Posts by mistyfox812

It feels like every single week there's a new headline about China and the US fighting for AI dominance. Between the theft accusations and the military getting too deep into it, things are moving way too fast. Do you think we're actually prepared for how much this tech is going to change global politics?

steeleagle2 said:The Spirituality subforum needs to return to its religious roots, where it actually belongs. A significant number of users have stopped posting here for that exact reason. When you combine this with the fact that the moderators' criteria for what qualifies as "spirituality" seem based entirely on their own personal interpretations—which, by the way, they’ve never managed to clearly define—it leads to one inevitable conclusion: there is a calculated effort to diminish the influence of religion across the entire site. That’s pure politics. If that's the case, just move the whole subforum over to General Discussion.

For instance, look at the most popular thread in the Spirituality section, "TEKI on the forum." This was a unique, deep dive into spirituality itself, spanning over 200 pages and racking up roughly 140,000 views. It was shut down and moved to the Religion section simply because the moderators decided it didn't fit the current definition of "spirituality." Essentially, the staff doesn't care about driving traffic or engagement. Fine. If that's the goal, just start a private club instead.

Wait, are you actually the same steeleagle2 who asked the moderators to lock the Teki thread? 😕

The real version:
Dervis:
"As the person who started this thread, I'm asking the moderators to please close it down."

Greg said:If mistyfox812 was actually doing a decent job, they wouldn't be looking to bring on another moderator.

Look, there’s zero connection between how good I am at modding (good or bad, whatever) and the fact that casualtiger2 is being appointed as the moderator for spirituality. Honestly, ever since Enchantress stepped down from the spirituality mod role, we’ve been hunting for a replacement. I was just acting as interim help until we found someone.
Bottom line? Even if I were somehow the greatest spirituality moderator ever conceived, we still would've had to find someone else—because I never even agreed to anything more than just filling in until the real deal showed up.
Well, we finally found him. 👍

hiddenhound3 said:Do you want to know my one true grievance with the moderators? It is that they even bother to engage in debate with people like you in the first place.

Your arguments lack any substance, and you perpetually resort to whining and playing the victim.
If people conducted themselves with basic decency, moderators wouldn't even be necessary... take me, for instance. I have no need for moderation. When I encounter someone being difficult, I simply walk away (unless they send vulgar private messages—like these), rather than indulging in mindless, ego-driven bickering.

From my perspective as an objective observer, you appear to be someone who is merely running in place.

Furthermore, you cling to this forum so desperately that I am almost inclined to believe you harbor some sort of ulterior ambition.😁

Besides, why are these conflicts from the Philosophy Forum being imported here? You seem to seize upon every single opportunity to pick a fight with someone.

Look, please just keep any comments about the state of the Philosophy Forum over on the Philosophy Forum.

Benjamin Long said:I simply cannot agree with this statement.
I suspect that Kenneth Peterson5, much like color, Soul sister, ja_sanja, hollowtinker18, and Batman... are all merely reacting to the blatant injustice present in this thread, as well as the sheer inability—which isn't anyone's fault, really—and the lack of expertise required from the moderator to actually lead this discussion. To properly engage with certain members here, such as Percival or George (who have unfortunately moved on due to these misunderstandings), one requires a certain breadth of perspective that is currently missing; and that is precisely the point being made! Can you see that, or not? I truly don't know, though it would be wonderful if you could, because then this entire problem would vanish, wouldn't it?
Furthermore, isn't it quite strange that you haven't even questioned the core issue when it has been pointed out so clearly? Instead, you speak of communication that is impossible unless both parties are willing, or at least capable, to meet halfway.

One of them was actually offered this:

mistyfox812 said:Look, I don't see the point in trying to convince you of anything, but since you're insisting you have airtight arguments proving I'm an admin abusing my power, here’s my proposal:

We can try to find enough unbiased, smart users who both you and I can actually trust—people willing to listen to and weigh both our sides. If they decide your arguments are solid, then fine, I'll step down as moderator. If they decide you're just trolling, then you leave the Philosophy Forum for good. And if they can't reach a verdict, things just stay exactly as they are right now.

She turned it down.

If anyone truly believes they have the receipts to prove I'm abusing my mod powers, the offer is still on the table.

Otherwise, let's please just get back on topic.

