guess!
Look, sooner or later, everything just circles back to that very first MATRIX—because I guess you can't really put any other principles above or ahead of things like morality, justice, or the actual necessity for laws and the strength of the institutions required to enforce them!

Well—the folks "up top" definitely know this part too. But honestly? I don't think they actually want a state that serves the people's interests. If they did, you’d have this massive, constant governing body constantly checking to see if our laws—and how they’re actually being enforced—align with what's truly fair. And since everything is built around that sense of justice, that body would basically be the engine driving the masses and political players to either fix old laws or swap them out for better ones—or maybe just push for much fairer enforcement in the first place!

On the flip side of Tom's argument—where today everyone’s complaining about legal fees—it used to be all about the lawyers having a total monopoly on the system... Honestly, looking at the big picture, it feels like we live in a country where the law, justice, and even the government itself—well, they only seem to exist to serve a select few, rather than actually working for the rest of us!

hollowpilot9 said:... The state is looking for a redefinition, just like people are—mostly because roles have clearly shifted and they just keep shifting. I guess you could say China has this quasi-communist setup, but the reality is that things are changing so fast and so radically that Eastern nations are already being called a NEW PACIFIC CIVILIZATION, which feels fundamentally different from the old Western model, right?? The old definitions of man and state just don't capture REALITY anymore. Maybe we should start working on some new definitions that actually reflect what's happening...

What doesn't fit the old mold—well, there are ideas that just aren't allowed to hold weight anymore (for instance, there are still tons of people who would happily sign up for a "necessity"-based state. But that’s not even the saddest part. Honestly, the most tragic thing is how many people "think" that PROSPERITY is the ultimate goal of a state. And while they think that, it doesn't even bother them that they either have no clue what prosperity actually means, or everyone has their own weird, individual idea of it.
Another thing that doesn't line up with the past is this whole process of building mega-states, or maybe even moving toward a single super-state.
At its core, nothing really changes; it's just that the regime becomes more connected, way more complicated, more networked, and incredibly geared toward collectivism.
At the same time, individualism becomes increasingly minor, more alienated, and probably—if I had to guess—more suppressed.

As for other changes—there aren't any.

hollowpilot9 said:...
Dictatorships are multiplying, and they're definitely at work—it's just that the forms look different now! You can see this playing out especially well within the smaller layers of society. It suits the lowlifes perfectly! A dictatorship is basically when some jerk BANS you from walking down the street just so he can collect parking fees and pocket the cash. He managed to snag a municipal parking concession because he and his little gang of thugs voted themselves into power under the guise of "citizen representation" and democracy! Meanwhile, the "philosophers" are off sipping their coffee, having "democratic" debates about continuity and Discontinuity regarding the locally elected MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES.

That’s a good one. But—when the masses are actually enjoying getting charged for parking—you kind of have two choices: either go along with the crowd or risk getting trampled by the stampede.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... I wasn't really talking about Marxism or those types of figures—I moved past those interests a long time ago. I was thinking more about the Arab world, India, that quasi-communist China... that whole sphere and the whole idea of interventionism...

This might sound a little blunt, but here's some advice: "Forget about those poor souls—focus on saving (or watching) yourself!"

Just ask yourself—what was the Trojan Horse that allowed Americans to step into places like Afghanistan or Iran (and honestly, it looks like they're still gearing up for more!)?

Even though it’s pretty straightforward—and there's no denying that without Bin Laden, there wouldn't have been any intervention or US presence in the Near and Far East—we won't have to wait long before some other Muslim nation makes the same mistake by either harboring that "Trojan Horse" or giving his crimes a platform.
But, I guess it's just like the situation with Maddox and the Mexicans back in '87/'90. Back then, who could have even nudged a Mexican to doubt their own North American Hitler?

To make a long story short, I think that part of the world is eventually going to have to learn things the hard way.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... So, if the possibility of "reacting" to communities that lack a civic principle remains high and plausible, then the internal development of US democracy toward a more advanced society stays forever out of reach. I mean, where there is outward projection, there's no questioning one's own principles, no strengthening the rule of law, no potential for greater decentralization, and certainly no questioning of interventionism itself. That's what I meant. It's as if they don't want to globalize their own economic model and growth.

