Posts by Walter Foster87

CONTINUATION

hollowpilot9 said:I totally agree—philosophy isn't built on mere social conventions, it’s rooted in Truth! I really hope you're on the same page there—so, when you suggested using the word "delusion" instead of just calling something a lie, I think you were actually pointing toward the delusions created by convention... Just imagine how many people have suffered simply because they were convinced that someone standing on their "left side" was the enemy? After all, being on the left is just a matter of convention, not the Truth!

Unfortunately, philosophy can't really exist in a vacuum—it needs some kind of anchor in reality to hold onto. I guess that’s just the job description for every new philosopher, right? They have to step in and start questioning and testing everything that came before them. It's especially tricky because every philosophical system seems to carry this sort of terrifying necessity within it. On one hand, they try to present themselves as this seamless, logical evolution of ideas—where every single piece fits together perfectly to create a complete whole. But on the other hand, they inevitably hit these messy, problematic, or even totally unsolvable moments. When faced with that tug-of-war between staying convincing and dealing with those unresolved gaps, philosophers tend to reach for ways to "hide their weak spots." Maybe that’s actually pretty smart—if a teaching isn't convincing, people might just toss it aside without a second thought. So, in a weird way, a theory only really gets a chance if it produces some NEGATIVE effects, forcing future generations to actually start thinking for themselves and carry on the work. But then again—that brings us back to your territory—the sheer inhumanity of the most brilliant minds!
So, I guess we could say that diving into philosophy really ought to start by questioning the "solidity" of the core foundations someone's learning is built upon—kind of like checking if the ground beneath your feet is actually stable before you start building!

hollowpilot9 said:So, based on what you’re saying—if I'm following your logic correctly—every single evolutionary stage is essentially boxed in by the beings that actually make up that level. It’s like you're arguing that evolution is fundamentally limited by humanity and our own human nature. If evolution doesn't manage to build something more advanced than the creatures currently occupying a specific stage, then the whole process just stalls out—the being becomes stagnant and eventually fades away. That's why I'm really leaning toward this idea of an evolutionary principle—a literal Law of Renewal—that has to encompass everything, from our local existence all the way up to the cosmic scale!

Moving on from that... I mean, making an assumption like that isn't really about what the assembly decides—it’s not about how we set up our immunity institutes, or even things like dual citizenship or building cyborgs. It just doesn't quite work that way, I guess!
So, I guess the whole idea here is that a person’s sense of fulfillment really boils down to how much they achieve in their professional life—at least, that's the assumption!
So, what comes next? Honestly, that’s already drifting into the territory of even more abstract speculation—I guess you could say we're moving into pure theory now!
Honestly, why even bother stressing over it? I mean, we still have that one big mission we were actually born to tackle! I guess all those doubts, wild hypotheses, and endless speculations are probably better left to the experts—you know, once they actually start happening in the Real World.
So, in this somewhat meager existence of ours—and let’s be honest, we all try our best to stay human—it feels pretty phenomenal (well, if we're actually capable of it!) to dive into this whole debate. It’s that big question of whether we’ll see a split in the human form itself—you know, maybe some branch of our species evolves into entirely new intellectual beings with, I don't know, bigger heads and smaller bodies? Or perhaps humanity just splits into these hyper-efficient "worker bee" types while the traditional human race slowly fades away... Or—and this is where it gets really wild—instead of waiting on biological evolution to catch up, we might trigger an evolutionary revolution through pure tech. We could end up creating a brand-new bio-technical species from scratch—living things that can actually be born, grow, reproduce, and die just like us!
Well, I guess our assignments are just way more "down-to-earth"—they feel much more certain, closer to home, and honestly, pretty unmistakable!

hollowpilot9 said:It was during that intense period of "wartime despair"—if you can call it that—that I finally decided to push my book out into the world. It felt like the right moment for a definitive leap forward! In my book, *Philosophy of the Origin*, there’s actually a specific chapter on page 313 dedicated to HOMOTERAS. Basically, the only real difference between humanity today and the Homoteras is that Homoteras exists as an autonomous macro-being within the universe—it has this unique ability to constantly renew itself through its own existence, which makes it, well, polar-mature. I guess you could say it's a step beyond us! We've seen similar concepts floating around before—like those old myths about giants, or even that famous idea from Wallace about how humans will eventually build a new empire among the stars. To me, that really points right toward the core concept of Homoteras.
By the way, I actually have 10 of my own ESSAYS over at Evolution.com that dive deep into this—though our local "expert" evolutionists have been pretty quick to tear them apart, apparently thinking worm evolution is somehow way more critical than human evolution!

You can find them myself right here at http://www.evolucija.com
Is that it? Is that the whole story?

hollowpilot9 said:... I can only restate what I’ve already said: To me, anything that involves the creation, development, and sustenance of NATURAL LIFE is moral, whereas anything that goes against natural life is amoral—and specifically, it's immoral to forcibly prevent or cut life short. ... .

And, well, there's the rub. Is it really NATURAL for humans to kill one another, to pointlessly destroy what's been created, or to engage in mass delusions and attempts to create inhuman (insane) individuals and societies...? Or is it more in our nature to create goodness based on the patterns we find in the Mind and—from there—engage in relationships with the REST OF NATURE that aren't quite "natural," just so we can boast about some "knowledge" while living like wild animals without any laws at all?

hollowpilot9 said:...
So, "devouring" is simultaneously moral and amoral, which means we might be talking about a matter of perspective!? For instance, maybe the plant world is more "moral" than the animal kingdom. A plant doesn't kill another plant just to eat, whereas animals—and the "animal" within humans (as you put it)—certainly do. Based on that, what logically follows regarding what is moral versus what is amoral?? ...

"Devouring" is perfectly fine for a human-like creature once everyone else has severed those INTERPERSONAL BONDS, essentially relegating him to the status of just another human-like animal.
In those circumstances, everything is permitted within the hierarchy of strength, provided it ensures survival.
Nature itself doesn't leave much room for some higher morality where plants rule over animals, because every single species HAS TO WORK at its own preservation and growth (basically, bringing the species into that harmonious relationship with the environment that we're all willing to call "perfect").
Human nature is unique because it vastly extends the time from a species' origin to reaching its full potential—especially since that journey involves the constant reinvention of endless low-level inventions, developing their production and reproduction, and trying to harmonize all that "wild" nature into a whole. That perfection isn't found in the finality of the Mind, but rather in a way of existing—in the completion (the fullness) of interpersonal relationships.

hollowpilot9 said:Does vision actually feel like one continuous stream to us? I mean, think about blinking—is that a literal break in our sight? A moment where the eye just... stops seeing? That tiny gap seems like the exact definition of visual discontinuity. If someone were to argue that vision and blinking actually form a single, seamless loop of continuity, I’d have to admit—I guess I’ve just never experienced anything like that!

Does anyone actually expect watching something to be this static? I mean, unless you’re a robot, watching involves blinking and shifting your gaze around every now and then—it’s just how it works! I guess what’s happening here is a distinction between seeing something as a mere object versus viewing it as a continuous stream of visual input. It’s a subtle difference, maybe, but it really changes the whole perspective on how we perceive things.
When you’re observing something, it naturally includes these little atypical bits that aren't really part of its core essence—so, by the same logic, you don't lose the flow just because of a blink or—well, maybe a slightly longer—sporadic shift in focus. Even if you're watching something over several days or months, I guess we wouldn't count sleep or downtime as a break in that continuity. But—and this is the important part—we definitely shouldn't include a change in perspective (like shifting how you perceive things or altering your observational style) in that same continuous stream!

It’s pretty much the same deal when you’re looking at things from that super narrow perspective—I mean, we aren't going to blame the eye for being tricked by a frame rate of 24 images per second, right? But honestly, that fact doesn't just mess with the whole idea of watching a movie continuously... it actually calls into question our entire sensory perception of reality! I guess if an eye isn't even capable of noticing changes happening at that speed, then it definitely isn't capable of perceiving an ACTUAL event occurring at that velocity. So—if you think about it—the subject isn't really seeing anything CONTINUOUSLY... even with their eyes wide open!

Everything is clearly relative—so I guess we really need to have some equally relative criteria in place. Otherwise, we could just keep developing them—all the way until things get totally absurd!

hollowpilot9 said:All biological movement within the animal kingdom is essentially oscillatory—it’s all waves and cycles! Because of how this works, there’s always going to be a DEAD POINT—a moment of total stillness that basically overcomes inertia. I guess you could say the Logos of oscillation is the absolute Logos of the entire universe... which would make it the ultimate Logos of philosophy, too!

Everything always seems to have some kind of built-in reference that’s either implied or explicitly included—it’s just how it works, I guess! When you start talking about oscillation, you're inherently bringing that point of "stillness" into the mix too. If you try to break down an oscillation to really get a grip on it, you end up splitting it into pieces, and then you inevitably stumble upon what you've already mapped out—basically, that discontinuity between the individual components. But—here’s the thing—as we observe any kind of oscillation, we won't actually be talking about a discontinuity in the oscillation itself until we notice a shift in intensity (the amplitude) or speed (the wavelength). And, well, as long as the motion doesn't actually lose its oscillatory shape, we can't really say there's a discontinuity in the shape of the motion either... maybe? It's all a bit interconnected!

So, I guess everything in this world is relative—but maybe not quite as much as that old Greek guy thought! You know, the one who stood right in front of a speeding carriage because he believed relativity was so extreme that the coach would just... well, pass right through him without causing any real harm. Definitely wouldn't recommend trying that one at home!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve been thinking about this lately—and I guess it's a bit deep—but there’s such a massive difference between insights gained from an oscillatory, discontinuous world versus those coming from a linear, continuous one. It’s kind of wild when you think about it! To me, it feels like those first kinds of insights are actually objective—you know, truly truthful—whereas the second type? They seem much more subjective—almost deceptive, if that makes sense. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like a pretty huge distinction!

Alright, fine. Let's just say it's all true—if that's how we're playing it!
So, should we just accept this totally disharmonious discontinuity in human nature—simply because we're living in an era of total discontinuity? I mean, does it even matter if the oscillatory movement continues in that same rhythmic pattern in the opposite direction, or if it shifts into something like broken linear paths, or maybe even something completely irregular and unpredictable? It’s a tough one, I guess!
Or maybe I should just frame the question like this—what would actually happen if only a specific portion of those FUNDAMENTAL movements in nature suddenly took on an ATYPICAL shape? You know, if that discontinuity you claim "isn't there" actually showed up—the one that, for me, is just so incredibly vital?

hollowpilot9 said:For me, pragmatism is really that existential stuff—you know, the things that are just absolutely necessary to actually get through life—whereas phenomenology feels like something else entirely... I guess!

No, just look at how beautifully that aligns with being a killer. I mean, a person—in some way or another—has to actually live, right? And we’re constantly getting caught up in that cycle again and again, almost like a drunkard stumbling over a plank. So, if that's how we live, I guess we have to constantly strive to refine and upgrade that existence. Of course, none of this happens without massive sacrifices, huge losses, and real effort. But then—and this is the kicker—once someone finally builds up these much larger assumptions (or wealth, if you will) that allow them to prove they're a real human being... well, out of those same old primal desires, they'd probably rather metamorphose back into a killer or a butcher. They'd do it just so they can tear everything down, cause total devastation, and then start the whole grueling process all over again!
Phenomenology isn't really about a person experiencing war—that’s just pure pragmatism. It’s more like a path of least resistance, you know? A way of dealing with a known evil. I guess it’s a bit like how early humans would have had this concept of stockpiling food—they probably still enjoyed those periods of plenty, but then they’d turn into cannibals whenever scarcity hit. Of course, that only changed once a more developed consciousness, along with memory and the trauma left behind by those horrors, forced them to accept and actually materialize—most likely—the very first human invention in history!
So, when we look at phenomenology—this whole concept of non-humanity—it feels like humans just aren't naturally wired for it. I guess the only thing we really have going for us, from the very beginning of our species, is this one specific limitation: we haven't quite figured out how to exist as anything other than just private individuals. We just can't seem to break out of that bubble and constitute ourselves as something more than our own separate selves—maybe that's just how we're built!

hollowpilot9 said:...
So, take the concept of a DAY, for instance—it’s this one big, complete whole. But if you look closer at what actually makes up a day, you've got day and night acting as its core elements. They just keep cycling back and forth, right? It's like they're these constant, alternating pieces that build up the entire DAY—the whole unit!

So, let’s look at it this way—a person is really just a whole package, right? And within that package, you've got two main elements: the peaceful human side and the warring beast side. It’s just the natural order of things, I guess! We probably need to stop entertaining the idea that human nature is somehow richer, more humane, or more magnificent than that—as much as we might want it to be.

So, what exactly is it that stops you, me, and everyone else here from just grabbing some guns, dropping logs across the roads, or—you know—just straight-up looting, killing, and burning whatever happens to come our way?
It’s even more important because we know a period like this will roll around again—it’s inevitable, really. But next time, I guess someone else might be way more organized and actually ready for that "devilish pirate" chaos than we are. So, why would we just sit back and let others dictate the where, when, and how of the next Great festival? We can't just leave the timing of that big pragmatic celebration up to them!
I mean—what are we even waiting for at this point? Are we really just sitting around until they declare the end of this "pathetic peace" again? Or maybe they’ll start lecturing us about politics like it's some kind of "art of the possible"... honestly, I don't know!

hollowpilot9 said:...
That’s just how I see things—and honestly, it’s pretty tough to talk me out of it! Unless, of course, you're arguing that day and night are these unchanging constants—you know, like two complementary poles that together form the totality of the DAY, which is itself a constant. If we look at it that way, I could totally get on board with the idea of CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE... but then we’d basically be right back at the beginning, at the Logos origin—which, I guess, would be a different kind of philosophy altogether! So, if you’re talking about the wholeness and continuity of the Logos origin, then you are absolutely spot on... but if you mean the stuff that actually *comes from* the origin, then maybe you're off base? It’s a bit tricky—you’re right if you say a Human is wholeness and continuity, but you’re wrong if you say a human is wholeness and continuity... well, you know what I mean! At least, that’s how the world looks to me, anyway!

So, I don't think there’s really such a thing as a "short circuit" here—unless you look at it this one way: does a person actually have the potential to become a true Human being, or do they just not? If they don't, well, then they aren't really to blame or responsible for it. But if they *do*—then things are looking pretty bleak and miserable for us all, I guess.

hollowpilot9 said:That’s exactly it—you nailed it! It's all because of that constant polar shifting, right? It just keeps switching back and forth—constantly, constantly, constantly! I mean, think about it... the Northern pole becomes the Southern pole, while the Southern pole turns into the South North—it's like this endless loop where the Northern pole shifts to become Southern, then the Southern pole flips to become Northern, and then suddenly we're looking at the South North again. It just repeats over and over! Those poles—they’re always oscillating, just oscillating, oscillating, oscillating!

Because it’s all about that shape—that sense of continuity! Change isn't just something that happens—it’s actually the very way everything exists!
Actually, I think we’re approaching this from a completely different angle—one centered on the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF HUMANITY. From what history shows us, change usually just looks like a temporary cycle of "short-lived" half-humans and killers. But if we want to actually affirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, that also relies on change—just a different kind! It would be based on a shift between two specific ways that a person (and their actual humanity) can exist—I guess you could say it's about how we choose to live.

hollowpilot9 said:It looks like we’re talking about two totally different things—nothing unusual there! I guess your take is probably spot on if you're looking at it from a PRAGME perspective, whereas my view is likely more accurate if you're coming at it through phenomenology. For me, the transition between day and night—and the idea of a DAY that actually encompasses morning, afternoon, evening, and night—is this massive four-pole symbol. It represents the very state of all things, including everything else that's polar, like the relationship between male and female. So, my whole philosophical mission—or my calling, or whatever you want to call it—is to bridge that gap between the philosophy of "day" as a collective unconsciousness and the lived, historical experience of DAY itself. Basically, it's pretty obvious we're operating on completely different wavelengths!