Benjamin Long said:Now, casualtiger2, there is absolutely no need to get worked up! I am actually posting here under my lesser-known handle just to see how you would judge the situation without such biases.
It is just as much of a prejudice to lump me in with that "trio" who think they are simply "the wrong people in the wrong place."

@steelridge58, I truly appreciate your hard work and everything you have written, but your response still fails to provide a clear answer to a very straightforward question. This is particularly true because, as you claim, the group intended to address the matter through "suggestions rather than a decision"—yet a decision was clearly made! If a decision is reached without the consent of the authors, then we aren't talking about a suggestion anymore; we are talking about a decision whose reasoning remains entirely opaque. Why specifically were certain segments of that controversial thread deemed problematic? Simply stating that the moderators didn't act "unilaterally or arbitrarily" doesn't actually explain anything regarding the specific content that caused the dispute.
So, I ask you: what exactly was so contentious about that thread that it made it suitable for Spirituality, yet unfit for Philosophy?

It’s all laid out right here.

ironmarlin1 said:Let me try to reframe your argument just a bit. Imagine you're a zoologist out in the Great Plains, coming across a herd of bison. Now, you already know from everything you've studied that bison are herbivores. So, what's your thought process? Are these specific bison also herbivores, or do we wait for more data? 🤷

Think about it—you're a biologist discovering a totally new species, and you see it grazing on grass.
Your gut reaction is gonna be that they're herbivores.

But what gives you the right to assume that? Just because other things that eat grass are herbivores? Obviously, if it turns out they aren't, then the assumption is dead. But until I have proof otherwise, I'm sticking with what I know about similar species.
I'm not gonna say, "Bison are herbivores, but I can't assume anything about this new species until I gather mountains of evidence." I don't think anyone actually lives their life with that kind of extreme scientific rigor. It's the opposite! We're always making assumptions, and we only look for new ones when our old assumptions fail us.

So, like, if a fox caches food and comes back for it later, my assumption—until proven wrong—is that it's doing the exact same thing I do when I stash stuff away to grab later.

Right now, I just don't see any reason to doubt that the answer to "why does a fox store extra food" is simply "to eat it later."

Nemanja: Soccer 🙏

Look, I can't really be held responsible for whatever you're jumping to. 🤷

If something’s still confusing, just ask. 🤷

Kenneth Peterson5 said:😕

Look, if we're playing this game where originality doesn't mean squat compared to actual truth—and let’s face it, philosophy is a total mess because nobody can actually agree on what "truth" even is—then you end up with this weird paradox. If a bunch of people are out there cranking out "universal" answers that aren't actually true, then a bold, gutsy statement is way more "original" than some universal consensus that's just floating around aimlessly. It’s all a bit of a joke, really.

And honestly, what would you even do with an answer if you actually found one? 🤷

Being truthful isn't about having all the answers to life's big questions; it's just about acknowledging things for what they really are.

Jerry Green59 said:.. stolen .. certainly .. and presented as one's own ..

.. perhaps .. that guy .. W .. plucked it out of thin air .. much like the ideas we claim as .. our own ..
(.. "own" is really just a feeling .. when you latch onto a source of ideas ..)

.. I’d bet anything that Alima .. W .. never actually read him ..
.. and that the metaphor just arrived on its own ..
.. it happens sometimes, where different people tap into the exact same thing .. the same sensation ..
.. but .. those who connect directly to the source .. they actually understand the weight of what they've gathered ..

.. but .. for the one who lacks that connection ..
.. they have to latch onto others .. copying .. quoting ..

.. what you wrote .. it’s no different than if I showed up to a poetry contest and submitted this:

one bites the other's
hand or foot
or whatever
clenches it in their teeth
runs as fast as they can
to bury it in the earth

others scatter in all directions
sniffing and searching, sniffing and searching
digging up the whole ground

if they find it, happy days
their hand or their foot or
whatever
it’s their turn to bite

the game continues vividly
as long as there are hands
as long as there are feet
as long as there is anything at all

.. and then .. someone comes along and says .. well .. you didn't come up with that yourself ..
.. and I say .. why are you complaining? I picked it up from some fellow named Vasko .. or Pope ..
.. and as for who they picked it up from .. I haven't a clue ..