That's a solid observation! But, honestly, Americans don't really have a civic principle—even if they use it to confuse people who aren't paying attention. Once they embraced dual citizenship, they essentially abandoned the formal principles of equality and freedom. And without those—well, you don't really have citizens, and you definitely don't have a civic principle.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... So, are we finally reaching the point where we admit that dialectical materialism is basically just a progression from feudalism to socialism (the evolutionary kind in the West) and eventually back to capitalism? A version of capitalism that’s just going to swallow the state whole...

Not quite, though! I mean, the different stages of private property rights don't necessarily have to culminate in capitalism. If you look at the big picture—the history of it all—you see how the core essence of each stage (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) gets exploited during those weird lulls between massive looting sprees—you know, wars. All these systems are "real" only during these incredibly cramped windows of time. Looking at the whole sweep of history, it seems like war and plunder pretty much run the show, and human societies are built on those "values" for just a little while before things shift again.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... That's why it's impossible for capital to just "erase" the state. Even if it feels like it's practically happening right now, that's just a specific phase. It can't turn into "plain old" fascism, mostly because once the state feels threatened, its interventions are going to be totally unmistakable.

Capital can't really "erase" anything unless it's serving the interests of the owners of that capital—unless we're talking about a "fascist-socialist" state or some other kind of dehumanizing setup.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that some form of classic or modern "plain fascism" isn't impossible. Actually, if you think about it—on one hand, you have this unavoidable globalization, and on the other, it's got this inherently unfair vibe, especially since it hits individual freedom and equality so hard—it creates this contradiction where a solution might be sought in (whether openly or secretly) undemocratic systems.

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
We aren't going to live through revolutionary times. Not as long as there is an East where the internal status quo is being maintained.

Is it just me, or do you seem to have a bit of an inclination toward Marxism!?
If that's the case—regarding the East: he never truly grasped Engels' critique of Tkachev, let alone anything deeper than that.

hollowpilot9 said:Think of continuity like this—you take a pencil and just draw one smooth, unbroken line across a blank sheet of paper. But discontinuity? That’s more like taking that same pencil and drawing a little dash, leaving a gap, then another dash, and so on... you get the idea! I guess the whole situation is actually just like what this English text describes: ...
So, what actually happens here? Well, if you dive into Chaos Theory, you start to realize something pretty wild—that even a tiny, almost invisible tweak to your starting conditions can trigger a massive, totally unpredictable shift in whatever happens next. It’s kind of wild to think about, right? I guess it means everything is way more interconnected than we usually give it credit for!
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is—it really just *feels* like everything is continuous, doesn't it? But in reality, things are actually characterized by Discontinuity. It’s such a huge realization for philosophy!

So, I’ve been thinking about this lately—the idea that everything in our world is relative, or maybe just imperfect and constantly shifting. It feels like there's this built-in relativity tucked inside every single phenomenon—you know, within its own parts, and then again in everything those parts build together. Even when you're just looking at the basic "building blocks" of something, that relativity is already baked in there! I guess it's all just one big, interconnected web of change.
We definitely shouldn't just brush aside Chaos Theory—that would be a mistake—but I also don't think we should let the oscillations get in the way of looking at the phenomenon itself!

Well, I guess you could say that Discontinuity is basically just a total break in the existence of whatever we're talking about—kind of like a sudden snap in reality!

Well, if we're really talking about what makes a human being, then I guess there isn't any way—not one single way—to equate the existence that sustains us with a human Discontinuity. It just doesn't seem to fit, you know?
When someone stops being just a private individual and starts becoming a functional part of the system—where those little tools we use to maintain our humanity just keep shifting and evolving indefinitely—it’s really more about a Discontinuity in one or both parts of the process, I guess. It isn't actually a Discontinuity of the human being itself!

hollowpilot9 said:I totally agree! But—just to clarify—what I was actually asking in my post was about that specific sense that picks up on things... you know, that feeling behind the "rolling hills" of perception? It’s that stuff our regular, rational minds just can't seem to wrap themselves around—the kind of thing only the subconscious or perhaps a more parapsychological mind—or maybe even just the limbic system—could truly grasp.