Pragma is probably the last group to actually care about changing someone's character—they’d much rather just shove everything into "phenomenology," I guess. But what you’re doing is different; you’re breaking things down, which makes it seem like you're looking for "discontinuity" between the individual parts. My take? Well, since every part is inherently part of the whole, focusing too much on those gaps makes it feel like there's a disconnect everywhere. It kind of misses the point of the internal continuity within each part—and, more importantly, that dynamic connection between pieces that's actually what keeps the whole thing together!

hollowpilot9 said:See, what I’m getting at isn't really about lying as some subjective thing—you know, like someone just choosing to be dishonest—but rather looking at a Lie as its own entity that actively erodes the Truth. It’s almost like they're fundamentally intertwined, making it nearly impossible to tell where one ends and the other begins! A physicist actually once pointed this out—I think it relates back to that whole wave-particle duality concept, or maybe how we look at particles versus anti-particles, mass versus energy, or even just simple black and white contrasts. It's all connected, I guess!

Why go with that when we have a much more fitting term—delusion? I mean, a lie always implies someone is intentionally leading ANOTHER person astray just to score some kind of advantage—I guess you could say it's all about the motive!
That’s why a lie isn't actually the direct opposite of truth—it’s more like the opposite of wisdom. I guess that's why we really ought to keep using their proper names, don't you think? It just makes more sense!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s funny how we see things, isn't it? Most viewers walk away feeling like they just sat through two hours of continuous, seamless cinema—but if you actually look at the mechanics, they aren't really watching a flow at all. It's more like they're seeing a series of disconnected snapshots, frame by frame—sort of like a strobe light effect where the image flickers in and out of existence. I guess what's written here is the actual truth of the matter, regardless of how the audience perceives it. You seem to be focusing on the vibes and the subjective experience of the viewer, whereas I'm trying to talk about the actual phenomenon based on hard facts!

It seems more like you’re focusing on breaking things down and then trying to synthesize them back together. When we talk about a movie, WELL, IT'S A SINGLE ENTITY—nobody is really arguing against its individual parts. But, for the exact same reasons, there's that dynamic connection that weaves everything into a whole, which is essentially just a two-hour continuous stream of footage. I mean, we don't really expect a movie to be anything other than a rapid succession of frames, right? If it were anything else, we'd probably be talking about holograms or some kind of 3D projection. So, a movie AS A MOVIE definitely has its own undeniable continuity.

hollowpilot9 said:.... You (or anyone else, myself included!) can never actually PROVE whether the plug goes into the socket, or the socket goes into the plug, yet we all BELIEVE, THINK, and ARE CONVINCED that THE PLUG GOES INTO THE SOCKET??? It's the same deal with direction—you can't prove right is right or left is left, because right is simultaneously left and left is simultaneously right.

When you look at things from different angles, you're going to get totally different results—that's just how it works, I guess. But what you're really attacking here isn't "belief," it's actually convention. It's either a sort of agreement (like left vs. right) that we inherit from those who came before us, or it's a standpoint we adopt based on an active relationship—you know, movement. See, the plugs are that other part of the story; they are ALWAYS moving by sheer circumstance, so they earn the title of being the ACTIVE participant. Then there's the moment of penetration. If you swap the verb "go" for "enter"—well, then the hole certainly can't go into the plug, but the plug can definitely go into the hole.
Actually, if we look at something like "hanging coats, jackets, or hats on a wall hook," we see how those relationships are also defined by a MOVING BODY. So, nobody is going to take away your right to view things from a different perspective! In fact, I think that's the only way opinions actually progress. But, I don't think you can really spin that into a whole new "worldview." That feels more like a matter of methodology, maybe.

hollowpilot9 said:.... If what you're saying is true, then evolution is simultaneously devolution, regression, reduction, or even a "return to the Stone Age"... But from what I understand, evolution is something else entirely. I've already pointed out the paradox of evolution, which is basically the same as the paradox of technological evolution: where a LOWER, LESS QUALITATIVE LEVEL CREATES a HIGHER, MORE QUALITATIVE LEVEL. It seems like you aren't noticing this—maybe you're ignoring it consciously or unconsciously—but for me, it's a huge observation! So, in an evolutionary context, MAN'S TASK IS TO BUILD A BETTER, MORE QUALITATIVE, AND MORE CAPABLE BEING THAN HIMSELF. Otherwise, Man is simply the end of evolution in the universe.

The emergence of a continuous (whole) human being can't be devolution or regression, and it definitely isn't a "return to the Stone Age." That would be the kind of progress—that leap in KIND—that really should have happened long ago, but never quite did.

As for the other ideas—like searching for the construction of some evolved, higher being distinct from humans, or seeing Man as the final stop for evolution in the cosmos—those views are actually limited by HUMANITY AND THE HUMAN CONDITION. Of course, we have to see the ultimate result of cosmic evolution within our own species; otherwise, everything would feel unnatural. And, honestly, trying to build an evolutionarily advanced being (rather than just a "better" human) feels a bit arrogant to me. I mean, we can't truly know anything we can't perceive with our own senses—so we can't even begin to assume what kind of traits this new species should have. Still, I suppose humans can fantasize about it, since our minds give us this limitless capacity for imagination.

hollowpilot9 said:So... basically, when I look at humanity through an evolutionary lens—both here on Earth and throughout the entire cosmic evolutionary journey—it’s clear that we, as a species, are actually building and constructing a macro-cosmic being: HOMOTERAS. That is my core hypothesis, my foundational thesis, and—of course—it's something I am absolutely NOT backing down from! I truly view this as my own mental breakthrough, which is why I feel I have the moral right to claim it as my own. It’s like this little intellectual gem that I’m just out here sharing with everyone... and hey, how someone chooses to receive it is entirely up to them, not me! Honestly, whether people ignore it, argue against it, or try to dismiss it doesn't really bother me at all—that says more about them than it does about the idea. My focus is just on this intellectual gem, which I find so fascinating because it’s universal—it applies to humans, sure, but also to pigs, horses, fish, plants, and everything else under the sun!

Now we’re getting to the interesting part! It honestly feels like you’re showing all the classic hallmarks of someone who's been "captured" by an idea—you know, that state where we become totally blind to anything that doesn't fit our narrative, while somehow having eyes in the back of our heads to spot everything that actually supports OUR specific hypothesis. I guess it just happens sometimes!
Could you maybe open up a new thread with the title "HOMOTERAS" and lay out all the basic outlines and expectations there? Or—I don't know—do you already have something like that written down somewhere else?

hollowpilot9 said:I basically think that art is just a rearranged phenomenon—something designed to be measured against reason, which, let's face it, is mostly amoral since it belongs to the PREDATOR... Of course, based on my own logic, the relationship between the moral and the amoral always favors the moral—that’s how you define morality—whereas the amoral is just what happens when the amoral outweighs the moral. I guess my whole perspective is centered on the Logos origin of what we call reality and existence itself; traditional philosophy, though, seems to only focus on reality as a standalone thing—kind of like...
The reality of just sitting there—watching one movie after another in a theater without any breaks—is actually kind of wild! I mean, imagine that constant stream of cinema... it’s a trip, I guess!

I’ve always felt that morality is really just this constant tug-of-war between how things actually ARE and how they *ought* to be—you know, what we want to make real. Even when there’s only a tiny bit of something immoral happening, it can feel like way too much sometimes! So, I guess we end up expecting those things to just... vanish, or be completely rooted out, because they simply shouldn't exist in the first place.
But wait—what would that even look like? I mean, I guess reason works with a single standard because it actually points toward and pushes for a greater good that already exists. But Um? It’s different—it basically mocks and tears everything down by offering an even "greater good" than the one reason has already turned into a sacred standard!

hollowpilot9 said:Walter Foster87: I honestly, in a world full of constant oscillations—you know, all that back and forth—I guess you only really start to see the continuity once you step back and grab the "big picture" of how things actually work.
hollowpilot9: In this world of oscillations—if you can even call it that—there isn't really any continuity to be found. It’s actually JUST DISCONTINUITY because the poles are constantly flipping back and forth! I guess it's all just one big cycle of shifts, maybe?

"... wait, so you're telling me it's ALREADY just a discontinuity because it keeps flipping between poles constantly...!?"
Is it because things are constantly shifting at the poles?! I mean—they’re constantly shifting!!! They're just... constantly shifting!?!?

hollowpilot9 said:When you look at what makes a human being, I guess you could say there's this fundamental discontinuity—it’s that polar distinction between male and female. But then, you have continuity—which is really just the whole existence of Humanity, both male and female, existing together!

When you look at a person through the lens of discontinuity, it’s basically just the shape of their private self—and, if you follow that logic, I guess it’s also the shape of their functional self, too. It's like—well, this continuity is what allows them to switch between those two modes without anyone ever noticing!
The whole idea of "men's stuff" versus "women's stuff"—well, I guess at the end of the day, it all just boils down to basic biology—maybe? It’s really just about our physical nature, isn't it?

hollowpilot9 said:Look, you can go ahead and stay convinced that we’re living in one continuous stream—and that’s fine! I’ll just stick to my belief that life is actually a series of discontinuous jumps. Maybe we’re both telling the truth, or maybe we’re both just spinning yarns? I mean, it's hard to say. It doesn't really make sense for one of us to be speaking the absolute truth while the other is lying, because—if you think about it—truth and lies are basically polar opposite relations. They kind of balance each other out, right?

It’s pretty simple, really—there’s no such thing as a lie if there isn't any actual intent behind it. I guess you could say one person is standing in the truth while the other is just lost in a delusion!
Wait, I think what you were actually trying to get at was that you don't believe humans can ever truly guarantee a continuous existence—is that right? Because, honestly, I’m not doubting for a second that throughout history, there's been this constant, perpetual DISCONTINUITY in the existence of every single sentient being out there. But—and here’s my take—I also know that continuous existence *is* possible! I really do believe it's just a matter of time before people and their communities reach a point where they simply won't be able to live in their current way anymore—maybe because they'll have to adapt to life in a completely different way.

hollowpilot9 said:...
I guess one of our famous American academics always used to say, "Truth and lies are so intimately intertwined that I honestly don't know where to draw the line"—it’s such a profound thought, isn't it? Maybe it's just me, but I find that idea so fascinating!
Continuity is really just this concept we’ve inherited from our Euclidean-Cartesian way of looking at the world—you know, that whole structured, mathematical perspective—but I feel like human intelligence actually struggles when it comes to this. It’s like our minds hit a wall because we just aren't capable of truly grasping what lies "The opposite on the other side." It’s a tough one, I guess!

What kind of sophistry is that?! Honestly—if we aren't calling those things wise, then the whole thing is pretty straightforward. I mean, if you look at The opposite on the other side, you find the starting point—which is exactly what its opposite is!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly so easy to just pick a side—you know, go strictly positive or strictly negative—but man, trying to hold both those perspectives at once? That is a whole different beast. It’s incredibly tough to think in that kind of unified way. I guess that type of mindset really belongs to the realm of philosophy, and even then, philosophy still feels pretty far off from reaching this kind of UNIFIED THOUGHT. Anyway, that’s basically the "background" for all my posts—it’s why I sometimes feel like I’m failing at thinking the way my professors and their followers taught me to!

Everything has a starting point—I guess you could say someone just has to step up and make it happen!

hollowpilot9 said:... Walking from point A to point B is JUST AN ILLUSION of straight-line, continuous motion. On a circle or a sphere, the relationship between A and B is simultaneously B to A—so if A moves toward B, B is basically moving toward A at the same time. My neighbor, who just started studying surveying, mentioned how his math professor spent four whole hours convincing them all that they absolutely had to forget everything they learned about geometry back in high school. That’s the gist of it, Walter Foster87, which—I'll admit—is pretty tough to wrap your head around because it touches on philosophy and science, not just basic geometry? ...

No, what I mean is—could you maybe be thinking too "straight-lined" here? For actual walking, those relationships of approaching and receding don't really matter. I mean, look at pantomime or a military drill—we have "marching in place," right? For movement, the only things that truly matter are either the moment of stillness (just standing there) or the moment you accelerate into a run.

hollowpilot9 said:... I've pointed out a few times that my perspective is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, HUMANITY SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF ITSELF. That isn't about playing a game of "man vs. cyborg"—it's not a "who wins?" kind of thing...

I'd actually stick to this part: "...I've pointed out a few times that my perspective is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, HUMANITY SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF ITSELF."
Though, of course, there's one little tweak. It wouldn't be "humanity" exactly, but rather a semi-human, or a temporary human, or—well, something human-like.
And, OF COURSE—this strange, half-self-created entity needs to build the foundations that will finally allow it to become truly HUMAN.

hollowpilot9 said:... I've thought quite a bit about morality and engaged in plenty of debates on it. One group was totally floored when I told them that morality doesn't evolve—it's either a constant, or it's nothing at all! All my research suggests that MORAL is simply anything that doesn't oppose a being created through love. Any action that works against that, or makes it impossible, is amoral.

Morality isn't just one single thing; there are at least two different kinds from the very start. For instance, looking at the relationship between the Creator and the remnants of the "world," we see how what is moral for the Mind isn't necessarily moral for Reason. Similarly, things that Reason deems moral—which the Mind might have supported once upon a time—are torn down by the Mind the moment it progresses, labeling them immoral or "outdated," or "something that deserves to die"...

hollowpilot9 said:In this world of constant oscillations—honestly, everything just keeps shifting—nothing is actually continuous! It’s all discontinuous, I guess... maybe that's just how it works!

In a world full of constant oscillations—you know, all that back-and-forth noise—I guess you really only start to see the continuity once you step back and grab the "big picture."

hollowpilot9 said:...
We don't really live in one continuous stream, do we? I mean—we’re constantly switching gears between being wide awake, drifting off to sleep, feeling totally alive, and then just... sort of dead to the world for a bit. It's all a bit fragmented, I guess!

Even with all the ups and downs—you know, those constant fluctuations in how we grow and change—I guess, as biological beings, we actually live CONTINUOUSLY!
Death might seem like it just cuts that whole continuity short at first glance—but honestly, I don't think so! After all, we aren't exactly the first living species to find ways to keep that CONTINUITY going through our OFFSPRING, right?
Honestly, I think the real issue—if you want to call it that—is that we as humans (or rather, rational beings, I guess) just don't have any actual continuity in our existence. It feels like we are essentially born anew at every single "fresh start"—which we can all sense intuitively, if we're being honest—and through that very process, we’re just setting the stage for the next big disconnect in our lives. It's kind of wild when you think about it! And the kicker? We actually know deep down—through both logic and gut feeling—that there is a way out... but we just choose to ignore it! Maybe we're just wired that way, who knows?
Even if the continuous existence—you know, actual LIFE—of a sentient being included all sorts of little sub-oscillations, I don't think that would take away from its value one bit! In fact, maybe the fact that we don't exist in one steady, unbroken stream—but rather jump from one mistake to the next—kind of undermines our whole generic nature, I guess.

hollowpilot9 said:...

I mean, I guess if you really think about it—and I do!—we aren't actually walking in one continuous motion. It’s more like we're moving discontinuously, since our legs are constantly oscillating while we walk. It's kind of wild when you stop to consider it!

So, I guess those oscillations are really just parts of a much larger whole—a continuous flow from one point to the next... and honestly, no real evil is going to happen if we just take a breather or find some way to embrace a little "discontinuity" in our movement—which is a huge deal, since that’s worlds apart from any kind of actual breaking of the natural bonds we share with other intelligent beings!
I guess I don't really have much to add there—maybe just a small thought! —but honestly, it seems like we've covered all the bases already. Everything feels pretty settled, doesn't it? Anyway, I'll just sit back and see how things unfold!

hollowpilot9 said:So, I just finished reading this crazy bit about some British doctor who supposedly implanted the very first silicone chip... I mean, can you believe that? It sounds like something straight out of a sci-fi flick! I guess it’s wild to think about how far we've come since then—it really makes you wonder where things are headed next, doesn't it? Maybe we're all heading toward a cyborg future sooner than we think!

