It’s really just a matter of believing what you want to believe. Honestly, I don't mind repeating myself—I actually find it necessary—mostly because I have zero interest in dealing with people who are just flat, uninspired surfaces. I’m not interested in those types who walk around with eyes full of expectations, blindly swallowing whatever the older generation tells them to swallow. No, my focus is on the ones who—by the very nature of things—have to rely on their own wits. You know, the people who actually try to step back and, well, attempt to truly grasp someone else's thoughts and messages. That's where the real work happens, isn't it?
I could have gone with "this or that," but honestly—it doesn't matter—because both options essentially boil down to the same thing: rote memorization. It’s just repeating facts over and over until they stick. And sure, that might help you pass a test, but let's be real—repetition isn't the mother of intelligence. It certainly isn't the mother of innovation.
On the contrary—history seems to suggest that Democracy won't just wither away. Instead, it’ll likely stick around just long enough to ensure the education system "brainwashes" a fresh wave of young people, who will eventually step up to take their fathers' places doing the exact same job. So, there you go again with your "ON THE OTHER HAND" routine—really? It’s like trying to explain a cube to a drawing on a flat piece of paper. A two-dimensional mind simply can't grasp the third dimension, whereas someone living in three dimensions can look down and actually make sense of the flat stuff. But honestly, why bother struggling with that? Once we hit that quad-dimensional level of consciousness—you know, that collective "zoom" intelligence—everything just clicks at a universal scale. And I don't mean some high-level intellectual thing; I mean the kind of fundamental intelligence shared by a cucumber, a frog, an elephant, a dog, and—this is the important part—every single human being. Not just the "chosen ones" or the elite few who think they run the show. Every single cell carries that information—it knows exactly how to build a human being from scratch, right? It doesn't take a handful of "specialists" to pull that off. So, what is the defense even protecting? Is it all just happening within the biological cradle? Who knows.
Democracy: So, I think there’s some mention of the Pandora Papers floating around somewhere. Honestly, I’m actually pretty curious to see how your little debate over the concept of freedom plays out—you know, that one post you already put up?
It really just comes down to human nature—and the way our own perception is wired—so you end up with this inevitable conclusion where intelligence takes what nature provides and evolves it into what we call "conscious nature." Look, if we’re being intellectually honest here—and I mean really honest—there are two main issues at play. First off, it feels a bit arrogant, maybe even purely speculative, to try and force an absolute equality between a specific thing and the abstract concept of Logos sitting right there in the center of everything. It’s a reach. One reason is that humans only ever perceive similarities—causality, mediation, whatever—and those connections could just as easily be mere reflections as they could be objective truths. We can't really know which is which, can we? Then there's the second issue—the speculative side of things. There isn't exactly a mountain of hard evidence for most of what someone would need to actually "know" in this context. Beyond that, by the very nature of how things work, a person simply can't possess that kind of absolute, total knowledge. Without it, how can anyone take a single hypothesis and turn it into a formal doctrine, or heaven forbid, claim it as the ultimate truth? It just doesn't hold up. Look, I’m not trying to downplay the hard sciences or the whole "searching for objective truth" thing—that’s all well and good—but I honestly feel like studying human nature is way more critical. And I don't just mean the external stuff, you know, the messy structures we call society. I mean the internal chaos too—our senses, our actual capabilities, how easily our perception can be tricked, those little glitches in memory, or the ways Reason itself decides to take a nap when we need it most... Because this "humanity"—this sort of frenzied, unpredictable version of nature—isn't shielded from anything. Not from the external realities crashing around us, and certainly not from the abstract nonsense swirling inside our heads. But if there is some kind of meeting point, some common ground where everything intersects, then shouldn't we start with what we actually know for certain? Which is ourselves. We should start right there, regardless of whether we end up staring down a hypothesis or something completely out of left field. I’m not going to go out of my way to praise it, nor am I going to waste my breath arguing against that whole sweeping connection to the Logos—especially when I'm talking to people who, in direct contrast to the Logos, basically crumble in the face of any "heavenly" or earthly gods, symbols, or whatever else passes for a "sacred" object these days.