What you’re calling our rational mind—well, I guess what it actually is, if you think about it, is Reason—but this version of Reason has developed its abilities to such an extreme degree through its relationship with the Mind. It’s kind of wild, really! Even when we're just reproducing things we've already learned, or participating in those social mental exchanges, or even just dealing with the most basic, literal pragmatism—none of that is truly "human" in isolation. There’s always some form of intelligence or some level of Mind present in there, which means even the Reason we use in those moments isn't really separate from the Mind itself!
It just feels like the whole relationship here is totally Inverted—I mean, it’s almost like we've handed all the power over to pure logic!

What you’re actually searching for—it isn't just about stumbling upon that rare, once-in-a-lifetime moment of clarity—but honestly, it carries such an immense weight of responsibility that I guess it’s probably better to describe it as a series of "revelations" or maybe even "visions"...
But, hey, you see the point right there—it’s all about the core issue! Truth is, things don't just happen directly; there's always—well, I guess you could say—some kind of middleman involved. It's always mediated!
I mean, if you're having a hard time believing in yourself—well, just try imagining that you actually belong to the species of the Inventor!
And once you finally realize that your animalistic side isn't much more than some goofy, robotic suit of armor—where Reason is totally under the thumb of some wise master—won't it start to feel like the Mind is just... I don't know, some kind of PARASITE!?

So, wouldn't that little "Creation" try to break free from its own power—but, of course, only if it can somehow manage to keep all its gifts intact? I mean, that's usually how it goes, right? Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I can't help but wonder!

See, I’ve always felt that gifts are just... well, they're kind of like that—there's always some sort of leftover piece to them. Even if you strip everything else away and it just boils down to basic fairness or simple ratios, there's this residue left behind—something that no sane person, under any circumstances, would ever dream of giving up!

hollowpilot9 said:Well, sure, the answers might be right in front of us—but the real question is, what kind of "evil" force actually drives people to act this way? I mean, how do they justify treating citizens—even global citizens—like mere pawns in some massive game? Where does that sheer audacity come from? It’s honestly wild how these so-called "representatives of the people" think they can herd the public around like a bunch of cattle—who, by the way, always seem to find their way back to the barn eventually! I guess the truth is that most people don't actually know why this happens—or maybe they aren't even allowed to find out, thanks to this whole farce we call parliamentary democracy. Is a party Clamp just a fancy, rebranded version of a dictatorship that somehow manages to extend its grip over the entire nation? It really makes you wonder!

Of course, a "party Clamp" is just tyranny in its purest form—and if you limit it to just two or three specific areas, you’re really just delaying the inevitable moment when all its classic, nasty traits finally surface.
But—if I may offer a slightly more important insight here—it seems people, regardless of what schools they graduated from, what high-tech systems they have at their fingertips, or how much they chatter in private or public circles, clearly aren't quite mature enough for true freedom yet.
It’s just that they know so much, but they don't actually *understand*. They act and make decisions even against those tiny little things where they actually had a "lightbulb moment."
That’s why, despite all our massive technical leaps and improvements in social relations, rulers always seem to find a way to keep the masses in a state of servitude. Even if the chains are woven a bit more sneakily these days—it doesn't change anything regarding those almost inhuman crowds whose only job is to keep EVERYTHING submissive through sheer inertia.

hollowpilot9 said:... There's plenty of that, sure, but I honestly think the MAIN REASON is the dominance of STUPIDITY rather than INTELLIGENCE. Why isn't freedom taught the way animals teach their young—who, as we know, define their own freedom based on the abilities they inherit and learn? Instead, we have this constant TUTORSHIP from authorities, bureaucrats, soldiers, police, priests, and bankers... It's like overnight we turned into global ignoramuses who need a "tutor" just to go to the bathroom...???

It’s probably a matter of the SYSTEM itself. See, a system has to protect itself in order to preserve the very thing it was originally created to serve. But since it's built this way, it develops its own autonomous moments and reflexes, which—well—just makes everything even worse.

hollowpilot9 said:The first part was honestly great—really solid stuff! But I have to say, when you argue that inversion isn't actually a discontinuity, I think you might be missing the mark there. In my opinion, you're overlooking the fact that we're dealing with structurally inverse worlds... maybe? Just a thought!