If you look at how everything in the living world develops—just observing the way species evolve and grow over time—it seems like there's this underlying tendency toward becoming higher quality. I guess you could say it’s just an inherent part of how life unfolds!
It’s really about the distinction—the huge difference—between someone who is actually self-aware and lives their life without pushing others around, avoiding pointless wars or dealing with unnecessary, tyrannical authority... and then there's the so-called "human" who just has silicon chips shoved in their brain.
One of those two just won't be going—I guess it's just one of those things!
Look, I guess it really boils down to this—either silicon chips stay strictly as tools meant to assist us, or we’ll end up being ruled by those "cyborgs" you're always talking about!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess we’re all just "big kids" at heart—especially inventors! But you can't forget that there are always at least two totally different breeds out there—and I mean really distinct types. First, you've got the dreamers, those folks who get just as excited about a new invention as a kid with a bag of candy. Then, on the flip side, you have the ones who are purely calculating every move just to line their pockets! Honestly, when it comes to that second group, I'd say their moral compass is... well, let's just say it's pretty questionable most of the time, right?

To me, morality boils down to just one thing—preserving everything we’ve already built, while paving the way for new intellectual breakthroughs. It’s about creating those material conditions that let us explore what is possible (and honestly, there’s always more possible!) to improve what we currently have. Plus, I guess you could say it includes all those "pure" goods we tend to call inventions!
I honestly think all those other moral codes exist just to protect what we've already built—they're really just tools to set the stage for the next big breakthrough. To me, exploring the "unwise"—you know, the stuff labeled as immoral or simply "what shouldn't be done"—is actually where true invention begins.
Money, profit, chasing a paycheck... it's all just candy for kids, really. It's all serving the Purpose.

hollowpilot9 said:A parrot doesn't just stumble upon something by accident, any more than a fawn accidentally finds its mother's milk...

Of course not! But I guess instincts and drives exist within the realm of Reason too. It's kind of like how an animal's highest power can almost automatically—well, almost perfectly—shape its own reactions and behavior. It might even bake those learned changes right into its core instinctive responses.

hollowpilot9 said:Everything seems fine so far—but there’s still this massive, heavy question hanging over us: Is existence actually continuous, or is it all just one big series of breaks? I mean, is there *anything* at all that stays continuous? From what I can tell—and I’ve got plenty of documentation and evidence to back this up, I guess—there really isn't anything continuous. Not a single thing! Nothing linear, either. That's why I tend to look at every single determinant from the exact opposite perspective.

Biologically speaking, a human being lives one continuous stretch—from birth all the way to death. Some people like to argue that it spans from conception to biological death, and either way, there’s this undeniable physical continuity at play. You could technically try to break life down into different developmental stages—you know, claiming there's some kind of disconnect between being an infant, then a child, then an adult in their prime, and eventually an elderly person—but honestly? I guess it's all a bit of a stretch. From a purely biological standpoint, a human life is one unbroken thread from the moment of conception through to biological death!

The mental or "invisible" world out there—it feels much more sensitive and prone to sudden breaks, I guess. If we really want to nitpick about what a "discontinuity" actually is—and maybe I’m overthinking this—it basically happens whenever someone knows exactly what they shouldn't be doing to another person, yet they go ahead and commit a crime anyway. It’s that moment where the law isn't even up for debate; it’s not some messy clash between two equal rights, but rather just a straight-up denial of someone else's rights altogether. The most extreme examples—the ones that really hit home—would be things like premeditated murder, robbery, terrorism, organized banditry, or the horrific abuse of children under ten or eleven.

Look, I know we aren't perfect—far from it! But honestly, it’s kind of a bummer that we're so far off from even being "barely functional" in the exact area where our true kingdom actually lies. I mean, it's that core essence, right? Without it, none of the stuff that truly makes us human—our culture, our civilization, all of it—would even be possible. It's pretty wild to think about, I guess!
Actually, I think continuous existence is totally possible in that world too—it’s just a matter of perspective! If you look at it as happening through an inversion, or maybe even a total revolution of those core ownership dynamics—well, that doesn't contradict anything, really. In fact, I guess that might be The Only One way to truly prove the continuity of human existence!
On the flip side of Tom—if we’re looking at the linear nature of private property rights—it’s actually that very concept that causes this massive sense of human discontinuity... I guess it’s just trying too hard to maintain the continuity of those private ownership rights, if you know what I mean?

hollowpilot9 said:I think we might be talking about two different things here! My point is about extrapolating the human brain into this kind of GLOBAL SUPERBRAIN—which, I guess, is already starting to function—on one hand, and then on the other, looking at a 3D-configured MACHINE BRAIN that operates exactly like our own. So, if you look at a cyborg, they’re basically this "monster" that possesses a brain like that—meaning they can do everything a human can, and maybe even a little bit more. For instance, they wouldn't actually need to kill off another cyborg, or even a human, just to tap into existential energy—since they'd be able to produce that energy themselves!

Well, you’ve gone and made me feel like a total newbie in my very first computer science class—haha! But hey, at least we have some keyboard warriors around here who don't actually have to resort to violence!
Does a human being really have to kill another human being so often!? I mean, if we're looking at individual issues—like psychosis or whatever—as the cause for murders, those cases feel like they're miles behind things like corporate greed and economic interests. Do you guys remember that time back during the Terror government of the Communists when 164 people were killed because of olive oil imports from Spain? It’s just wild. Or even those instances where they’d kill their own freezing, starving compatriots over something as trivial as a head of cabbage out in the Midwest... it's just senseless. Then, somehow, we see these victims being forced upon us too—everything from rigged political trials to that whole controversial idea of the state having a right to harvest organs from a "deceased body"... it’s all so heavy. And finally, I guess there's the root cause behind all this killing, even the mass stuff—people eventually reach a breaking point where they feel they have to kill someone else because they've turned one of their own faces into The Only One.
That basically means cyborgs—assuming they actually manage to keep their human brains and current social structures intact—are going to be forced into a cycle of mutual destruction. I mean, that's just where this leads! Their only real alternatives are either everyone tearing down everything they’ve ever built, or maybe—if we're lucky—everyone getting together for one massive "Great festival" to smash it all down at once so we can start rebuilding without the casualties. But then again, if that was the case, why did they even become cyborgs in the first place? It seems like it would have been much smarter to just slow down the development of production forces, ban cyborgs altogether, and give humanity a little more breathing room to tackle the most fundamental challenge of all—figuring out how to maintain continuity in our social relationships.

hollowpilot9 said:I guess that whole "necessary evil" thing is really just the price we pay for evolution—driven, as always, by human stupidity. As evolution pushes us toward a "higher level," I suppose that stupidity eventually fades away, taking those accidents and all that "necessary evil" along with it. That’s why we end up blaming people for being foolish—for things they did back then and things they're doing now. But honestly? Just because they *have* to act stupidly doesn't mean they get a free pass from the consequences!

Of course, I mean from a purely moral standpoint—but when you look at how reality actually works, the power to grant a full amnesty lies strictly with the President.

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, if the invention doesn't exist, there’s nothing to abuse in the first place—right? So, I guess you could say the perpetrator is just as innocent as some kid who accidentally shoves a nail into a wall outlet. Honestly, who's really at fault here? Is it the person who designed the socket, or the one who made the outlet easy enough for a toddler to stick a nail into? It probably took decades of trial and error to finally engineer a child-proof outlet that actually works! But in the meantime—and this is the tragic part—the electricity has already claimed hundreds of innocent lives.

Aren't all big shots basically just "big kids" at heart? I guess they get so swept up in the excitement of a new invention that they jump straight to it—kind of like how a kid reacts to a shiny new toy! They just grab onto the very first solution that pops into their heads without really thinking it through, treating it as if it’s some kind of "irrefutable" truth right off the bat. Maybe that's just how they work!
I’ve been right there with you—honestly, I used to lose sleep worrying about my kid reaching for an outlet or something similar. Because of that, I actually wanted to mount everything at about 5 feet high! But—between the local handymen and the actual engineers—everyone was adamant that it would look terrible, be totally impractical, and just... well, wouldn't make any sense. So, I definitely get where you're coming from—but hey, humans are pretty resourceful, I guess—even if we end up installing the electrical system with a massive mess of wires!

hollowpilot9 said:...
You’ve probably heard that story about the Amazon parrot—you know, the one where it gorges itself on those toxic berries and then immediately flies off to find some specific type of clay to eat as an antidote? Honestly, if you ask me, that bird is a total genius! I mean, seriously—it's like a little feathered inventor working its own survival hacks. Maybe it's just instinct, but I guess it's pretty incredible!

It’s probably just a happy accident that ended up making things better—sort of. An invention—as far as I can tell—just doesn't really work without those social (human, or maybe intellectual?) connections to give it meaning. I mean, stuff like piles of leaves or stones that you just toss aside after a quick use? Those aren't actually inventions—they're just tools. Sure, you could argue that intelligence—or some kind of individual cleverness—shows up when someone realizes they can link two EXISTING external objects together (like a walnut and a stone, or water and a pile of leaves...). But even then, all those "smart" animals still rely entirely on whatever nature decides to provide for them. Human intelligence is The Only One that actually shifted the priority—basically stepping in to take over by producing things ourselves!

hollowpilot9 said:Why wouldn't I look at things from that perspective? I mean, I remember reading somewhere about how dynamite was actually discovered—it wasn't some grand epiphany in a lab. Apparently, a Nobel assistant accidentally spilled nitroglycerin all over the ground, and that gave Nobel the idea to mix the stuff with "earth" to stabilize it. That’s how dynamite was born! The thing is, he made his fortune because he manufactured and sold the product, not necessarily because he was this incredibly brilliant scientist or "inventor" like everyone makes him out to be. Honestly, those kinds of "accidental" discoveries happen all the time—you can find them everywhere—and then they get rebranded as these "genius inventions from brilliant minds." In reality, they're often just flukes that could happen to anyone with even a semi-decent brain. Let's face it: inventing things is a massive business, and in like 99% of cases, an inventor does it for the love of the money, not exactly out of the goodness of their heart for humanity!

It’s great when drive and motivation align. But honestly, if you look at our patent laws—just take a second to ask yourself why an EMPLOYER gets priority over something as dignified as a pure invention! It’s true that plenty of breakthroughs happen by accident—you know, just a lucky coincidence of circumstances—kind of like Archimedes in his bathtub. But even then, none of that changes the CORE of our nature or the CORE of our "stuff."

hollowpilot9 said:... That’s really where the "catch" lies. People only ever show off the GOOD side of an invention, while the BAD side gets swept under the rug—and what's hidden under there is often poisoning or killing people, all just to chase fame and money. Personally, I find that totally immoral and beneath any decent, thinking human being—the kind you're rooting for.

I don't think it's strictly about hiding the "bad news," though. By its very nature—even without any immorality, fame, or greed involved—an inventor can be so blinded by hope that they either don't see the downside, or they view it as something distant or just incredibly minor.
By the way—money is just a tool, right? It's the general medium, the lifeblood that keeps "legal entities" breathing. That's why I probably value it more than any bullet, rifle, bomb, cannon, tank, platoon, or army... or any of those other tools we'd need (if we didn't have cash) just to smoothly exchange matter with nature.

Walter Foster87 said:Strictly speaking, from a philosophical standpoint, there isn't much to say—but if you look at it through a phenomenological lens, there's a whole world of discussion! Human-on-human killing is, as I’ve mentioned before, a phenomenon that has existed since the dawn of time. It’s just how nature works, even among animals! That’s why DEATH is such a primary question when viewed phenomenologically. It’s a fundamental issue, especially since scientists working in nanotechnology, molecular DNA biology, computer science, and futurology are all hinting at the possibility of human immortality...

Man, those two things could be so different! You're talking about physical immortality, but what really keeps me up at night is the continuity of existence—that "immortality" of the legal persona in that other, invisible realm.

Because, honestly, true interpersonal killing doesn't exist. A human being can't kill another with actual intent, which means entire groups can't truly kill one another either. Sure, every "entrenched" side believes they are the ones standing on the side of justice while the other side is just... well, wrong. And then, eventually, peace returns and those animalistic creatures morph back into human beings—at least until the next bloody conflict breaks out.
In this discontinuous existence of humans and humanity as a whole—physical immortality might actually be quite dangerous.
It's easy for any mortal to find comfort in their past: "Well, I was a child and didn't know anything, then I was young and healthy as an ox (I could have easily been a fascist just as easily as I was an anti-fascist!), then I started a family and had to provide for them, then the kids went to school..."—and throughout that life, you might experience one, maybe two, or even three or four wars at most.
But after the 60s, and especially after the 80s, human interests and potential have been reduced to mere memory. Now, imagine an immortal being who remembers endless wars, someone who can no longer hide behind the shield of a short lifespan... I mean, think about it (even if we wiped away all the mental ailments of old age)—once they realize the sheer absurdity of their "hardest moments," wouldn't they very quickly just want to end it all?

Walter Foster87 said:These are processes that humans simply can't control by will alone, even though they are products of our own volition. It's like that "secret" functioning of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems in biology, or how technology constantly demands more advanced technology, which in turn creates even more problems that humans can't solve anymore...

There isn't a single problem that humans can't tackle. Sure, problems can pile up, but that really just changes the quantity of demands placed on us. Besides, why does anyone need to solve them as soon as they arrive? Why not deal with them a little later!? Honestly—just look at the kind of "GRAND problems" politicians and lawyers manufacture, and you'll see we actually have so few real issues that they're practically forced to invent and create them every single day.

Walter Foster87 said:Walter Foster87: No, no... a cyborg also has the capacity for self-repair and self-replication; at least, that's what a certain issue of Wired magazine said about Microsoft cyborgs. If a cyborg isn't capable of renewing or multiplying itself, then it isn't a cyborg—it's just a ROBOT. ...

Are we even talking about the same thing here!? A human brain combined with pure technical hardware!?
So, how exactly are cyborgs supposed to reproduce? By cloning their own brains!?

Walter Foster87 said:I mean, sure, talking about instinct makes sense, but that’s hardly an ALIBI for an inventor. An inventor is a responsible person just like anyone else—and I really want to emphasize that...

Well, there might be a little bit of a "necessary evil" thing going on here. Because, honestly, if inventors actually accepted all the responsibility you're throwing at them, they’d have to spend so much time perfecting and studying every single detail—doing such a thorough job—that by the time a prototype was finished, nobody would have anything new left to add or any way to improve upon it!
And if that were the case, we’d probably still be stuck staring at prehistoric prototypes today!

Walter Foster87 said:Which perpetrator? Of what?

The person who misuses the invention.

Walter Foster87 said:Was Alfred Nobel some lonely figure when he "invented" dynamite? Or was Thomas Edison totally isolated while working on the lightbulb? I guess loneliness mostly applies to someone like Tesla, who was a bit of an "eccentric"—if that's how you'd put it—whereas most inventors are actually quite social during that "eureka" moment, since that "lightbulb" often flickers to life only after seeing someone else's work. Just look at Watson and Crick!

Don't look at it from that angle instead, think about this: how much does the person actually relate to the INVENTION itself? And how much can one individual anticipate its evolution, uncovering all its uses, as well as its direct and indirect consequences?

Walter Foster87 said:What you said about how inventions come to fruition isn't quite right! When a POISON is discovered, it's a POISON the second it's found and forever after—just like how artillery shells or laser beams are lethal the moment they're invented.

But then again, poisons serve other purposes besides killing—they're used for medicine too, for instance.

Walter Foster87 said:... my question is: why create an invention with potential for misuse when it takes TIME to develop ways to NEUTRALIZE it—to PROTECT against that misuse?

And it's humans who REVEAL those sides of misuse. After all, plenty of inventions come straight out of the defense industry. But since the military is a product of SOCIETY, then the defense industry is a product of society too...
It's almost like you could say that evil is what motivates the inventors in those fields...

hollowpilot9 said:Again, I’m just not quite sure that the enemy always presents itself solely as a physical entity...

It kind of goes back to what the ancients thought—humans settle their differences through negotiation and treaties, while animals just rely on brute force and conflict.

"Mental terrorism"—in a democratic society (meaning, a society where the tools to fight back aren't being blocked)—can't really be the root cause of hostility, unless that kind of violence is actually PROTECTED BY PUBLIC FORCE. So, the stuff that's supposed to be the core of the democratic process—you know, the struggle to stop the tyranny of interest groups from the "big" parties over the interests of the "small" voters—basically the fight against the tyranny of the majority over the minority—REMAINS A THEORETICAL SPACE where this kind of terrorism could happen. In reality, though, mental terrorism is way more widespread—but most people who are being terrorized don't even realize it! Part of them actually enjoys being a follower because it lets them feel like they can terrorize those even smaller than themselves (sort of like playing "follow the leader" but with a mean streak), so the minority ends up being the only ones who truly see the situation for what it is. But, if I have any right to judge a collective, then it's a TYRANNY THAT THE MAJORITY OF PEOPLE DON'T EVEN FEEL. Because those people who are happy to just play the submissive role—they aren't really the heart of the problem. They’ll probably just change their coat when circumstances shift.

hollowpilot9 said:Processes and facts suggest otherwise. AI is already a reality, and with the advent of 3D biochips, that reality is becoming universal. Many analysts, like yourself, imagine the brain as the ultimate memory "machine" of the universe, which I think is totally off base because the biological brain operates chemically, not electronically. ...