Whatever. You can't own metaphors, so there's no such thing as theft here. Besides, I'm not even "passing it off" as mine (honestly, you always try to spin this into me stealing or scamming or some other drama every single time). Look, I already made my stance clear on this: Everything I write on this board is totally unoriginal—nothing groundbreaking, nothing wild, just stuff that's been written somewhere else before.

In philosophy, originality doesn't mean squat—it's truth that matters. If something is true, then it's universal. It doesn't belong to me, or some random guy, or even Heidegger or Rockefeller.

Jerry Green59 said:.. I wouldn't go that far..
.. it’s just one of those old Alim's tropes..
.. he used to repeat it constantly because it works.. and, well.. because it's his signature style..

.. but.. if it’s gaining traction—if people are actually quoting him or paraphrasing his points for competitive strategy.. then that’s a win..
.. there’s nothing wrong with good advice becoming mainstream..
(.. though, let's be honest.. it's a problem if it becomes popular without anyone actually grasping the substance behind it..)

I don't really follow Alima, but I have read Weizsecker—I actually picked up that metaphor from him (and honestly, it's at least fifty years old by now). Who he originally lifted it from? No clue. 🤷

Anyway...

🤷

swiftcobra15 said:That’s why I think this might be his perfect epitaph:
Marijan Cipar, the philosopher who never became a professor of philosophy
because of all those professors who never actually became philosophers...

I remember once, shortly after Ciprin returned from his stay at a mental health facility, Gajo Petrović caught him in a lecture hall at Harvard University:

"Cipar, do you actually have some kind of credential that proves you're qualified to teach students?" Gajo asked, with nothing but genuine, logical curiosity.

"My dear Gajo, I am the only person in this entire building who actually does,"
Ciprin replied, effectively ending the brief debate. 👍

🙂
Personally, I've felt for a long time that Metamorphosis of Metaphysics is basically the most important book ever written in the American language. 🤷

Sadly, I only ever knew his books, so it actually made me pretty happy (even if the reason behind it is a bit sad) to read something about him as a person—turns out he was so different in real life compared to how dead-serious his writing always was.

Honestly, we saw some political action yesterday that just wouldn't have happened without the internet—I’m talking about those high school students protesting. Five years ago? No way anyone could've pulled that off (basically, if you weren't part of the "establishment").
As far as I can tell, this is the first time we've seen actual political movement in America that was totally fueled by being online. It might be a sign that these big "institutions" are starting to lose their grip (and that you don't necessarily need to be a member of them to make a political impact), shifting instead toward quick, grassroots networking to hit specific goals. 🤷

Here’s a little snippet from a comment on my blog:

In his book «ten commandments today», Andre Chouraqui adds this layer to the title, calling them «ten words for reconciliation man with humanity». He points out that these aren't written as strict orders or "do this/don't do that" commands, but more like a vision of what will happen. They aren't about bans; they describe the state of being for people who aren't twisted—people who don't distort life or its laws. Like, take the seventh commandment. It doesn't say "Don't commit adultery!" Instead, it says "Adultery you shall not do." He also talks about how these words mirror each other. The first reflects in the sixth, the second in the seventh, the third in the eighth, the fourth in the ninth, and the fifth in the tenth. Because of that explanation, I gotta go back to that seventh one. When mirrored against the second, it basically goes: "Neither idols nor any images of what is above in the heavens or below on the earth shall you make... You shall not bow down to them or serve them..." They all light each other up. Committing adultery means becoming one body with a woman who isn't yours, which means twisting and warping both yourself and her (I.Kor 6,16-19). On the flip side, someone who is twisted just can't reach God, or even other people, or anything else on earth or in heaven. Nothing actually matters to them; everything is just an object. Instead of connecting with God, people, or things, they’re just communicating with their own fixation of God, people, or things. They end up bowing down to those fixations and serving them. (Just a side note here: making images or idols is secondary in this context. The main issue is idolatry born from the inability to actually face God, people, or reality face-to-face. You could actually be stuck in the hell of that idolatry even if you stay away from physical idols and avoid all images. And it's not just the people who use images as a way to get to God).