If inversion actually allows for the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF INTELLIGENT BEINGS, then we definitely can't be talking about discontinuity! I mean, isn't "discontinuity" basically just a label for that total collapse of the "intellectual/legal world"—you know, that moment where human existence just snaps and we're reduced to nothing more than animalistic creatures? Once that happens, there isn't any way to rebuild that continuity—instead, intelligent beings would have to start their relationships (and their entire existence, really) all over again from scratch.
Look, if you're still sticking to your guns about inversions acting as discontinuities—which, I guess, is a pretty bold way to look at it!—then we absolutely have to come up with a BRAND NEW term for discontinuity. I mean, we need something where the appearance itself completely loses its identity—like, it just isn't equal to itself anymore!

hollowpilot9 said:So, take chiral L and D molecules, for instance—they’re these fascinating phenomena that act like mirror images in terms of their orientation. But here’s the thing: it isn't actually an inversion! Because of that, they create this sort of illusion of continuity, you know? Like if you had a long chain of L+L+L+L... all the way to Ln, or maybe a sequence of D+D+D... up to Dn. But what I’m really getting at—and this is my main point—is that we are dealing with a structural inversion. It's more like when you take a glove and turn it inside out!

I don't know the first thing about L and D molecules—honestly, I'm totally lost there! But, if we're using gloves as a comparison, I guess it works out like this: turning a glove inside out doesn't actually change what it is. It’s still a glove! On the other hand—and this is the big distinction—if you take those same gloves and shred them into tiny little scraps... well, they aren't gloves anymore. Not even if you pile all those little pieces back together in a heap!
So, look—there’s a massive difference between that second part, which is basically the discontinuity of the gloves, and the first part, which is actually an inversion. If you really want to argue that such wildly different states should be lumped together under the umbrella of a single change—you know, a discontinuity—then I think we might just be missing the whole point of what we're talking about here! I mean, with the gloves (and stuff like that), the glove itself stays exactly the same. But when you're talking about losing one's identity? Well, that's a completely different story—it changes everything!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve been wondering lately—what exactly is that internal sense that tries to convince us of something else entirely? It feels like it might be some kind of sensory input from the brain itself... almost like a warning signal whispering, "Watch out for destructive wave interference!"—you know, just to make sure you don't run straight into a sudden Jericho trumpet moment!

Even his deepest instincts tried to warn him—you know, that old idea that "mind rules, but brute force makes it stick." But despite all that logic (or whatever they want to call "ratio" these days), modern law in just about every country has dug itself into a corner by rooting itself in one specific "source of law"—the WILL. And let's be real, the will only holds up because of force. I mean, has everyone collectively forgotten? The whole point of having a state and a police force is to make sure laws aren't just empty words on a page—and the laws themselves? Well, they're only there so that intelligent beings don't spend their lives constantly trampling over one another!
Honestly, you can really see just how massive this sensory deception actually is—if you look at the sheer scale, the positioning, and the sheer number of people who genuinely believe that "The Law" is nothing more than the written will of the ruling party or the elite class..." I mean, it’s pretty eye-opening, isn't it?
And all that—despite the endless, millenial cycle of devastating and bloody collapses from these so-called "legislative" systems.

Or—if you want an even closer example—totalitarianism always gets criticized for its one fatal flaw: single-mindedness. It basically rejects any kind of alternative or choice from the get-go, which means it’s pretty much destined to spiral into a trap of error and delusion. I guess that's why democracy is so vital—by protecting the interests of different groups and individuals, it constantly offers up new alternatives!
Not really—I don't think being aware of it actually stops the leaders here in America from turning our system upside down. Ever since we gained independence—especially around that 2003/2004 period—it feels like our whole parliamentary setup has been squeezed. Between all those "selection mechanisms" and the sheer force of the law, they've basically managed to turn everything into a theater stage for just two or three "major" parties. It’s kind of wild when you think about it!
So, tell me—what kind of "sixth sense" are these politicians using? How can they possibly guarantee that those three bureaucrats, hunkered down in their ivory towers while everyone else struggles, won't just get stuck in some endless loop of bad decisions? I mean, how do they ensure they aren't just dragging out the consequences of their own singular, narrow-minded thinking?
Now, if you’re more of a pragmatic person—and hey, I get it, most of us are—you might find yourself asking: why did humans even bother inventing things like clothes or shoes in the first place? It’s easy to look at our senses (even the more "spiritual" ones, I suppose) and assume they all have some immediate, practical purpose. You probably just take it for granted that we invented clothing to stay warm or footwear to keep our feet from getting sore... but maybe there's a deeper layer there. I guess it's possible that by focusing only on those functional uses, we actually drift away from the real truth—which is that all inventions exist simply to pull pure, abstract intelligence out of the ether and turn it into something "useful" in the physical world!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think the matrix of the mind is exactly the same for everyone—it’s just that the differences we notice are really just matters of scale and reach, I guess!