The brain is the brain—that's the hardware—while the Mind, Reason, and Will make up the software.
Either way—I tend to view this new type of existence as a continuation of our own, maybe an evolution from the "unfinished" human to the "complete" one. I don't really see a direct causal link with the technical tools, though.

hollowpilot9 said:I don't think it's about whether we should love or hate the cyborg; rather, the cyborg is an existential prosthesis—a necessity for humans to SURVIVE in environments on Earth that are hostile to us, like on Mars, for example. The cyborg might actually arrive BEFORE HUMANS to prep the ground so we can survive there...
...

And that’s it. That's all it is. Because cyborgs, unlike living species, don't have the power to reproduce. Giving them any kind of authority over humans would just turn ourselves and our own kind into mere raw material—which would be completely nonsensical.

hollowpilot9 said:... I don't share the view that the inventor of DYNAMITE deserves respect, while the person using it is an idiot!? It's true that a person DOESN'T HAVE TO DO IT, but it's also true that THE INVENTOR OF DYNAMITE DOESN'T HAVE TO INVENT DYNAMITE. ......

On the contrary, a mental being doesn't have any drive GREATER THAN THE DRIVE TO CREATE AN INVENTION. Even if you raised someone with a Spartan upbringing to be a fanatic—neither the Mind nor the invention possess the POWER AND POSSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL. Whatever one "fails to complete," the other will finish. We simply don't have works greater than inventions!
By the way, it isn't the person using dynamite who is the idiot—it's the one who ABUSE IT.
Well, I guess you also have to count the people funding it all with taxpayer dollars—and then there are the ones handing out the medals, awards, and official praise for that kind of work... not to mention the historians who somehow manage to turn mass murderers into public role models and national heroes!

hollowpilot9 said:The thing is—and I really think this is the core of the issue—protection always seems to be playing catch-up with innovation. There’s always this gap where we're just waiting for the safeguards to catch up to what's been discovered, and sadly, people end up getting hurt during that interval. I guess you could say the responsibility lies with the inventor rather than the victim—it's just how it feels to me!

Hey—wait a second—why on earth did you leave out the perpetrator?!
An inventor—at least at the very moment of creation—is probably the loneliest person in the whole country. It’s such a solitary thing! And honestly, an invention always starts out in its most raw, unpolished state. Only after that does it actually become a "thing" to be studied, refined, or even figured out how to use in different ways. Of course, once it hits the world, you've got everyone involved—from the people who find it useful to those who might try to misuse it. Since an invention is essentially a social asset, I guess it falls on society to figure out how to prevent that kind of abuse. We basically build our entire system—our government, public institutions, and laws—for that exact reason, right? To create a framework within our relationships that helps us prevent injustice from happening in the first place.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think RAT is this massive existential phenomenon that’s been around since the very beginning—I mean, we're talking all the way back to the biblical era through to right now! Because of that, I tend to look at it through the lens of existential necessity. It’s almost like a fundamental rule of nature where the death of one thing essentially paves the way for the life of another—at least, that’s how it seems to work in the biology of the animal kingdom, anyway!

Actually, I’d argue the opposite—war was a phenomenon right up until we started digging into its actual causes. And honestly? Whether war remains a true mystery is something we'll only figure out once practical reality proves us wrong—like, if it turns out our collective understanding of conflict is just half-baked or totally off base—or maybe even when it shows that war actually does more good for people and society than harm. Who knows!

So, at the end of the day—if you ask me—war is just nothing more than a raw, brutal display of savagery carried out by the social elite. I guess that’s just how it stays.

hollowpilot9 said:Fair enough comment—but honestly, that whole "negation of a negation" thing? It’s been used to justify actual violence and psychological terror throughout history. I mean, if you didn't grasp it back then, you failed the test—and let's be real, nobody actually knew what it meant then, or even now. Not even Hegel himself could probably give a straight answer on what a "negation of a negation" truly is! It’s just one of those instances where incredibly "smart" people end up peddling absolute nonsense, I guess.

So, here we go again—now the inventor is the one to blame?!
Everything went sideways because even the top brass in the regime didn't actually get it. Take that inner circle that used to hang out at those fancy political seminars in places like DC or Boston—you know the type. I guess they don't really grasp basic concepts like negation, let alone causality! So, if you try to explain that causal link using different terms—like, say, the negation of a negation—to them, it probably looks absolutely terrifying. It reminds me of that old gag in a classic American sitcom where the police are rushing around looking for an illiterate person, only to end up arresting a schoolteacher instead!
On the flip side—there’s still that fundamental need for a method. Whether it's something based on Hegel, some sort of updated version, or just a completely different third option entirely—it doesn't really matter! I guess whenever we can actually spot those little tricks and mental illusions—you know, those moments where consciousness trips itself up—that's exactly where a method becomes necessary. It's about taking those patterns and bringing them under some kind of principle or organized system. Whether we personally like it or not, or whether we even recognize it when it's happening—the method is always there!

hollowpilot9 said:Sometimes you just find yourself stuck—like a deer in headlights—with absolutely no way out of a messy situation. I guess what I'm trying to say is that occasionally, you need a massive leap forward to actually fix those annoying little problems. One way to do that might be to develop this idea of a Creator—you know, a Higher Power—that possesses an earthly "mind." If that’s the case, then maybe the scammers and the thieves would just... disappear. I mean, if they had to answer to a cosmic vault or a Higher Being watching over them, their whole game would fall apart!

Honestly, it doesn't really matter—any person venturing out into space isn't going to discover anything besides their own reflection—just an INTELLIGENT BEING FROM EARTH. On the flip side, I guess space will just provide enough distractions and material to let them put off that fundamental, inherent task for a long, long time: actually getting to know themselves.

hollowpilot9 said:.... that’s 154,800,000 people killed—which is... well, enough to build a bone pile stretching from Earth to the moon and back?! I guess how much intelligence went into all that is a question left for philosophy...

Death by Government by R. J. Rummel [1994]

If the title translates correctly as "Civilians Killed by Governments in the Twentieth Century"—meaning, if it isn't just being overly literal—then there isn't much room for philosophical debate here.

See, if we're talking about victims of the state, then we're really talking about victims of the very institutions we built to ensure our laws aren't just empty words on a page—basically, they are victims of RIGHTS. And, since laws and rights are established solely to achieve justice—you know, to prevent and eliminate injustice—THEN WE HAVE TO ASK: was that actually a government representing the people? Because, honestly, if a "government" is killing its own citizens, is it even truly *their* government anymore?

Walter Foster87 said:I think I’m following you... — let me try to put this into perspective! Say I were "taking out enemies" by simply scribbling someone's full name onto a blank sheet of paper with a pencil, and then—poof!—just using an eraser to wipe the whole thing away. Honestly, that kind of "killing" illustrates your point incredibly well!

On the flip side—the enemy views you strictly as a physical being. But that's where things get messy, I guess—when one member of a community kills another while they're supposed to be at peace. It’s even more intense if they use a weapon, whether it was acquired legally or not! And man, any murder committed through an abuse of official authority? That just screams all the way down to the depths of hell.

When we talk about hostility—whether it’s just between two people or entire groups—there's this underlying assumption that the actual human connection has already been severed. I mean, all that political posturing and loudmouth shouting? That's really just noise happening outside the actual relationship itself. Plus, I guess those "extenuating circumstances" people always bring up play a huge role too—you know, those excuses used to forgive things that probably shouldn't be forgiven in the first place!

Walter Foster87 said:There’s this huge philosophical question buried right in the middle of this whole "tragic tale"—it makes you wonder: Why is it that destruction—you know, things like killing—feels so immediate, while construction seems to be this long-term, enduring thing? I guess there has to be some deeper reason behind this "murderous impulse"... maybe it all comes down to "consumption," since the very nature of consuming something involves the death of the other. Maybe that's just how it works!

What if we just... redesigned how society works? I mean—imagine if we took all the most dangerous elements—the premeditated killers, the predators, the armed robbers, the gangs, and the terrorists—and basically partitioned them off into their own separate community. They could go ahead and build whatever kind of society or government they want over there! And then, on our side, we’d focus on creating an environment where nobody ever gets backed into a corner in the first place. We could aim for things like full employment and maybe even set up dedicated counselors and specialized advocates—people with very clearly defined roles and responsibilities—to help handle specific social issues before they spiral. It sounds a bit ambitious, I guess, but wouldn't that be a much cleaner way to live?
So, let's really think about this—how many "Spartans" are actually going to stick around in a community like that? I wonder if there will even be any "cryptos" left at all. But honestly, when those in power basically give their protégés a free pass to kill without consequence—and you have a generation of kids following those extreme examples—it’s a mess. Especially when the legal system sets such a specific price on a human life—you know, maybe five to fifteen years if you get caught, assuming they don't mess up the legal procedure, or if the President decides to grant you a pardon... well, then you get that psychological trigger. It’s like people just want to test out this incredible, terrifying power by destroying another sentient mind.

Walter Foster87 said:So, why exactly do cells multiply? It’s not because they have some sort of "sexual whim" or whatever—that's definitely not it! It's actually because they're trying to build and sustain their macro-organisms—you know, like us humans. I was just thinking, as far as I can tell, hasn't philosophy completely ignored this specific fact until now? Maybe it's just me, but it feels like such a huge oversight!

So, here’s the core principle—the fundamental relationship between principles and laws, I guess. It seems to me that whenever any quantity—whether you're talking about accumulation, multiplication, or just building things up—hits a certain limit, one of two things happens: either the whole thing just falls apart and starts over from scratch, or—and this is the exciting part!—it actually transcends into a higher quality altogether.

Walter Foster87 said:...
If that’s actually the case—which would pretty much confirm everything—it really brings to mind some of the ideas in Hofstadter's "Gödel, Escher, Bach"... I guess!
If these creatures are inside the computers and eventually forming a Utopian society, then I guess we have to ask—who’s actually going to be running the hardware? —it's a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? Maybe they won't need us at all!

I honestly don't think machines—not even AI-powered computers—will ever truly surpass us. I mean, even if it takes generations to reach a new evolutionary leap for humanity, I just don't see it happening. A computer, no matter how much we polish it up, is always going to be just an imitation—and its "intelligence" will always be capped by the creative limits of the people who built it.

Walter Foster87 said:I guess we just have to face the fact that our biological chemistry has some serious limitations—like, really serious! It feels like we aren't even capable of "reading" what’s actually written on a high-capacity disc anymore. To maybe grasp even a tiny fraction of the data we're imagining, it might take us ten whole generations of humans to catch up—which sounds exhausting! Meanwhile, a cyborg could probably process the whole thing in a heartbeat—since, you know, they operate on electronic and symbolic logic. It's wild to think about!

So, the whole cyborg thing—it’s a massive challenge, isn't it? We're talking about merging the human mind (with its actual biological brain) with all these technical support systems. But honestly? I just don't think people will ever truly fall in love with that kind of existence—at least not more than the version nature already gave us. (I mean, isn't that core idea of love—this beautiful promise and hope that we'll be resurrected exactly as we are—basically the whole foundation of mainstream Christianity? Maybe!) And then there's the logistics... how would these cyborgs even reproduce? Would they just end up keeping humans around like livestock for breeding and brain transplants? It's a wild thought!

Walter Foster87 said:I didn't bring up that number just to make a comparison—I brought it up because it’s a total phenomenon. It's a sign of how we face actual mortality, mostly because we, as biological beings, just aren't built to handle machines with dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of horsepower! Sure, we can imagine healthy, smart adults sitting behind the wheel of something that powerful, but there's still this one massive issue: speed. There's a limit to what the human senses—even our intuition—can actually wrap itself around. Everything is just getting faster... and faster... and faster.

Is it actually about participating in traffic—or are we talking about an actual race!? I guess it's hard to tell sometimes!

Walter Foster87 said:You’re spot on again—but I just can't quite "swallow" this idea of high intelligence being funded by the Nobel Foundation when that money was originally earned from dynamite, destruction, and death. Honestly, no amount of apologies or mental gymnastics really works for me here—not even trying to argue that Nobel himself wasn't "to blame" for it all!

Not really! I mean, people abuse Nobel's inventions—that much is true. But that doesn't mean he *shouldn't* have invented them. To me, the real "sin" isn't his work; it's more like that classic idea of a monkey getting its hands on the trigger of an atomic bomb—it’s about how the technology is used, not the person who created it. Plus, if we're being honest, without Nobel's breakthroughs, we'd probably still be out there trying to clear land with unstable nitroglycerin... though, I guess you could argue we should probably judge the inventors of nitroglycerin too, right?

Walter Foster87 said:War and peace—it really all comes down to the subjective choices made by individuals and groups acting within what you call an "imperfect market." I guess my take is that true peace can only be achieved by neutralizing the forces of war using the very same forces found within those potential warring factions themselves. Maybe it’s just how things work!

It’s funny how we like to think we're the ones calling the shots when it comes to war and peace—as if we're totally in control of the chaos. But if you really dig deep into it, I guess peace is more like a fundamental way of being for any conscious entity... whereas war? Well, maybe war is just what happens when things spiral into total madness and we're all just trying to find a way out of that senselessness.

Walter Foster87 said:It would definitely be better that way—but unfortunately, economic balance and imbalance are both inductive and interactive processes. For example, you can't really fix the economic instability of a massive metro area like Chicago unless you first address its birth rate curve. And once you start tackling that, you eventually run right into the fundamental right to natural reproduction through sexual intercourse.

Oh, the irony! It’s like—well, the wealthy don't multiply nearly as fast as—you know, the little guys!
And just to be clear—I wasn't really talking about technical perfection here, more like the legal and economic side of things. So, first, imagine you get a monthly STIPEND for having an "original claim to all things"—basically, because you haven't committed any INJUSTICE OR EVIL. Then, picture having the right to purchase any piece of real estate, which simultaneously comes with the duty to defend your holdings using money (think of it as a "buyout" rather than a monopoly or a war).
In that scenario, the rich would naturally pay top dollar to live in the perfectly planned parts of Manhattan, while the less fortunate would get the chance to renovate those run-down areas or old crumbling buildings. Because—as I mentioned—there wouldn't be any unemployment in this society, plus—this "buyout" system actually ensures a bit of extra redistribution in favor of the lower income groups.

geza said:... Maybe you'll laugh at this. Just think about how many petty thieves there are in America alone. Imagine how many police officers are out there hunting them, how many judges and courtrooms are tied up processing them, how many prisons are filled with people serving their SENTENCE—and can you imagine how much that drains our collective tax dollars?? If we opened a DEPARTMENT STORE FOR THIEVES using those PUBLIC FUNDS, where the director and all the staff were actually THIEVES themselves, theft might actually vanish from a country like this pretty quickly. It would become totally pointless. ...

Why would I laugh? There are problems that get "solved" in a way that they never actually get fixed, mostly because they "feed" the entire structure—and even the different layers of society. The whole thing just keeps evolving until it reaches a point where the only "cure" is to go completely "haywire." That's how—from a certain perspective, anyway—people justify things like calls for the local legalization of drug use or prostitution and stuff like that.
Though, looking at your example—why bother with the petty crooks? If you limited their movement to just one "department store," they'd probably end up getting jobs producing the very goods they used to steal.

geza said:... because Hegel's abstract philosophical method (thesis-antithesis-synthesis) was turned into a materialized "struggle of opposites" method, where one opposite MUST TRIUMPH OVER THE OTHER for the dialectical method to work. To soften this NEGATIVE method, materialist dialecticians spread the idea of the NEGATION OF THE NEGATION as a universal law of NATURE. .. ...