Tyler Reyes86 said:Historically speaking, the famous biblical Decalogue represents a decisive leap toward unifying a tribal consciousness. That’s why the first commandment demands worship of a single God—Moses' and Aaron's God—and requires abandoning any mixing with other tribes or participating in their various cults.
The moral obligations flowing from the Decalogue and the broader texts—like Leviticus—pertain strictly to regulating relationships among the Hebrews themselves, rather than their interactions with surrounding polytheists, let alone with animals. In fact, under the tenth commandment, animals are defined merely as property.
So, "do not kill" essentially means—don't kill your neighbor.
Others can be killed or robbed; in fact, God even explicitly commands such actions.

Treating the Decalogue as a universal moral compass is highly questionable.
What does "do not kill" actually mean? Never, not even in self-defense? If we translate it as "do not commit murder" (premeditated killing), ambiguities remain—such as during wartime or when the line between homicide and self-defense is blurry (for instance, in the case of Magaš).
Or "do not steal"? Is it truly more righteous to die of hunger than to steal food?
Or "honor your father and mother"? Always? Even when they aren't worthy of respect?
Or "do not commit adultery"? What does the sixth commandment signify without its specific historical context? Nothing, really, because the concept of "adultery" is incredibly relative. For the Hebrews of Moses' era, it meant adultery, premarital relations, or even certain acts with a legal spouse during specific periods, whereas today it might denote casual promiscuity or prostitution. To the surrounding nations of that time, it meant nothing at all—they maintained orgiastic cults and temple prostitution, where children born from such practices were considered "sinlessly conceived."

The Decalogue, therefore, has its own historical origin and purpose; it served as the foundation for a long-vanished tribal consciousness, and as such, it cannot function as a universal rule.

That’s basically it.
It isn't until we get to Saint Paul that this universal shift happens, where the Ten Commandments actually become part of our tradition through Christianity, which isn't just a Jewish thing. So, check out this quote from Catholic ethics:

In Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans we read: ''For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they, though they do not have the law, are a law to themselves. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts exchanging accusations.' (Romans 2:14-15) Here, Saint Paul establishes that there is another source for moral principles besides Revelation (the Law). This source is simply human rational nature (''doing what the law requires''), which obligates any normal person to perform the actions that constitute the content of the moral law in Revelation.

So, if there really is a ''Law written in everyone's heart,'' then why bother treating Revelation as moral guidance in the form of an imperative? I mean, I'd like to think your own heart is a bit closer to you than the Holy Bible is, even if you keep it right there on your nightstand.
🤷

I think there are two big things at play here (I’ll call them dialectical and phenomenological, just for the sake of argument).

The first part is basically practicing opposites. Once I’ve sat with my own opinion on something, I try to start from the assumption that everything is actually the exact opposite of what I think—just to see if that counter-argument actually holds water.
Most of the time, it does. 😁
(Actually, 😉 Borges used to be super clever and had a blast with this kind of thing—looking at stuff from the weirdest possible angles in his stories.
)

But man, that can lead you straight into total relativism. And total relativism usually just turns into this lazy sophistry where people decide "well, it's whatever I want it to be."

Think about it: it gives you this sense of freedom in your thinking, being unattached to your own biases (which feels great), but at the same time, it makes you unattached to the truth (which leads to that empty "anything goes" mindset).

The second part—the thing that should act as an anchor to steady all that wild, "could-be-anything" relativistic freedom—is basically hitting the pause button on your thoughts. It’s about observing without overthinking and just acknowledging reality for what it is. What is, is. There’s no "choice" involved; it just is how it is. 🙂 Truth binds us together, so yeah, truth provides that connection.

You need both of these moments to actually move forward. It’s like walking: you’ve gotta have one foot planted firmly on the ground while the other one stays free to take that next step.

🤷

restlessridge36 said:I can manage all of this without any reliance on faith in Bog or divine intervention. My reasons aren't rooted in a fear of punishment, but rather in maintaining my own inner peace—so that I can look myself in the mirror and actually like who I see. Though, when it comes to adultery, I make no such guarantees. 😉

Honestly, that’s a pretty solid "definition" of Bog: like a mirror we gaze into where we feel this overwhelming love (but one we can't even face if we feel unworthy of it).