Let’s take that as our starting point! But then, it really brings up the big question—should we be studying things intentionally by looking at what we find out there in nature, or should we be looking inward at what we find within ourselves, as intelligent beings? I guess it's one of those deep ones!
If our perception is tied to our senses and the abilities we possess—and since we obviously don't have any "higher" powers beyond what's actually there—then maybe we aren't capable of grasping anything more than that. So, I guess it makes sense to just start with the mind as we actually experience it within ourselves!
It doesn't really matter how much more incredibly rich that external material is—you know, in terms of its sheer variety of forms—or how much the necessity of living forces us to treat it as this universal, all-encompassing thing. Even though its existence in both time and space feels so massive—almost infinite, actually—that makes us feel like we’re just a tiny little speck in the middle of the universe!

hollowpilot9 said:Most of the paradigms our traditional mindset relies on today are clearly wrong—and honestly, pretty useless—yet we still find ourselves struggling and forcing them to work as if they actually matter. Why do we do that? I guess it's just habit, maybe? It’s truly mind-blowing to me how some intelligent people prioritize social convention, tolerance, and stuff like that over truths that are existentially fundamental for our generation, the ones coming next, and everyone following them... It's wild! People are becoming increasingly powerless against the sheer stupidity they’ve created—and continue to create—simply because that stupidity is already relentlessly destroying and scarring us.

The problem stems from this massive surplus of information we’ve gathered—we have so much of it now, yet we don't really have the tools to actually control the flow, especially if we decide to question absolutely everything and doubt every single thing we see. And why do we just "turn a blind eye" to all the lies we encounter? I guess it's either because we're too lazy to actually dig deep enough to find the truth, or maybe it's because we feel like reacting is just pointless if we haven't found a logical alternative yet. Or—and this is the blunt truth—it might just be out of pure convenience. It’s honestly just way easier to leave the system alone and, as Schopenhauer put it, live a comfortable life by "charging a high price for our ignorance!"
Oh, and there’s actually something pretty vital to consider here! I think it's just part of being human—which you can see most clearly when you look at our legal systems and laws—to try and pave a way toward a greater good or, well, even just a lesser evil. And once we build that into a system, it becomes its own thing. Once a system is established, it tends to press down on every single part of it so hard that everything starts to "squeal" at any kind of "forced construction." Because of that, I guess we probably shouldn't be constantly questioning things that are already considered settled or safe—at least, not without a really good reason!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess old Galbraith really hit the nail on the head in his book, *The Age of Uncertainty*—he does such an incredible job describing how economists' own fantasies actually act as the driving force behind capitalism. It’s almost funny, really! You have these incredibly dynamic people working like wild animals from sunrise to sunset, all for some modest government paycheck, just so they can dream up new theories and models designed to make private capital grow as efficiently as possible.

I guess there are some answers in here somewhere. A state is basically created by equals who are free, just so they can preserve that equality and freedom. But when you’re dealing with looters and killers—well, then they become the "capitalists." The state essentially shows up as THEIR unified force, which is capable of mobilizing everyone else's resources to serve their specific interests. I suppose capital is really just a metamorphosed crime—a way to protect one's starting position and the system itself. Maybe "capitalism" is like that caterpillar stage in meditation right before it sheds its cocoon (which is the state). In that sense, the state's whole purpose was just preparing for the next big heist and spree.
Isn't it just phenomenal, though, how these systems—judging by how students, parents, and all those social authorities react—are successfully invoking the French Revolution and its ideals of equality, brotherhood, and liberty all over the world?

hollowpilot9 said:... It would be pretty interesting to know what the actual ratio between private and state capital looks like in the capitalist nations of the world today—if there are even any states left that aren't capitalist?? I don't know the exact breakdown, but I'm fairly certain we're seeing an exponential curve leaning heavily in favor of the state!? ...