Ah, the Hegelians and Marxists—if they had actually grasped the negation of the negation (that essential relationship between the principles of origin and the development of something new), they would have realized long ago the possibility and inevitability of completing the commodity form of goods. BUT, the problem with Hegel's method is that it clearly seemed sterile to his followers, or—more likely—it effectively sterilized their potential.
Honestly speaking—if a school were founded today specifically to practice and DEVELOP that method—I don't know how the professors would even manage, let alone the students.
Regardless, it's not a bad thing to have "in your back pocket."

geza said:... the FABRIC of some massive cosmic organism because it is, and chooses not to, then it is just as much ``playing god'' as creating life is. I believe as technology and our knowledge advance, we will come close to doing what I've described here. Choosing not to use our knowledge is also playing god, albeit in a passive sense. I would rather take advantage of the progress that we have made.

I honestly feel like this is a total game-changer for PHILOSOPHY! I wonder why people aren't seeing it—maybe because our education system is still kind of "blind," almost like how a newborn is before they finally see the world clearly? So, I guess it’s not that people are inherently unintelligent; it’s more that they're being taught nonsense by those in charge...
...

Why even bother wrestling with these massive possibilities and deep themes when we haven't even figured out our own earthly dilemmas and mysteries yet? Or—wait, maybe that's exactly the whole point!????

______________________________

Walter Foster87 said:...
I honestly don't think we can look at the whole history of global militarization—from the beginning of time right up to today—and try to explain it away through philosophy as just some simple way to conquer territory or enslave other people. I mean, that's part of it, sure, but it feels like there’s something much deeper going on here! It strikes me that there might be something else entirely—maybe a concept tied to macroevolution? It's almost as if what we see on a massive scale functions exactly like the mechanisms we see in microevolution—either evolving into this huge macro-defense setup or acting as a massive offensive tool. Just a thought, but it feels like those patterns might be repeating themselves on a much larger level!

The whole thing really boils down to this—no peace treaty is ever truly sincere, and honestly, I don't think we'll ever see one made with genuinely peaceful intentions—not until both sides actually agree to embrace a fully realized market approach in every single instance where legal contradictions might spark a meaningful social conflict.
So, I guess you could say that every bit of peace we experience is really just a setup for the next conflict—it feels like that sometimes! And honestly—logically speaking—it seems pretty foolish for any nation to let its government strip away its ability to defend itself.

Walter Foster87 said:Balance isn't just some abstract theory—it’s an absolute reality! I mean, look at a playground swing; if things aren't balanced, they just don't work. It’s the same with everything else, too—if a phenomenon or a system isn't in equilibrium, it eventually collapses, falls apart, or just vanishes altogether... so, I was thinking—maybe we should introduce two new concepts into philosophy (and science!) to help us out: one for being "polar-unified" (which would be balance) and another for being "polar-divided" (basically, imbalance).

Actually—instead of just focusing on a "balance of military power"—don't you think it might be better to tackle the economic imbalance first? Maybe that's the real key!

Or maybe I should put it this way—the person who was just yesterday happily swapping goods from their industry for mine has absolutely NO RIGHT to suddenly swap that peaceful exchange for aggression and theft. Especially not when it’s so clear they only made war inevitable because they refuse to accept a fourth natural human right: the right for any individual to declare the market value of any property. By doing that, we could break up those monopolies over "goods that aren't right in front of us yet" (you know, those long-term assets)—which would, indirectly, kickstart the exchange of everything else through inertia!

Walter Foster87 said:We’ve already touched on the reasons behind the war—and honestly, I’m just not totally convinced that conflict is nothing more than some kind of mathematical balancing act to level out the population density of a community!!??

It’s honestly wild how easily people can just "give up" on keeping those high-value breeding bulls around—you know, the ones that actually drive the whole operation forward? I mean, it’s pretty crazy when you think about it—especially if that's the kind of shaky foundation someone wants to build their entire long-term strategy on!

Walter Foster87 said:A world without weapons just isn't possible—and I mean that metaphorically! Think about it—retroviruses and all those other viruses are out there. They’re basically little warriors, always ready for battle!

It’s actually totally doable if we scaled it up enough! Just imagine a society where SWAT teams and soldiers—including those dedicated hunters—all lived alongside their gear out in nature preserves, hunting grounds, or at specialized training ranges. It sounds like quite the setup, doesn't it? Maybe it could work!
None of the locals—not even the police officers—are carrying weapons. It’s all handled by specialized tactical teams who are being closely watched over by the local police to keep things secure!
Well, if we’re talking about actual armed robbers or bandits showing up—I mean, real high-stakes situations—the local police usually just handle the locating part. They track them down, but when it comes to actually stepping in to neutralize the threat, that's more the territory of SWAT teams or even the National Guard.

geza said:... You're spot on there, but I guess we really need to draw a line between dialectics as pure DIALOGUE versus dialectics as a set of universal LAWS—which a lot of people have tried to do... right??? Using dialectics as a LAW is such a dangerous little mental game for people who aren't quite equipped to handle it...!!

Speaking of dangerous mental games—there might be some truth to that! I mean, the whole METHOD is still a bit unrefined, isn't it? Hegel certainly made his mark, but he wasn't exactly the first to try this. I’m not entirely sure if anyone has truly succeeded since him, but from what I can see, his method is structured in a way where it would be so easy for someone to get lost in trivialities while trying to systematically evaluate a massive amount of data.

It shouldn't be the end goal itself, or some kind of "sacred text," you know? But—whether we're following Hegel or just finding our own way—we really do need a system to protect ourselves from our own baked-in biases and self-deceptions. So, I suppose the real work lies in refining the method itself.

geza said:...
Here's another thing I wanted to mention: Like I've brought up a few times before, I'm really fascinated by the evolutionary aspects of humans and humanity as a whole. Specifically, I keep wondering—are we actually capable of determining our current evolutionary stage? Are we basically at square one, or if we've moved forward, just how far have we come? Where do we sit, roughly speaking, on the entire possible scale of evolution? ...

Personally, I feel like we've been hovering somewhere in the middle—maybe sitting on a sort of plateau or a ridge—for a long time now (going all the way back to ancient times). It could stay that way for ages, but then again, maybe there will be a moment very soon where we finally surge forward and conquer those unknown territories on the other side of the slope.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like this path is pretty much inevitable—it’s almost hard to argue against it! It seems like it's just baked into the sheer complexity of the systems we're building. You've got the population curve on one side—you know, the total number of individuals in the set—and then you have that massive, exponential explosion of technology on the other. When you put those two together, I guess it leads to one logical conclusion... we're headed straight toward a bionic organization of human society!!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve actually heard this theory about there being a "surplus of people" before—it’s something one of my buddies, who happens to be a psychiatrist, brings up quite often! He tends to argue that wars act as a sort of natural way to regulate overpopulation... I guess he sees it as a grim kind of biological balancing act, though that's a pretty heavy way to look at things, isn't it? Maybe it's just his perspective, but he really leans into that idea.

It’s not just some simple case of "overpopulation"—I mean, that's such a surface-level way to look at it! I guess the real issue behind all these wars is actually the abortion of the abundance we've already created. It's more about how we waste the wealth and resources we've worked so hard to build—it's almost like we're sabotaging our own prosperity!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve got some serious doubts about that theory—it feels a bit shaky to me! I mean, if we look at the phenomenon of WAR—specifically those instances where one member kills another member of the same group (you know, like a dog-eat-dog world or just humans turning on humans)—we see this happening most dominantly among the male half of any living population, including us humans. To me, it doesn't really seem like killing others is just a way to regulate population numbers... I guess it's more of a "kill to be number one" situation, or maybe even just a desperate struggle to stay alive—like killing just to satisfy hunger!!

Look, a human being can—physically speaking—kill another human being. That’s just reality. But—and this is the big part—we also exist within a legal framework (which can be quite dull or even totally bizarre sometimes). In that world—the one that actually *is* what it is, and is fundamentally more human than just pure biology—there isn't even the slightest possibility of one person killing another.
With every single one of those physical acts—I mean, really think about it—it’s actually just a human-like animal killing a person.
I mean, it’s almost like an INEVITABLE NECESSITY—that a killer would have to completely sever ALL SOCIAL TIES with their victim before they strike—and by extension, I guess that means cutting themselves off from the rest of the community too!

Honestly, it doesn't really hold water anymore—I mean, neither our individual lives nor the very fabric of society seems to have any real continuity left. It feels like forgiveness has been cranked up to a level of pure hysteria! And let’s be real—the sheer power held by those in office to just "forgive" someone who assassinates a political leader... that’s fundamentally inhuman, don't you think?

hollowpilot9 said:Well, I guess you could say it's something like that—but I feel like before all that stuff about how human relationships actually manifest, there’s this thing we call HUNGER. It’s right there alongside love—sex, really—acting as this driving FORCE behind so much of what we consider to be the "materialization of human connections"... maybe?

That’s exactly the kind of thing that’s always ripe for exploitation—you know, being used to stir up trouble. I mean, if you look at it through a long enough lens—like, over millions of years—basic survival instincts have always chipped away at, or even completely wrecked, our social bonds—that whole "invisible" realm of human connection. But honestly, why even be surprised by it? Even with all this fascinating modern progress we've made, it feels like society still hasn't quite figured out how to solve these deep-seated issues!
At the end of the day, I guess it all boils down to that inherent "unfinished" quality—that little bit of imperfection—within us humans. But honestly—it’s pretty clear that this is exactly what those ancient Greeks were picking up on all along!
I guess you could say that a person's physical nature is essentially complete—it’s just built-in! Everything we strive for through our own existence, our personal growth, and even the way society evolves—well, it all feels deeply tied to who we fundamentally are at our core. It’s like this grand, unfolding historical process, isn't it? Maybe that's just how it works!

Exactly! It’s pretty clear to me that in a TRULY HUMAN society, we shouldn't have people sitting around unemployed—instead, maybe those who are between jobs could actually receive a salary for being on "standby" status? I mean, it just makes sense! And honestly, nobody's physical well-being—or any part of it, really—should ever be at risk.
WITHOUT SUCH A FOUNDATION, there isn't even a chance for human society to develop into what it COULD BE, based on its own natural inclinations.

So, I guess we’re just circling back to that strange, fundamental problem once again. Honestly—because of hunger, sex, or just plain old human selfishness (since loving intellect inevitably means being selfish toward other people too)—a person CAN easily snap their ties to others, sink into a primal state, and THEN KILL ANOTHER PERSON.

It’s also true that modern societies often push many of their members into similar positions, basically forcing them into inhuman acts.
But, if THAT—what we see first—is our starting point, then we aren't really looking up at the heights we should be reaching for; instead, we're just staring down into the
mud that our ancestors crawled out of millions of years ago. And—of course—we just keep coming up with more clever and grand excuses to justify the mess we're still dragging behind us.

hollowpilot9 said:... What does it mean that 11,000 Americans or maybe a million worldwide die in car accidents, numbers that are starting to approach those killed in wars?

Comparing those two things feels a bit off, unless you consider that so many drivers aren't actually "participating" in traffic—they're just tearing through streets, driving without licenses (and without any real consequences), or even minors and drugged drivers... In those cases, a vehicle is essentially being used as a weapon. If we could just clear that out of the equation—which, of course, would require first stripping the judiciary and executive branches of their dependence on Congress, and getting rid of things like immunity or dual citizenship—then we'd see a massive imbalance in deaths caused by poorly maintained roads, useless vehicle inspections, or just bad design from engineers (like those winding roads with deadly curves built just so some passerby might stop in).
Only then would we truly face the victims of the technological age. But man, how high would those numbers actually be!?

hollowpilot9 said:... You might have noticed by now that I tend to believe we constantly extrapolate and map the same phenomena onto four cardinal levels. From this view, "raw and dynamic nations"—let's say under the code name "Attila the Hun"—transformed into "raw and dynamic nations" of super-motorized military and civilian units that conquer vast territories in no time. So, that polar matrix of stationary versus dynamic holds true today just as it did hundreds or thousands of years ago; you just have to recognize the phenomenon when it appears in a different form. It's kind of like how the ancient Chinese Yin-Yang model talks about the universality of these static and dynamic forces...

As for me, I see it like this: Every civilized society eventually falls victim to the very progress that allowed it to flourish. Basically, at the moment of Western civilization's greatest creation, it hits a crisis—one that is fueled by the rise of all-powerful demagogues and those "sterile" gatekeepers of society who have taken hold.
Since this society—DESPITE ANCIENT WISDOM REGARDING THESE KINDS OF CRISES—doesn't have a model (or the right relationships) to reorganize and climb out of the mess, it ends up in a position where WAR AND COLLAPSE seem like the only way out. If some "dynamic and raw nomadic" nations don't do it, things look a bit bleaker—because if the aggressors don't, then good old "civil war" will finish the job.

hollowpilot9 said:Well, I see things totally differently! A community of stations would be this perfect social setup—you know, with functional relationships between stations, a solid division of labor, clear roles, authorities, rights, and duties. It’s all about absolute priority, partnership, and cooperation. ...

Sure, an insect colony can be super fascinating with its organization and all that. But, I wonder—can a HUMAN (if we’re being creative about what that means) actually strive for a society like that? A place where the whole community is just one single unit, and the individual is basically just some kind of tool?
Honestly, more than any "socialism," such a society would mean—well, the end of humanity and our entire species.
Just look at animals, for instance. They almost seem to have a much more perfect system than we do. They instinctively, maybe even purely by impulse, know exactly what to do at every single moment. They aren't confused by their own fundamental nature. Their logic—if you can call it that—is so perfectly aligned with their value system that compared to them, we probably act like confused little kids.

hollowpilot9 said:But the main thing is that through technological evolution, regardless of what people think, humans are moving toward this kind of bio-living organization—not toward some structure invented and forced upon us by a bunch of politicians or bureaucrats. ..

Or, maybe it works like this—humanity moves via technological evolution toward a social organization where we can truly experience the fullness of our freedom. And I mean to the point where we put even the politicians and bureaucrats under the control of the Constitution...!?

hollowpilot9 said:... I don't know, maybe it's exactly as you're saying, but I'm talking about the phenomenon of the MALE GENDER—which is way broader than just biological sex. For the biological male side, the defining traits are brawls, wars, conquests, and destruction. Of course, I'm thinking of all the possible and impossible war atrocities throughout history, especially those from World War I on the French battlefields, where millions of people lost their lives in these senseless charges while the GENERALS and their crew sat around sipping French cognac, playing the heroes "under the covers" with "the ladies." And, naturally, I'm also thinking of those military parades where people, lined up like rigid rectangles, march straight toward death. Any philosophy that can't explain this masculine—and by extension, feminine—phenomenon is a weak philosophy!

I totally get the nuance (going beyond just biological sex), but I can't really agree with attributing everything to "brute force." To me, brawls, wars, conquests, and destruction—those are tasks that belong to the EXCESS POPULATION THAT SOCIETY HAS TO AND/OR CAN "ABORT."
The "masculine" phenomenon is actually quite well explained by luxury—take Germany during World War II, for example; their women (after the war) made sure to make up for the loss of about 60 million men within just the next generation.
When you look at the soldiers versus the generals, you don't see a male-female principle; you just see the principle of cannon fodder versus "gods."
And regarding philosophy itself—both men and women belong to the human race, and a human being simply CANNOT kill another human being. So, once the human species finally reaches the fullness of its existence, those "tough guys" who act as butchers and killers will just... vanish from the face of the earth.

hollowpilot9 said:It might sound a bit harsh—I know—but it’s just a straight-up FACT, and I think SABATINI does a really fantastic job of breaking it all down in the "Tool Making, Hunting and War" chapter!
Hunting is basically the ultimate human endeavor—honestly, I think everything we do traces back to it! And let’s be real, none of it would have been possible without us figuring out how to invent actual weapons. It’s pretty wild when you look at chimpanzees, though—they actually have this built-in hunting instinct. They hang out in groups of maybe ten or so and go after smaller stuff like little monkeys or antelopes. Their "technique," if you can even call it that, is mostly just flailing around and thrashing at their prey. But—and this is the big part—using specialized tools to take down large prey quickly and efficiently, especially in big numbers? That’s a uniquely human thing. It’s just what sets us apart!