That's pretty much how Kuzanski saw it:

So, who or what does a person actually see when they look at Bog? Well, according to Kuzanski, someone trying to stare down Bog won't see anything at all, because Bog isn't some kind of entity—it's the act of seeing itself. What that means is: I can look at everything else, but I can't look at the looking itself.
Since I am the one doing the looking, Bog—as the concept of sight—is the thing closest to me. Bog isn't some distant object sitting far away from me like a physical thing you can point at; it moves with me, following me like my own shadow. But really, it's the other way around: Bog is the original image, and I'm just the shadow.

That's why creation is such a head-scratcher: humans aren't the actual sight, just its reflection. Bog is right here, it's the vision that's always part of me, yet somehow it stays out of reach because I can never truly perceive the medium through which I'm looking. I always end up seeing *something*, but never just the pure act of seeing. That's why being human feels so finite. We're basically defined by this constant longing. And the mystery of that longing is that its goal is simultaneously right next to us and miles away, which just keeps us searching forever.

swiftcobra15 said:

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
Long before organized societies existed, people lived in tight-knit communities. Once class structures emerged, those communal bonds shattered,
leading to the rise of the state—essentially an instrument of coercion designed to protect the interests of the elite.
It’s quite clear that those in power work tirelessly to make the state appear indispensable even to those it suppresses.
I can't answer your specific question. My question remains: How people can live without a state at all?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
But is this coercive version of civilization truly necessary? What actual benefits does it bring to the average person?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.
😕😕😕 BUT WHY?

Alright, so if we push aside all the negativity that I think we're all pretty much on board with here, do you actually have a vision for how a society could function without any kind of state?

Look, it’s not just about protecting property... the state is the organizational backbone that civilization practically requires to exist. If you don't have that kind of organization, you end up with tribalism, which isn't exactly a perfect system either, let's be real.
I’ve always looked at certain Native American tribes as a personal model for communication culture—they didn't rely on rigid hierarchies, but rather on equality, like sitting in a circle where everyone has an equal right to speak. But, you know...
not all tribes work like that,
and it’s just not feasible to talk like that once a society gets larger and more complex.

Without some level of hierarchy, there wouldn't be any
intellectual growth, which means no philosophy—and clearly, we all love our philosophy here. It would just stay stuck at the level of basic mythology. I’m not downplaying mythology at all—it’s the foundation, for sure—but it’s definitely not the finish line. There are so many higher goals we strive for that simply can't be reached without the advancement of knowledge, and you can't get that without a division of labor and a complex, organized society.

Hierarchy itself isn't inherently a bad principle. It’s just natural that as it evolves, we run into its twisted versions, just like we encounter its benefits.

So, I’m not saying the state is purely evil or that we should just scrap it entirely—I don't even think we *should* get rid of it. It needs to be purified... just like anything else in this world.

Anyone who actually "deserves" to be at the top would never seek it out, and besides, who would even have the authority to put them there?
Hierarchy is almost always born from force, though that force is often so cleverly masked
(through tradition, propaganda, or ideology) that it becomes invisible and stops "bothering" anyone.
But wait, did those very first human groups have hierarchical vibes too? I'm no expert on anthropology or anything, but it feels like even back then, there would've been a clear distinction between the shaman and the warrior, the family man and the smart one, the brave one and the fast one... And those traits would naturally carve out someone's place in the group (creating a hierarchy, basically, depending on what the tribe needed at the time).

Look, this is pure combinatorics, not some deep philosophy session. But hey, like Heraclitus said, ''the man who turns toward the wise (the philosopher) must be a master of many things!'' 🙂 🙄
I haven't totally lost my mind, I swear...

So, say you’ve got two characters (A and B) and three empty slots to fill. Here are all the possible combos:
AAA
AAB
ABA
BAA
ABB
BAB
BBA
BBB.
That makes eight different combinations right there. Mathematically, that's just two to the third power equals eight. Basically, two characters and three
slots.

Let's scale this up. Say an average page of text has about 3,000 characters. And let's say a book is roughly 100 pages. That gives us 3,000 x 100 = 300,000 characters.
If we assume there are 30 letters, plus spaces and punctuation—let's call it 40 unique characters total. The number of different 100-page books possible would be 40 to the 300,000th power. That number is somewhere around 10 to the 480,000th power
(my calculator just gave up on me, so I'm eyeballing the math here). That's the total amount of unique 100-page books out there. 😲

Now, if one new 100-page book was published every single second, it would take 10 to the 480,000th power seconds for your scenario to actually play out. 🤣