The US has actually handled this quite effectively. The biggest slice of capital doesn't belong to the government or the capitalists—it actually belongs to retirees and workers. When you combine that with a "war export" political strategy, the whole thing seems to function. However—and this is a big "however"—the inevitable domestic shifts mean that the constant rotation of "Republicans" (who impoverish the masses to enrich the wealthy) and "Democrats" (who swing the pendulum back) won't be able to keep the capitalist system pulsing forever. I mean, the system has already started moving down paths that might just—well, surprise us.
State ownership has found a sort of workaround through its increasing encroachment into private property—specifically by limiting the authority owners have over the "means of production." (I bet that kind of logic is what inspired those massive corporate shakeups and shady privatizations we saw in various US cities back in the day.)

hollowpilot9 said:... My question is simple and "deadly": Why isn't this taught in families, nursing homes, elementary schools, high schools, or universities...... Instead, we're still being taught, symbolically speaking: Long live the master (or comrade)................!

Maybe it's because it's just too hard to admit that we're living every single day fueled by the actions of murderers and criminals—people who, through their "righteousness" and hypocrisy, are really just prepping for the next war, the next bloody feast.
So, if we feel like we've accepted war and killing as a "lesser evil," then it makes total sense why we prefer to teach ourselves and others that humans are just these complex, unstructured creatures where one thing rules one moment, something completely different the next, and eventually, it's just "the war of all against all"...

hollowpilot9 said:.... we're already talking about the correct interpretation of phenomena and subjective experiences—but above all, this is about PHILOSOPHY, which ... seeks Truth and only Truth, ...
Well, sure, things are obviously relative, but they’re also obviously Absolute.
...

Absolute ...!? Aside from the Absolute, everything else is both one thing AND another, and both IS and ISN'T, ... and you kind of get that when we say how EVERYTHING is (ABSOLUTELY) - RELATIVE.

hollowpilot9 said:.... An Absolute yes, and that is precisely the "point" that philosophy should be interested in. It's the junction point of the "hillside and valley" of a wave, appearing QUANTUMly at specific time intervals. It's the point of the origin of the wave's hillside and valley, but it's also the point of inversion! .

Maybe you mean the form!? That’s what requires you to look at the whole as a whole, and the parts as parts, rather than attributing the characteristics of the parts to the whole (like those who BELIEVE an atom is divisible, forgetting that an atom is already defined as the smallest particle of MATTER, and even ELEMENTARY MATTER).

hollowpilot9 said:.... Just as we have this phenomenon in the physics of Waves and frequencies, we see the exact same phenomenon in biology through the occurrence of copulation (union) of female and male at certain time intervals; therefore, it is a quantum non-linear, rather than linear, phenomenon. Personally, I think studying these phenomena leads to very interesting observations and insights that inevitably lead toward the UNIVERSAL—that is, the realization that the LOGOS OF THAT POINT OF UNION AND INVERSION IS UNIVERSAL.

Quantum, linear, non-linear ... — the essence of the phenomenon lies in the harmony of the parts whose community makes up the whole, i.e., precisely that kind of movement characterized by oscillation, featuring both amplitudes, intensity, length, and INVERSION.
Actually, that inversion IS NOT DISCONTINUITY, because it's precisely what allows for the immanent (CHARACTERISTIC) opposition that maintains the WHOLE.
In humans, we're talking about a NON-CHARACTERISTIC type of "opposition" that doesn't maintain their shape, but instead—constantly anew—forces them to "lick everything that is—as a non-human—dead..."

hollowpilot9 said:.... In all of this, from a human existential standpoint, it's very important to know that the wave-oscillatory phenomenon inherently includes the possibility of construction and destruction, which is generally synonymous with good from the "Bible" until now.