When I say "consumption," I’m really just pointing out that there are two main templates driving our survival instincts—it's one of those things! The first is this raw drive to consume, sure, but the second one comes from pure polarity—you know, sexuality. I feel like philosophers tend to shy away from actually diving into these primal drives, which is a bit of a missed opportunity, I guess? To me, their real job should be tackling the messy stuff—like answering the big questions: Why does the bigger fish always eat the smaller one... and who, exactly, is eating the biggest fish in the pond?

So, if you look at the "Tool-Making Animal"—before they could even think about hunting for food, they had to invent weapons first—they essentially had to build the social structures required to actually make, use, and pass down those inventions... it’s basically the exact same critique applied to Marx's view on war, which is really just that whole "Saint Bruno's beating" idea!
Honestly, I feel like this obsession people have with how "raw" or primitive early humans were is actually just a huge distraction—it kind of makes us overlook the much more magnificent thing that was actually born from them, or rather, what finally stepped into reality because of them!
Whether we’re talking about gluttony or sexuality—it’s all just part of that side of our nature that serves as a necessary foundation, I guess—but it doesn't actually define who we are at our core!

hollowpilot9 said:So, you're looking at the current state of affairs here, whereas I’m really trying to dive into the actual phenomenon—you know, the distinction between stationary and dynamic social entities. In my view, a settled society—like a group of farmers or folks rooted in one spot—is essentially a stationary entity. On the other hand, a nomad riding across the plains is definitely a dynamic entity! And since dynamic entities possess that raw force—that pure energy—they also carry this inherent capacity for destruction. It's just how I see it, anyway!

No one’s really arguing about that part—not even the idea that those steppe riders were such terrifyingly intense nomadic warriors that they basically inspired the whole concept of the "centaur," I guess!
Well, if we’re going to accept the old cliché that history is our greatest teacher—and I guess it kind of is!—then we really ought to address the big question: where did all those raw, high-energy nations actually end up? And more importantly, how did they disappear?

hollowpilot9 said:I wonder if militarism might actually serve some other kind of purpose? I mean—the structure of our society, our whole political framework, is already firmly established; we don't really need to go out and rebuild it from scratch! It seems like all you have to do is turn on the TV for five minutes to see the chaos involving assault rifles, or—well, let's be honest—it feels like almost every single adult living in the US is carrying something for protection these days. Just look at Americans!
I mean, I guess it feels like we’re actually looking at something else entirely here—something I might tentatively call "PREPARING FOR FAMINE."
( DEVOURING ) "WHICH ONE IS COMING NEXT?"

I don't really see any issue with an armed citizenry—that’s just part of the American landscape! But I guess what you're getting at is the tension created when you have an unarmed public navigating spaces filled with armed police officers, soldiers, federal agents, and those few privileged individuals who carry protection—and honestly, I can see why that would be a concern.

hollowpilot9 said:( continued )
I’m talking about the WHOLE person—you know, a truly complete individual. Honestly, I can only imagine someone like that possessing attributes of God, almost like they have the qualities of a Creator. My whole point here is that this kind of person is actually emerging right before our eyes—it's just that we either aren't seeing them or, maybe, we simply don't want to! To me, the true home for a complete human being is found within the act of creation itself—in bringing things, life, and existence into being. Any other definition feels a bit thin and incomplete to me, if I'm being honest. Now, your last sentence does touch on something—that idea that "A person would be a person to another as a WHOLE (or functional, or naturally occurring) BEING, only once the system of natural property rights recognizes, accepts, and affirms the fourth natural property right of man." That's an interesting thought! But I still feel like that creative—well, let's call it the generative—characteristic of the WHOLE PERSON is missing from the equation...

Humans are essentially inventors—it’s just part of our DNA, really, for every single person in the species. But, I guess, for someone to actually live out that nature, they have to invent something first (like, a proto-invention). And to do that, they basically have to OVERTHROW THE STRONGER PARTY AND THE WHOLE HIERARCHY OF POWER, replacing it with INTERPERSONAL PROPERTY RELATIONS...
So, you see this trait more clearly in the way inventions can be materialized, produced, and reproduced, rather than just in the gadgets themselves. Though—and this is interesting—you also see his (collective/legal) SHORTCOMING, or lack thereof, in that same arena.

hollowpilot9 said:...
.... Another thing is, if we define PEACE as a STATE OF EQUILIBRIUM between two warriors armed "to the teeth." In that case, the word is technically accurate because peace lasts as long as that balance holds. The second that equilibrium breaks, war is inevitable...

I actually think the equilibrium theory might be a bit off. It definitely works for "two angry guys," I suppose, but generally speaking—neither humans nor society ever does anything WITHOUT A REASON. And, well, extreme things like warfare aren't done without some level of necessity or inevitability. That's why people don't go to war when they've already created an abundance of supplies. Likewise, they fight whenever they can't find a PURPOSE for all their accumulated wealth.
Maybe some smarter class of private owners would try to get rid of surpluses? But wouldn't it be pretty silly to start tearing down your own house—the one you worked so hard to build—just for the sake of peace?!
That's why we sort of need enemies and hatred, just to make everything LOOK logical.

hollowpilot9 said:...
The only alternative to such a state of affairs is a world without weapons, which is obviously a total utopia...

Of course, that's just a lovely "idea," since reality—as we've seen—can always be settled with machetes.

hollowpilot9 said:... Back then, it wasn't a METHOD but DIALOGUE, and a method can only exist if dialogue itself is treated as a method, which I'm sure anyone would agree with...

Exactly! But, it's not just plain old talk anymore; it's dialogue where arguments are weighed against specific principles. And those are the kind of principles that allow us to correct ourselves when we make mistakes—which happens to everyone, pretty often, I guess.

The way we protect ourselves from the delusions of Reason—any method, whether fully developed or not—always involves using these kinds of principles...

hollowpilot9 said:... No, I'm not talking about that; I mean the dialectical method that's labeled as scientific—meaning, it contains the criteria of a law. ...

It was declared scientific simply because there wasn't a better-structured method available at the time. It had its six principles, and since any two principles interacting create a law, it effectively included a whole series of laws.

PART 2

hollowpilot9 said:....
My question was actually aimed in a different direction—specifically, does this negatively determine our actual lives? It’s kind of like that old riddle: "Who is really the prisoner in jail? Is it the one being locked up, or the guard watching the thief? Or maybe they both are?" My point is pretty straightforward: Why are laws drafted based on negative occurrences rather than positive ones? Isn't that a pretty significant philosophical question?

I guess the question isn't totally clear to me. Unlike a guard, a prisoner isn't performing any socially useful work or getting paid for their time behind bars. But—if you're asking about the purpose of that relationship in terms of social utility—then we hit a snag: is the goal to execute criminals or just lock them up? If we aren't going to execute them, then that whole "double prisoner" dynamic becomes a situation we've essentially embraced ourselves, whether it's out of humanity or whatever else.
Then there's the matter of the law itself. Why do we even "draft" laws in the first place? Fundamentally, it's just to eliminate and reduce injustice. Sure, we could frame things through a positive principle—like saying we do it because we want to foster FAIR RELATIONSHIPS among members of our community. But since justice isn't something handed to us ready-made—it's something that has to be actively pursued—and since it can't be achieved all at once or in some perfect, idealized vacuum—meaning it ends up being tied to endless little details (all human needs and necessities, including justice itself)—well, the only way to achieve it is by using LAWS TO EXCLUDE UNJUST ACTS OR REPAIR THEIR CONSEQUENCES. This process of exclusion, or "clearing away" evil, inherently relies on a negative principle. However, I think it has a positive side too, because by doing that, we always end up gaining a GREATER GOOD than the situation we abandoned or prohibited... And usually, those goods are of a universal nature. So, once we look at how the positive principle progresses—only then should we ask if our criticism of the law's negative character holds water.

hollowpilot9 said:....

hollowpilot9: I agree that the Constitution = God, but what happens to the enforcement of the Constitution when it's the bureaucrats who write the rules? How can we maintain the integrity of the Constitution through bureaucrats when social reality shifts daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly? I think I've mentioned this before: by the time Congress passes a Law, it might already be obsolete by the day it's enacted! Everything changes in the meantime, right?? So what are we even doing? Who is messing with whom here...? What will "tomorrow" even look like if the rate of change is this massive???

If you take another look at your critique, you'll probably see why I find it strange that you'd reject a greater good just because it still involves dealing with a bit of today's evils.
Do we want to move toward something better or not!?

hollowpilot9 said:(CONTINUED)

I have to admit, I just DON'T GET this, much like how I haven't been able to wrap my head around any philosophical explanation regarding the WHOLE PERSON...

Let’s take this step by step. Is it okay—meaning, is it clear—to say that a person only exists for a little while, and even then, only halfway!?
We exist for a limited window because human societies eventually fall into a state of "discontinuity" in their social ties—or, as folks might say, they just snap those interpersonal connections.
So, a person really only exists during that interim period.
After that, the connections get rebuilt and everything starts over from the "BEGINNING."
As for that half-existence thing, you can see it in all those UNUSED OPPORTUNITIES.
Basically, a person is given to another person not just in the physical world, but also in that realm that no other species can sense. We can't literally see it, of course, but we know perfectly well that a certain house isn't OUR property, or that we have a RIGHT to sit on a public park bench... it's honestly a little miracle "on Earth."
In that "invisible" world, one person essentially "feels out" another, recognizing them strictly as a LEGAL ENTITY. But historically—and there really hasn't been any other way—it has always been and only been accepted as a PRIVATE PROPERTY LEGAL ENTITY.
Since that entity rests on three natural rights, it’s logically a crime against the fourth natural right. Because, when you consider MULTIPLE BEINGS, a private property legal entity isn't absolute! It’s just a MEANS to an end.
Right now, though, things are such that people treat it as if there's no alternative—almost like it's their TRUE GOD. (They can go ahead and pray in churches, mosques, community halls... whatever they want. You can easily tell who they are BY THEIR ACTIONS!)
A person would truly be given to another as a WHOLE (or functional, or natural) PERSON only if the system of natural property rights recognized, accepted, and affirmed that fourth natural human property right.

If that part makes sense, then we can move on. If not, please stop me—where's the confusion!?

hollowpilot9 said:(CONTINUED) Therefore, he thinks the WHOLE PERSON is someone who creates another person on both a biological micro-level and a macro-level. Some call this a STATE OF LOVE, whereas I call it a STATE OF UNION between polarities, or polar people. Some call it a state of PEACE!

There it is—yet another big, but totally empty, word. What is peace, if not a STATE OF PREPARING FOR A NEW WAR!?
We'll eventually circle back to that topic right before we get to the whole story about the whole person. After all, anyone who greets me with the cliché "I won't take what's mine, nor will I touch yours" is a liar. It's just sad that most of those people don't even realize how bitterly and bloodily they are lying.

And what was that business about "greedy people" and the "masculine" principle...? Why hide the truth—that sometimes we long for what belongs to others, sometimes we want it, and sometimes—we simply MUST HAVE IT!?
Well, if history teaches us anything, it's that every time we emerge from a state of "peace and love" or "honesty" (those folks who won't touch what isn't theirs), we end up spiraling into its bloody opposite. This suggests that in every social state (like peace and love), we are MISSING THE RELATIONSHIPS THAT WOULD LEGALIZE THAT OPPOSITE.

.... Of course, we're talking about relationships based on the fourth natural property right—on an inversion of structure, or rather, on functional ownership resulting from that inversion, or basically, on the finished commodity form of goods.

hollowpilot9 said:.... So, one of those big, wandering methods was the so-called dialectical method? What’s the other one?
Well, my approach is the POLAR METHOD—which, just like I mentioned before, science and philosophy seem to have a hard time grasping, even though it's basically woven into the very fabric of the entire universe and all life here on Earth! It feels a little strange, doesn't it?

Actually, you can trace the dialectical method back to the ancients too. It shows up way more clearly in Kant’s work, though Hegel was the one who—more or less—really shaped it into what we know today.
It's similar to how Schopenhauer’s eristic dialectic works; it's really just a dual-purpose tool. If someone masters it, they can use it quite effectively to launch "disloyal" attacks against the truth (or against someone else), since it's essentially about twisting dialectics to tear down an opponent and their views. On the flip side, you can also use it as a shield to protect yourself from that very same kind of eristic maneuvering and constant debating.

I guess you could call Hegel’s approach dialectical idealism. What Marx added to it (if we look at things through a modern lens) and detached from the Demiurge by linking it to materialism—well, that turned it into the method of dialectical materialism.

But hey—we clearly aren't part of that lucky generation that had all this stuff served to them on a silver platter.
And finally, Hegel’s method is usually presented and taught in such a sterile, difficult way that if anyone actually wants to use it, they have to act like a student constantly repeating lessons—just to verify what they've learned through the method and, at the same time, keep checking their own understanding of its core principles.

hollowpilot9 said:....
That whole "METHOD" has been permanently buried by the scientific anti-dialecticism being introduced by—well—Quantum Physics.

Come on now—please, walk me through this "scientific anti-dialectical method." And I'm just as curious about your POLAR method, too.

If I can say anything about philosophical methodology, it's this: without it, there is no real search for truth. Instead, any attempt at it quickly turns into spinning around in circles through a labyrinth of "pseudo-wisdom."

That's why it's more important than anything else we're discussing here.

Take the flaws in Hegel's method, for instance—I actually had to patch those up using the principle of the Perfect and the principle of purposiveness.
So, I wouldn't go so far as to say Hegel's method is dead (because I didn't toss any of it out; I just supplemented it), and I definitely don't consider Hegel to be the father of the dialectical method either (you should look at Kant or Aristotle instead).
To me, it all feels more like a continuous process of searching for and building a method. So, naturally, I suppose each new version is just a little bit better than the last one.

hollowpilot9 said:... Analogies act as a sort of "toolkit" for research methodology. They really pay off if the researcher actually KNOWS how to spot those parallels and scale them up from the microscopic level to the macro level—and vice versa... ...

The snag with this method, I guess, is that you have to be super careful about whether you're extrapolating the physical side of human nature or the mental side—otherwise, you might fall into the trap of just grabbing whatever fits the moment from one "world" or another. In most fundamental doctrines, there’s always this tendency to substitute a part for the whole, and honestly, even extrapolating the whole wouldn't be much more than just providing a basic shape or a framework.

hollowpilot9 said:... So, the same logic applies to scaling up the social organization of a station society to the macro level. If a researcher truly understands cellular organization, they might finally see how messy our current "democratic" social structures are—structures that were basically forced upon us by a very linear way of looking at human relationships. For instance, in his book, Hofdater shows how universal it is to draw analogies between the logic of DNA structure and protein structure, or even Bach compositions and Escher paintings. It's my take that humanistic researchers, scientists, and philosophers will eventually have to start rebuilding human society based on the model of a station society... ...

And, assuming we aren't questioning intelligence in nature—looking for a pattern in a cell community probably isn't all that different from the systems people model after insect colonies.
In both cases, things get complicated. Insects don't really act as individuals; it's their collective (like a beehive or an anthill) that does the work. A social community of cells is an even lower level of connection, I suppose. And the real issue with humans and society is that any analogy comparing us to animals that act as individuals—or comparing society to animal packs—just doesn't quite fit.
So, while those analogies might show us some functional efficiency that's pretty amazing—and maybe even inspiring in unexpected ways—they can't really serve as the blueprint for how we "level out" human society.
Because, well, getting rid of individuality is contrary to human mental nature; it's a huge assumption to think any "perfect" or "insect-like" or "cell-like" community could exist for human-like creatures.
Even if our nature could somehow imagine such a thing, it also "knows"—by the sheer instinct of being a thinking creature—that it’s impossible. Honestly, there probably isn't a more counter-intuitive idea in the history of human thought. What kind of living being would "think" about destroying the very best parts of themselves and their species? And if that actually happened—wouldn't the species itself just go extinct!?
Human society definitely has a bit of a deceptive streak, since we essentially live in two worlds at once (the visible, physical one, and the invisible, legal or mental one), though we do tend to lean heavily toward one or the other. This so-called submission to practical demands often masks the most common form of one-sidedness—where life among natural things (the physical side) is experienced as the only reality worth paying attention to. So, in a way, we never really step outside that cycle of submission. But that back-and-forth between ruling and submitting? That seems to be a core trait of a thinking being within a community.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think that biological sex is the absolute weakest link in human intelligence—seriously! Neither science nor philosophy seems to have any clue why sexes exist at all or what their actual role in existence is. There’s this sort of simulation happening among the most powerful forces in the world whenever there’s a shift in Earth's polarity, right? Since polarity is such a universal phenomenon across biology, physics, and chemistry, it feels like it's about time someone actually addressed the roles of male and female—especially in our incredibly politically polarized American society. In my view, the sexes are essentially the very essence of existence itself. Maybe that’s why philosophy hasn't cracked the code yet, or perhaps people just avoid the topic altogether because it's so profound? If you look at it through the lens of polarity in every little "fragment of reality," the masculine pole seems to be a habitat for destruction and death—mostly because that pole is tied to energy and raw force. The masculine side tends toward transformation, movement, and pure energy, which inevitably pushes it toward a fourth state of existence! With the feminine pole, everything is the exact opposite—though, we really have to keep in mind that males and females are bisexual beings, not single-sex creatures like some misguided traditions would have us believe. If you follow that logic, it's actually quite easy to argue the whole thing from the opposite direction!

All in all, we’re really just talking about that Hegelian principle where opposites find their unity—you know, that whole "unity of opposites" thing. Honestly, I guess it feels a bit more intuitive than the Pythagorean concept of *diaeresis*. It’s like one single thing splits into two, and then—bam!—a relationship forms between those two parts, creating a third element. That way, the original One can exist again, but in a much more substantial, fully realized way. Or, if you look at it through an Aristotelian lens, everything arises from conflict—it either emerges from the tension between opposing forces or eventually breaks back down into them... maybe?

hollowpilot9 said:…

The "weaker sex" actually plays a vital sustaining role within a military machine—just like they do in civilian life. Think about it: you have these high-level administrators, medical professionals, or the folks running logistics—they keep everything moving. Meanwhile, the "knights" are still out there being... well, knights—getting their noses broken or dealing with the messy side of combat. I honestly think it’s pretty pointless to try and argue that "war and killing" is strictly a male domain. If you look at all of history and even what’s happening today, the patterns are right there. Sure, you might see the occasional female suicide bomber or a pilot popping up—kind of like those caricatures of a certain former Secretary of Defense—but that doesn't change the fundamental reality. Men remain the dominant force when it comes to being the combatants, the warriors, and the ones doing the actual destruction. Even if that sounds harsh, I don't think we should take it negatively from a philosophical standpoint!
... . …

I’ll give the "masculine" principle a little bit of credit—I totally get why theorists love to standardize things and keep everything simple—but in this specific case, it just feels a bit off. And honestly, it isn't even just about the anti-sexist argument—it’s more about that weird correlation where people say "mind rules, but strength carries the weight." I mean, think about it! If we define the masculine principle strictly through force or raw power, then by that logic, the intellect would have to fall under the "feminine" principle. After all, if we judge things based on what STRENGTH actually DOES, then we’re really just judging the mind that directs that strength... right?
Anyway, let's just move past that—as long as nobody actually tries to take those "masculine" and "feminine" principles and apply them to how our whole society works. I mean, that would be a mess, right?

hollowpilot9 said:…
I’m telling you—it's a phenomenon! I really think the whole thing boils down to this: human intelligence is driven by that primal, deep-seated need for the HUNT. It’s just how we're wired, I guess!
... . …

It sounds a bit off to me—it’s almost like we're forgetting that human intelligence isn't just some isolated thing, right? It’s definitely shaped by other needs, especially those purely "social" ones—you know, things like culture and how we interact with everyone else... I guess it's more interconnected than people realize!
If we look at how much things have shifted since the very beginning—I mean, really changed—it’s pretty obvious. You can see it just by looking at the number of hunters in our group, and even the number of those hardcore hunters who live solely off what they track down themselves. I guess that kind of trend, along with everything we've actually achieved, tells us more about who we are right now than any old theory about how this all started!

QUOTE]hollowpilot9 says:
…
and that very need actually INDUCES AN INTELLIGENCE FOCUSED ON CREATING AND MANUFACTURING TOOLS FOR DESTRUCTION AND KILLING. That’s really why we see such a massive gap between settled societies and nomadic ones—between the psychology and mindset of farmers versus herders—and, naturally, their entire social structures. It’s all laid out there in a pretty non-philosophical way... . …

Settled and nomadic peoples both present a whole bunch of principles that shaped who they were—or, I guess, the driving motivations that grew out of their specific circumstances.
Basically, settled nations can get by with much less land than nomads can. For those nomadic groups, intensive production and the constant depletion of grazing lands is almost a rule—especially since ranching dominates them almost like a monoculture. On the flip side, settled nations don't just develop a more complex division of labor; they build up social structures, culture, and wealth too. So, in many ways, they end up being a pretty lucrative target for nomads.
Plus, wealth eventually demands this increasingly complicated social superstructure, which—if I'm being honest—has a tendency to break away from its creators and turn against life and the community itself. And wealth, when it's just accumulated without a real purpose, becomes this unsolvable mess—even without the internal decay of that superstructure... So, in a sense, settled nations sometimes view the aggression and raw brutality of nomads as a sort of escape from the "stagnant peace" they live in.

But, despite all that—where are those mighty, celebrated nomadic nations today? Either they merged through conquest, became just like the people they fought, or they simply vanished altogether.
When you look at it that way, things start to feel a bit different. I mean, any primitive person can pick up a weapon and start killing or destroying. You don't need much more than some intoxicants and brute force for that. But to create, to maintain, and to actually build? Well, that takes truly civilized people.
Still—I have to admit one thing to you. The way killers and primitives are respected in our society and philosophy is so intense that it’s actually kind of worrying. It feels somewhat similar to how we view war and warfare.
But, if we feel the need to look up to such people, or—well, maybe even "coddle" them so they can be useful during moments of animalistic chaos—then something is definitely wrong, both with society as a whole and with the part of it that thinks it has somehow risen above it all.
In that case, I suppose it would be more honest to just build a Platonic Republic (a state of armed citizens) rather than fooling ourselves with these short-sighted and hypocritical "democracies."

geza said:My actual question was—why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? But you somehow linked that to a "submarine," which I guess doesn't really have anything to do with what I asked! When I talk about "negative criteria," I’m mainly thinking about how a law firm only starts creating rules once something bad happens—or when they try (and usually fail) to stop something bad from happening. It’s like how everyone shouts "DON'T KILL," yet violence seems to be everywhere! Honestly, all these bans aimed at thieves and criminals end up just weighing down honest, hardworking people. For instance, I'm not quite sure I agree with you that civil liberties are more important than, say, military strength on an aircraft carrier??

See, a positive principle would only actually work if true justice existed—meaning, if we didn't have to force things through laws and public coercion. As it stands now, the only thing authorities can actually do to promote fairness is... well, making it impossible for people to do wrong.
As for that whole "rules vs. rules" debate—there's another old-school way to look at it:
"People need laws, otherwise they'd be living like wild animals!"
But, maybe, there shouldn't be too many rules. In fact—if you ask me—the very nature of law should be such that no rule is ever passed unless it truly applies to every single member of the community.

A limit like that—baked right into the constitution—would ensure the legislature never gets the chance to pass regulations that exist solely to trip us up in the race of life.

geza said:...we have thousands of bureaucrats with endless desk space who do nothing but dream up ways to restrict someone else's freedom just to justify their own jobs. ... It feels like citizens are always treated like caricatures compared to the very factors meant to "fight" the negative, when in reality, they're actually creating more negativity!! ...
. Because of that, an honest person ends up being a lawbreaker, and in that "offense," the bureaucrat or the editor who invented the rule gets to feel like they've won! ....

Well, when you see the whole picture, you realize why we absolutely need a constitution, and why those kinds of laws shouldn't be passed or adopted by any of the highest governing bodies—especially not Congress.
Once we have a solid constitution, the bureaucrats and politicians can try to scheme all they want, but it won't matter much...

hollowpilot9 said:You’re describing things that have happened in the past—and honestly, things that are still happening in plenty of countries around the world today—but... I wanted to pose an analogous question, just to see what you think! For example: what kind of social (or governmental) structure is actually running my own body? Are there certain cells, or maybe even groups of cells, acting like little tyrants in there?
What kind of Government could possibly rule over a stationary universe made up of billions of cells? I mean, just think about it—it's wild! Maybe it’s just an impossible concept to wrap our heads around, but I guess it makes you wonder how any kind of order could actually function in a space that massive.
....
There’s just such a beautiful sense of harmony here—this functional organization and that profound LOGOS that I think every philosopher ought to study if they want to truly grasp how tragic autocratic, authoritarian, or even pseudo-democratic rule can be. Honestly, it boggles my mind a little! How is it that the human organism—which possesses such an incredibly well-ordered internal social structure—can turn around and produce nothing but chaos, injustice, and tyranny on the outside? It's wild... I mean, really! I carry this pretty strong conviction that we’re eventually going to see our internal and external organizations align perfectly. And honestly, looking at things lately, I feel like there are already plenty of signs that we're starting to head in that direction!

There’s this interesting parallel between an individual and their own internal makeup, much like how a society mirrors itself through its institutions—it’s almost as if our social structures and organizations act as a way to gather up and refine our raw human nature. I don't think we need to go looking for biological or cellular analogies here, really—unless you look at it from the angle that a truly organized system aligns perfectly with our capacity for reason. If we could actually achieve that kind of balance, it might just be the most optimized foundation for the progress of the Mind!

hollowpilot9 said:So, you’re suggesting that dealing with lowlife behavior, deception, or those "mad mob" types—the ones driven by theft, fighting, war, or tyranny—doesn't necessarily call for a masculine principle, but rather some level of animalistic instinct? I guess I see where you're coming from, but in my opinion, your argument kind of skips over the actual genesis of intelligence. See, many modern perspectives suggest that intelligence itself develops because of a fundamental necessity—specifically, the need for the male to secure food as both a hunter and a predator. It’s an interesting way to look at it! In fact, the whole evolution of predatory traits—you know, things like greed, gluttony, robbery, looting, murder, and general destruction—is actually described quite beautifully and thoroughly by Renata Sabbatinija in the chapter "Tool Making, Hunting and War"...

I guess you could say that for any individual—regardless of gender, really—every single principle we hold is shaped by our specific approach, and that approach is essentially just a reflection of what we consider to be justice!
Honestly, you hit the nail on the head—there are really only a handful of people who actually see themselves as part of some supernatural realm. Sure, they "know" they exist in that space, and they’ll happily cite their rights and demand protection from the US Government when necessary... but to them, it all feels so incredibly normal, so everyday, and so grounded in the physical world that I guess they'd probably just burst out laughing if you tried to tell them otherwise!
I honestly don't think a person can actually kill someone just by thinking about it—I mean, really! It’s probably just impossible to pull that off through pure imagination alone.

It’s honestly because of that specific crowd—you know, the ones who basically manufacture "public opinion" just to make sure whatever theories they like best actually get through—that those whole ideas about predators and providers seem so convincing in the first place. I guess it's all just a bit of a setup!
I don't know, I feel like that’s really just a rebellion against one's own nature—and it's not just because, at our core, humans are meant to be creators and builders rather than just greedy predators!
Of course, he’s got that physical side to his nature too—which means, in the physical realm, he actually CAN do all sorts of things that he simply CANNOT do in the supernatural (or legal) realm. And honestly, it works both ways!
So, he could potentially commit robbery or even a full-blown murder. But—I mean, does that actually prove his humanity, or did he just "kill" it (basically, sever his connection to it entirely)? I guess it's a tough one!
The existence of human NATURE—that one defining trait shared by every single member of our species, which serves as the true source of all our natural rights and laws (not just those animalistic, pre-human instincts)—is pretty much beyond doubt! I mean, if you look at it this way, a cold-blooded killer isn't really any different from a mere human-like animal. It’s almost certain, don't you think?
Look, I guess what I’m trying to say is—even though we choose to respect him again through our system and basically hand him back those status rights—that whole collective bit of "half-humanity" on our part doesn't actually erase what he did, nor does it change the consequences of his actions!
Or maybe we should look at this from the opposite angle—if we actually were just mindless predators, if our nature and everything we do weren't driven by something much more elevated than that—wouldn't we be just as pathetic and oblivious as wild animals!?

By the way, regarding that "Tool Making animal!" comment—it’s really just an ode to the sensible creature and its most vital decision: its capacity for work!
Look, I honestly think even monkeys can make REAL (human-level) tools—and maybe even go beyond that—to perform what’s essentially human-like labor. But, in my opinion, they'd probably still need a human around to supervise things and keep an eye on them!
If we just left them to their own devices—honestly, I guess they’d probably ditch those roles pretty fast and go right back to being... well, just regular monkeys!

So—it’s not like people just make tools for the sake of having them, right? It’s more that they act as aids—you know, actual means to get things done. I guess you could say the end goals of those activities (the products themselves) and the tools used to reach them aren't really born from manual labor or even pure Reason—but rather from the Mind. Maybe that's just how it works!

hollowpilot9 said:I've always felt that when you look at the humanoid design, things like Hunting and War—and honestly, the whole killing aspect—have traditionally been tied to the male half of humanity. It’s just one of those things, I guess!

Even if you consider the idea that just 10% of the male population could basically rebuild a nation from scratch—as if everyone was starting from zero—it’s pretty clear that war and killing aren't just "men's business" anymore. I mean, more and more militaries around the world are opening up to everyone—including what some might call the "weaker" guys—so things are definitely shifting!

hollowpilot9 said:In those wars they were fighting until recently, looting was basically treated as a legitimate part of the job—it’s kind of wild when you think about it! I guess the whole origin story really boils down to just marching out to snatch things from someone else. It’s much easier to just raid a neighboring tribe or a nearby state and grab what’s already been gathered—you know, like someone's winter supplies—rather than actually going out and doing the hard work of hunting for yourself. It's definitely the path of least resistance, I suppose!

War is really just a way for society to perform an abortion on its own excess—it’s like the system is trying to purge what it can't handle. And all that looting you see during the chaos? I guess that's just a little consolation prize for the small-minded people caught up in the mess. Sometimes, it even feels like some sort of twisted "national tradition." But honestly—when you look at any conflict—you have to wonder how many actual human beings are truly involved, versus just those who happen to look human.
It’s really about reaching a specific state—one that you just can't get to unless those essential, unavoidable relationships are established first. You know, those connections that basically define us as human beings in the first place! So, I guess you’d need at least an entire social group to step up—to essentially go to war with themselves—just to push everyone back into being actual, human-like creatures.

hollowpilot9 said:So, now that you’re bringing up this idea of the "WHOLE MAN"—which, let's be honest, seems to be everyone's favorite buzzword among philosophers—I have to admit, despite my very best efforts, I’m still struggling to wrap my head around what people actually mean by that! I guess I just don't quite get it—maybe I'm missing something obvious?

For me, it’s actually pretty straightforward! I think the only way we truly EXIST today is under one specific condition: we exist exclusively as PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. As legal beings, we're basically structured around three core principles—though, honestly, those principles really stem from Locke and his focus on affirming the human being as a rational creature. Because of that—you know, because of the very cause and purpose of being a private individual—there’s this undeniable, overlooked possibility (kind of like that "cornerstone the builders ignored..." idea). It points toward a completely different way for humans to exist, a totally distinct structure that also relies on its own set of three principles. But since both structures serve as tools to affirm our rationality, they really ought to coexist in a continuous loop. To make that happen, though, we’d need a social organization where the individual is, a priori, affirmed based on four fundamental principles. Maybe that's the missing piece!
When we talk about the concept of the Whole Man—it’s really all about reaching that point where we stop constantly choosing between our two different sides. It’s more about providing an unconditional affirmation for just one of those human personalities, I guess—which then helps establish true wholeness in how we relate to one another. By doing that, we might finally be able to bridge those little "discontinuities" that tend to pop up in our relationships!

hollowpilot9 said:... One acceptable answer I can find lies in the identity of the female within the male when a new human being is CREATED. Some call this LOVE! Based on that, a person full of love would be a WHOLE PERSON, but that’s just an abstract concept of a person, not reality...