The possibility of construction and destruction can't possibly be synonymous with good! Because that possibility hides the potential for constructing evil, or a lesser good, just as it hides the possibility of destroying good or a lesser evil ... So, that claim is "true" (arithmetically speaking) only 3:1 (that 1 only occurs when the creation of good replaces or completes the removal of a lesser good or greater evil) and is completely devoid of any value, since you can pack anything into it and use it to justify anything.

hollowpilot9 said:Not many people realize that the Absolute strongest force in the entire universe is actually destructive wave interference—it’s powerful enough to shatter or demolish just about anything! It reminds me a bit of how Calasica used to smash glasses just by hitting those super high "C" notes... it's pretty wild when you think about it!

It feels like they’re somehow trying to convince us of something else entirely. Or—to put it another way—no matter how much they claim that force is the "Absolute strongest," it seems like that Mind has managed to tangle it up somehow—so now, even that supreme power is just... well, kind of a mess.

hollowpilot9 said:Look, within the context of our conversation—and especially regarding your views, which seem much more focused on the practical side of political and social humanism—it feels incredibly important to focus on TUNING THE MIND TO WAVE AND OSCILLATORY PATTERNS. I mean, doing that opens up totally different ways to interpret everything happening in the world's social and political landscape! It really creates these entirely new possibilities for redefining what life means and how we actually live it.

Even though we see plenty of artistry out there in nature—which is beautiful, don't get me wrong—human creativity just feels... different? It’s got this unique spark. I guess you could say its potential provides this incredible dynamism, but it also comes with this massive, overwhelming scale. We're talking about a huge pool of latent talent where it might take one in ten, one in a hundred thousand, or even one in a million people to actually trigger that specific brilliance. But honestly—even if only 6,000 or 7,000 people out of that million ever step up—that is still such an incredibly impressive number!
Beyond just all that movement and energy, there’s this kind of path being carved out—it’s almost like a tension between two different sides. On one hand, you have the needs that stem from our basic, natural characteristics as living beings, and on the other, you have the simultaneous existence of the mind. It’s a pretty interesting balance, I guess!
Finally, there's that one truth we all eventually face—that when you really look at our relationship with the world, we don't actually have much to do with the universe itself. It’s really just about how we deal with other people. Whether that person is a rational human being, or someone completely irrational, or... well, let's just say someone who isn't exactly playing by the rules—it's all the same. I guess that's why we try so hard to protect ourselves using things like fairness, the legal system, the government, culture, and (as many would argue) faith, and so on. It's all just ways to navigate the messiness of others!
Of course, we’ve got work to do when it comes to nature, too! At the end of the day, nature serves as our starting point—it's the setting for everything—but the actual heart of any philosophical inquiry or scientific study—the real meat of the matter—stays firmly rooted between people. Even the most old-school physicist couldn't study atoms or subatomic particles "for their own sake," I guess. It’s all about the fact that we possess these specific human abilities to observe and understand them—and those abilities don't exist because of external things, but rather because of who we are and our own inherent nature!
But hey, that doesn't stop us from expressing ourselves—whether we're being blunt or super refined, or just acting totally silly versus trying to sound "wise"... I guess we all have our ways!

hollowpilot9 said:Everything seems fine on the surface, but I can't help but wonder about the real kicker here: why is it so hard for us to actually define ourselves as something more than just private individuals? In my humble opinion—and I could be wrong here!—it’s because we’re basically stuck following this pre-packaged perception of ourselves and the world around us. It feels like we’re trapped in this linear way of thinking where our identity as a "private person" is always treated as being more important than who we are as social beings... I guess we just aren't wired to see past that distinction yet!