Well, things can be presented in all sorts of ways. But, once they become that generalized, they don't really commit to anything—and I guess everyone has the right to imagine whatever they want under the concept of love, and by extension, that specific kind of whole person.
The whole person I'm talking about is CONCRETE. Their entire issue is EXCHANGE. Because, just like creatures in nature have to exchange matter with their environment, humans have to do the same. However, for us, that exchange is mediated through the PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND EXCHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE.
Production is what clings so tightly to the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. Meanwhile, exchange remains a PRINCIPLE THAT A PERSON CANNOT DISAVOW, NOR ABANDON, NOR LET STAND IN THEIR WAY!
So, a whole person will never (for moral reasons) say to someone else: This (or that, regarding external things) IS NOT FOR SALE! They might, however, suggest an outrageously high price, and that’s about it.
Because, honestly, that's the only way to avoid being a person only temporarily: during those little gaps between two "discontinuities"—instead, one should live their whole life within a human identity and dignity.

hollowpilot9 said:... If there isn't a single unified scientific method in science, then there certainly isn't one in philosophy—and there shouldn't be, naturally, if philosophy is an INVESTIGATION and a reasoning toward the whole.

Actually, I'd argue the opposite. A person has to defend themselves using certain means against the delusions that their own Reason might lead them toward. Without a philosophical method of investigation, philosophers would just be wandering aimlessly without direction. And without a philosophical method of presentation, their achievements would struggle to survive the "iron grip of tyrants," ....

hollowpilot9 said:... As I believe you know, the DIALECTICAL METHOD in philosophy has suffered a complete collapse because questions and answers are like elements of investigation and cognition ....

No, I don't think it's accurate to say the dialectical method in philosophy has totally collapsed. I mean, sure, the flaws in Hegel's (so-called Marxist) dialectical method are well known, as is the fact that much of it can already be found in Kant's work.
But—why would dialectics be limited to just those six principles!? And are they truly sufficient criteria to protect us from delusion?

Anyway—since we're on the subject. I hope you aren't referring to that "cliché" dying gasp of the dialectical method, which Dr. Smith conveniently replaced with some sort of "PRO ET CONTRA" method.
So, yeah—it’s a bit of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation—conversing from opposing positions remains the foundation, but—in Smith's case—it's completely UNPRINCIPLED, or rather—totally detached.

CONTINUED

hollowpilot9 said:.... . ....
hollowpilot9: That's exactly it! I think we're talking about the same thing, just on different levels of reality. If Platonic MIND is GENIUS, then ...... Maybe he was an excellent philosopher regarding the STATE—perhaps those are the outlines of the IDEAL state that many other philosophers, like Aquinas or Augustine, idealized, or even how Hegel and the Marxist envisioned it—but the fact remains that from Plato's state—that utopia within a civic context—only the UTOPIA actually remained, ....

Aside from the whole militaristic angle—there's so much left over that there's really no doubt—the SUPER BRAIN isn't made up of those millions or billions of people, but rather some sort of "bosses" and controllers.
Actually, Aristotle points out that flaw in Plato (the fact that he didn't leave enough room to connect the needs of the state with the BEST way to achieve them) and steps forward with the thesis "Everything must be valued by money!" ...
Of course, that’s where Plato's state of needs ends—it's only mentioned formally after that, except maybe for that one command, "Go sell everything you own!"
But, the idea of Plato's "community of goods" continues, standing both as part of and in opposition to the "community of needs"—Plato can be seen among the Christians who "held nothing as their own, but as common" (Plato asks: why is it that the same object is sometimes called mine, sometimes yours, sometimes his...). Judging by modern texts and what's taught in schools—generations have been inspired by this—and, finally, what we used to call communism was somehow strangely (whether openly or covertly) linked to Plato's "community of goods."

hollowpilot9 said:.... .
I guess the criterion isn't the METHOD, but rather philosophy distancing itself from its subject matter...

See—the criterion lies in the method as a PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE in law.
Well, just as a method is that generalization which distances itself from every single object in order to encompass everything (or as much as possible), the criterion for EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (including the method itself) is a higher degree of generality (distancing) from it.

hollowpilot9 said:... Why is human freedom defined by a negative criterion? Why is someone who knows a lot at a tiny, specific level (specialization) considered more socially important than someone who knows a lot at a broad macro-level? These questions exist in the context of: Why do the most complex artifacts, like a nuclear submarine, a supersonic jet, or a rocket, end up being simplified down to the "monkey finger" level for a human? Those are, I think, the real modern philosophical questions, not what the geniuses of the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries were thinking about.

On the contrary, a person working on or assigned to that nuclear submarine isn't a FREE PERSON. No matter what we claim, during the work process, MAN IS JUST A PHYSICAL BEING to whom that "invisible" side of nature—that is, the law—is ONLY WITHHELD.
So, one has to ask—why does a person remain unfree and "on the other side of the line"? Because "simplification to the monkey finger" has no other purpose than to FREE man from the complication of that humiliating inevitability (namely, organized labor).

hollowpilot9 said:I keep coming back to that question you raised in your last post—it’s such a deep one! Why is it that rulers (or honestly, people in general) have been mostly tyrants throughout history, and still seem to be today? I wonder if it’s just pure ego on the part of the leader, maybe some kind of automatic byproduct of holding power that naturally breeds tyranny—or perhaps it’s just an inevitable phase that happens during the early stages of societal development. What do you think?

I guess you could look for the answer in what I’d call "systemic conditioning"—you know, how those old rulers used to "mold" the youth. Honestly, if you look at like 90% of the material pushed through our American elementary and high school curricula today, it’s really just one big mental drill. Then there’s the other side of things—that inevitable, almost necessary process of sharpening the mind. But let's be real: you can't have true intellect without the physical talents of a human being, and that includes raw strength. Strength is tied directly to *voluntas*—the will—which is basically just the intellect when it's been filtered through, or maybe even trapped by, Rational desires and logic. Of course, since will and strength are so deeply intertwined with the mind, they end up looping back to influence both the source and the person actually doing the work. Maybe the simplest answer, though, is just the fact that philosophers—and philosophy as a whole—never really bothered to write a practical handbook for what makes a GOOD leader.
If there are instructions—then they’re either being Machiavellian or they're just some hidden agenda from pseudo-intellectuals (you know the type... like, "...but if you actually take a closer look, there's no way such wildly different things could be compatible..." or something along those lines). I guess!

I have to admit, I’m still a little worried about this—mostly because we're talking about how the masses interact. It seems like people don't actually want good leaders or any real leadership at all. Whether a regime is forced upon them through war, raw power, systemic pressure, or even through elections, it feels like those leaders either just fade away in their early days or—let's be honest—they eventually prove they belong to that "pack of wolves" mentality. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it's hard not to see the pattern!

So—instead of just sitting around waiting for some "perfect leader" to swoop in and save the day—I’m not really interested in getting bogged into all those little political debates. I think there’s actually only one sensible compromise here: true municipal autonomy. And I mean the kind of autonomy where the federal government doesn't just step in to tax the winners to subsidize the losers—that's just not how it should work! Instead, a city's survival should depend entirely on its own economic strength and whether its citizens are actually willing to foot the bill for their own independence. That's my take, anyway!
So, just imagine—just for a second—a Constitution that actually guarantees a local community (established through a proper referendum, of course!) the right to opt out of federal laws whenever they’ve already handled those specific issues with their own local ordinances. If we actually did that, I bet all those hardcore partisans, Republicans, Democrats, and everyone else in between would finally show us what they truly stand for. They’d have to prove it on their own terms—carrying the weight themselves without trying to force their views on anyone else. Wouldn't it be absolutely wonderful to live in a community where nobody is constantly obstructing the local agenda or messing with people's goals? Imagine places where folks can just focus on constructively proving that their way of life actually works. In a setup like that, there wouldn't even be room for real political enemies or true adversaries. Because, honestly, if you're facing constant opposition, maybe that resistance isn't actually that strong—or maybe it’s just driven by the fact that people eventually feel the need to find their own place under the sun within a community made up of "people just like them."
Once we finally move past the whole mess of dealing with power struggles and government issues—which, let's be honest, feels like a massive headache—we won't be looking for those "wolf-like rulers" anymore. Instead, maybe we'll just be searching for people who actually know how to handle the day-to-day logistics of whatever social model we decide to live by!
The people won't truly grasp the sheer depth—and the age of this idea, too... I mean, how long have we actually been waiting centuries for this?—of that classic mantra: "No one can FORCE me to be happy on their terms!"

hollowpilot9 said:Honestly, I’m starting to feel like we're looking at a phenomenon driven by just one single polarity—the masculine one. I mean, if you look at both humans and animals, there’s plenty of evidence to support that viewpoint—but then you have to ask yourself the big question: Is it actually possible to seize someone else's territory, property, or wealth without fighting, brawling, war, or tyranny? It’s a tough one, I guess!

That’s just the illusion right there—I mean, think about it! The whole idea of a private mental structure (basically, a legal entity) is naturally wired to drift toward isolation—you know, that sense of exclusion or pure egoism—and it constantly hunts for prey to snatch up, rob, or just leave totally stranded without an owner... It's almost inevitable, I guess! And honestly, the way it plays out, it just seems to produce results that heavily favor a "masculine" principle.
Wait, hold on—look at this too: are you really trying to justify being low-life, deceitful, a murderer of a "mad mob," or a thief... by calling it "manliness"!?
Is there actually any way to grab what isn't yours—territory, assets, wealth—without some level of fighting, brawling, war, or tyranny? I mean, maybe not... it doesn't necessarily require that "masculine principle," but you definitely need at least a little bit of animal instinct to get the job done!
Finally—if we’re really going to be bold about this, let’s say we take a hypothetical approach: It’s been argued, and maybe even proven, that to ensure long-term stability—you know, for the sake of "eternity"—and to actually preserve our society and the state (in our case, the US), implementing a perfected market is basically unavoidable. Since we don't exactly have a playbook for how that would work, I guess we’ll just have to build that experience ourselves! To make sure we aren't stepping on anyone else's toes, we could run this "experiment" within an autonomously organized municipality—perhaps located in a federally managed or "expropriated" area that's either undeveloped or just hasn't been built up much yet.
So, I’m thinking we should call out all the true believers—you know, those folks who are actually willing to go all in, even if it means "giving their lives" for an ideal. If we could get a crowd of maybe 10,000 or 20,000 together and just lay it all out for them—explain exactly what we’re after and what kind of life they'd be signing up for—what do you think, Walter Foster87? How many of them do you reckon would actually stick around once they hear the full truth?
Now, that—right there—is what I call true grit. It’s about being a whole, integrated person. I mean, anyone can claim to be a "tough guy" by being half-hearted or fragmented, but that's just being a half-human, really. And honestly, because everyone else is living such fractured lives, they feel forced into these dramatic sacrifices—you know, those moments where people "give their lives"—because they've essentially made those sudden, jarring breaks in their existence feel absolutely necessary. It’s like, if your life is already full of gaps, then a total collapse just seems like the only way to make sense of it all!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you could say that equality and freedom are basically deep-seated, subconscious human desires—sort of like things we just expect to exist, or maybe things that are still waiting to finally arrive... If we’re talking about equality and freedom in terms of the individual, I don't think they can actually exist as long as we're all stuck in this web of interpersonal dependency. It’s kind of like how you can't have molecular freedom or equality while those intermolecular forces are still pulling everything together, right? So, that sense of individual freedom—which I think is what you're getting at—could only really happen if we weren't tied up in all that social dependency that keeps us... well, you know.

hollowpilot9: Forget about the PHYSICAL REALM for a second. Maybe—just to help wrap your head around the problem—try looking at yourself through those legal relationships instead... you know, within that silent, untouchable, almost supernatural realm? It might actually help you grasp everything when you're aiming for the HEAVENLY KINGDOM!
I mean, when you look at the animal kingdom, animals aren't exactly all equal, right? It’s just how things work in the physical realm—some are faster, some are stronger, and everything is just naturally varied. I guess you could say it’s the same with us humans—our bodies and our individual talents are all so different that true equality just doesn't really exist in that sense!
In any realm—whether we’re talking about the legal system or something more spiritual—equality has to be the starting point. I mean, really think about it! Equality is basically the yardstick for freedom, and freedom... well, that's just the flip side of equality. It's all connected, I guess!
I think we really need to look at HUMAN RIGHTS as a kind of SOCIAL TALENT—you know, like an individual’s innate power—rather than just some abstract concept! It honestly has nothing to do with animalistic rights, except for the fact that—given how things turn out—they end up being enforced through physical talent... or, I guess, through the sheer physical force of the Government, which isn't just about morality, but is very much a physical reality.
I mean, no matter how ridiculous that whole idea sounds—you know, the notion that human Equality is really just about Power/Rights, specifically that every single individual holds the same legal standing to trigger equal public force against any other person or entity—well, I guess you're just going to have to "swallow" it!
Only then can we really start to dive into whether a system like that could actually work—or if it's just a pipe dream, I guess!
Why don't we notice it in our current civilization? I mean, why isn't there a clear separation between the power that creates the Constitution and the power that actually makes the laws? It’s honestly wild to me—why does our system still cling to this "democratic" setup where the main legislative body is basically the one drafting and passing the Constitution itself? It feels like we're stuck in a loop! These are almost "biblical" questions if you think about it—everything from the concept of Original Sin to the idea of the "wide gate."
It feels like a real problem with our modern era—there just aren't many people left who could actually justify themselves through a bit of blessed foolishness!
At the end of the day—and I really think this is the crux of it—if you refuse to recognize someone else's inherent, natural right to equality, you’re basically stripping away your own humanity in the process. It’s almost like a paradox, isn't it? I guess you could say that by denying another person their status as an equal, you're effectively dehumanizing yourself. A master isn't truly a human being if they're just ruling over property! Honestly, the slave owners of history hit the nail on the head when they described it—it wasn't a relationship between two people, but rather a dynamic between a master and a creature that's been reduced to something sub-human.

hollowpilot9 said:In situations like this, I guess an individual starts becoming way less dependent on anyone else—mostly because they just end up replacing that other person with something much more universal and all-encompassing!

I mean, we can't really talk about those kinds of universal truths until Liberty and Equality are actually established—and I don't just mean in some tiny little municipality, but across the entire world.

hollowpilot9 said:....
.... It’s easy to talk about intellectual freedom—you know, the idea that an intellectual being is inherently mentally free—but I think we really need to address existential freedom. Honestly, I feel like we can only talk about FREEDOM that actually carries weight once intellectual and existential freedom become one and the same. That’s kind of what your last sentence was getting at, right? So, in my view, we're approaching a moment where intellectuals simply have to become PRODUCERS OF IDEAS THAT ARE ACTUALLY USEFUL FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE BY AND SURVIVE ON!! Without that, all these deep debates about intellect are basically just DAYDREAMS!

Maybe look at it this way: An intellectual being exists. And part of that existence involves reaping the fruits offered by the Mind. It’s just that humans stopped "picking bananas off trees" (since work didn't exactly create man, right?). A person doesn't necessarily have to invent something to be considered an inventor—that's just how some people are wired. But, they really do need to validate themselves through a way of life that fits the dignity of an intellectual being. So, the identification you're looking for is actually built into existence itself. The catch? It isn't fully realized! We live for a while, then we just drift, and then suddenly we face a total break—like a war or something—and we have to rebuild ourselves and start over. Man, we sure are different from little Job, aren't we?
So, it’s not really about whether the smartest folks will eventually come up with more stuff—though that would be great! The real issue is that you just can't build a functional law society or healthy social relations around intellectual beings as long as they are being crushed by people who either never truly thought about their own nature, or who just lazily adopted someone else's ideas—which, let's be honest, is probably 99% of voters. Or maybe they think they're just cogs in a giant corporate conglomerate (even if they believe in God or Reason, their identity is split between those two principles, not to mention how they perceive them). Or, which is super rare, they identify with only one single principle—thinking they are purely made of Reason, Will, Soul, Heart, or maybe Jehovah or Allah...
But, despite all these contradictions and this suppression, SOCIETY isn't without its tools. Because, well—everyone loves to brag about having a hero's heart, acting all righteous and just.
But a day is coming when we'll tell them: "Here's the leap of faith—TAKE IT!"
Because, at the end of the day, nobody advocating for Liberty and Equality is actually asking for anything more or less than true justice.