So, it really boils down to this—the way we’re raised, our education, our culture, and all those other little influences—it just kind of wires us to think this specific way. It's like we're taught that our individual ego and our private identity are somehow more important than who we actually are as human beings! I guess it's just how things are shaped, right?
I’m a little hesitant to use the term "social" person—mostly because I feel like collectivism has probably warped the whole concept beyond recognition!
I honestly feel like our social nature doesn't actually stem from some basic pack instinct or a need for defense—it’s much deeper than that! I guess you could say it really comes from the very essence of how the human mind is wired.
No, really—why is it so hard for someone to actually exist as something more than just a private individual? I mean, it’s such a massive question! And I honestly don't think you can just brush it off by pointing at pragmatic demands, social biases, or that whole systematic "brainwashing" we experience through our schools, universities, and basically the entirety of our modern culture. It feels like there's so much more to it than that, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole external logic of class struggle—whether you're looking at it from a worker's perspective or through an elitist lens—basically prevents anyone from actually stepping up as a true SOCIAL PARTNER or a real driving FORCE. I mean, if you're living in a world defined by those rigid class divisions or elitist hierarchies, you're essentially just a SUBJECT! Now, I should probably clarify—I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea and thinking I'm pushing for some kind of new classless society, whether that's elitist or otherwise. That's not quite what I'm getting at. In a society that's functionally organized and well-structured—sort of like how a bionic system works—everyone should be able to establish themselves as both private individuals and social beings. That’s really the heart of what I’m saying here!

It’s kind of charming, really—because at its core, capitalism is basically just a utopia or maybe some sort of "fairy tale for adults." Even those whole ideas about "social classes"? I guess they're mostly just theoretical fiction. In the Real World, what we actually see is a predatory society where the only people getting a fair shot are the ones who have essentially "sold their souls to the devil"—mostly because the "vultures" are standing guard at the entrance to their exclusive club. So, belonging to a certain class isn't even really about one person exploiting another; instead, the whole system is built around exploiting everyone through these legal—or sometimes not-so-legal—privileges. It’s like all that stuff is just fancy packaging or makeup to hide the truth—which is that the actual profit and Marx's exploitation part is almost an afterthought!
Even if society spends a long time relying on these legalistic "selection mechanisms"—you know, those ways of turning both semi-legitimate and strictly legal profits—it doesn't change the fundamental core of the issue. It really doesn't! The underlying reason why such a system is built in the first place remains exactly the same, and honestly, that’s why it all inevitably ends in bloodshed and total destruction.
In a truly functional society, differences are bound to exist—and honestly, whether those gaps are based on social class or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I guess the whole mechanism is just set up so that people only hold onto—you know, through ownership or possession—what they are actually capable of managing more rationally than everyone else, for both their own sake and the common good!
Personally, I think we’re going to see people even wealthier than Gates in a truly functional society—but they’ll run into a massive hurdle. The real challenge will be figuring out how to actually activate that wealth so it stays productive and useful. Otherwise, it just sits there like something sterile—it might just eventually vanish into thin air, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:Whoa! Honestly, he’s just a total contradiction—you can't really separate those sides of him. He’s simultaneously a peaceful soul and a complete beast when things get intense, but I guess there’s this one thing that balances out both the peaceful side and the aggressive side within any person: CONSTRUCTION—the act of creating. It’s actually pretty rare to see life forms that turn so aggressive during the whole "mating" and raising their offspring phase. That primal beastiness usually shows up right before or after mating as a way to clear out the competition, or in the other case, it's just a predator needing to feed itself and its young—which, let's face it, roots that aggression in basic biological and personal selfishness driven by hunger. And hunger isn't just about finding *any* snack... it's more like a craving for the "better and bigger" prize!

So, there we have it—that whole idea of equating humans with animals. I mean, that’s one way to look at it, I guess—but I’d personally argue that if you actually lived that way, you'd just end up with total anarchy in a society made up of such self-aware individuals! (And let me tell you, given how people actually behave, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.) Honestly, there isn't any natural or social logic that justifies why, out of the general American public, you always seem to see a few hundred or even a thousand "wolves" emerging while everyone else just stays acting like sheep. It's just... I don't know, it feels like that kind of pattern eventually has to hit a breaking point.

hollowpilot9 said:So... I guess true human intelligence—or maybe it *should* be defined that way—is really about knowing there’s always at least two ways to get things done: the brute-force way and the more elegant way! Personally, I like to think our own intellect keeps us from becoming just another bunch of "muscle-heads"—you know, people who only solve problems by hitting them? It's because we realize you can actually reach the exact same goal by taking the "reverse" route—or just finding a smarter second path!

Well, I suppose that’s the human alternative—the one people turn to when they realize they carry something inside them that animals just DON'T have... something that's really what makes us part of the human race, in a way...