hollowpilot9: As far as I can remember, there’s never really been a clash here. If anything—to use your own phrase—it’s always been a sense of genuine understanding on my end. This lady speaks from the perspective of psychology or intellect, much like that Nobel laureate—Einstein, I think he was called—who basically argued that the universe is a "theater" where we are the audience, and without us, the theater doesn't even exist. There’s a similar sentiment in the Pandora Papers, and honestly, I’m totally on board with it. As for FREEDOM, I interpret it the way my own cells do, which is essentially: "multiply and build a world you actually belong to." It’s almost like what God told Adam and Eve when He kicked them out of Eden, right? For me, freedom is primarily about the liberty to explore, to move, and to create. Things like freedom of speech, thought, or religion are important, sure, but they feel secondary to that primal drive. That’s why I believe grasping the universal Logos is a prerequisite for true freedom. As long as we’re dominated by the Logos of ideology, self-interest, or just constant "conflict," then FREEDOM remains nothing more than a utopia. The Logos I’m talking about is the one that makes all those various heavenly and earthly gods look like mere dust motes. It is the Logos of self-creation—what biology calls autopoiesis at the microscopic level, scaling up through humanity to the macro level of Homo sapiens, or what we traditionally anticipate as God. What you’re suggesting touches on the old tug-of-war between determinism and free will. Are we predetermined or are we free agents? Based on everything I’ve said so far, my take is that we are both simultaneously. We are determined by the matrix, yet we are free in how we vary our movements while filling it in. It’s a higher dimension of consciousness that only emerges if we can somehow abandon this linear, combative, and explosive way of perceiving the world. I find it a bit funny, honestly, when I read these endless treatises on the freedom and sublimity of the human spirit, while at the exact same time being told that we are just the ash of a supernova that exploded billions of years ago. I mean... come on. Really?
Walter Foster87: On the contrary, bljak is just every single instance of recreating and diminishing what we call "humanity." Because, when you look at the actual concept of Man, that whole "ecstasy of oneness" thing happened millennia before us—but instead, we just opted for "safety, the familiar, and the comfortable predictability of being human." I mean, seriously, how much can the world lean on polarities? No matter how many times people try to rephrase the issue or throw everything they have at being "non-polarized"—it just doesn't work. Killers and warriors aren't the kind of polarity upon which humanity and true personhood actually rest. No, they represent the polarity where half-humans and sub-humans merely exist. That’s why forgiveness and making peace with those who—well, those who abandoned their humanity and the concept of peace in an attempt to gain an edge through weapons and cruelty—is really nothing more than an "ecstasy of RENEWED HUMANITY." Tim, I just wanted to show you this idea of "polarization" that might actually be possible to de-escalate—you know, like when you sit down with the bureaucrats and hammer out a deal for some "protected national park." We could set it up so those who actually care can go ahead and tear it up to their heart's content, without forcing anyone else—whether they’re just bored, making jokes, or whatever else—to swear an oath to their primal animal roots.
hollowpilot9: If Blljak represents every single instance of recreating or regressing what we call "man," then that "regression" is exactly what I’m getting at—that singular, unified essence that philosophy hasn't quite managed to grasp yet, aside from my own early attempts in the philosophy of Ishodušt and my picture book. To save you from just rambling about my own theories, here are a few links and sources that touch on the infrastructure of the logos I keep emphasizing: Tetrahedron Links & Resources Applied Systems Thinking a Systems paper Tetworld center for Peace and Global gaming a Global , computer and internet based Tetrahedron Links & Resources Applied Systems Thinking a Systems paper Tetworld center for Peace and Global gaming a Global , computer and internet based Tetrahedron Links & Resources Applied Systems Thinking a Systems paper Tetworld center for Peace and Global gaming a Global , computer and internet based Tetrahedron Links & Resources Applied Systems Thinking a Systems paper Tetworld center for Peace and Global gaming a Global , computer and internet based Tetrahedron Links & Resources Applied Systems Thinking a Systems paper Tetworld center for Peace and Global gaming a Global , computer and internet based King Tet Tetrahedron Tetrahedron-inspired multimedia and entertainment—just a thought floating around. Affinity Leadership Concepts The Tetrahedron Principle Affinity Leadership Concepts The Tetrahedron Principle Mithya institut Organizational Development and The Architecture of Learning Buckminster Organizational Development and the Architecture of Learning—it’s one of those topics that feels like it should be straightforward, right? But then you start digging into how we actually structure growth within a system, and suddenly everything gets complicated. It's less about simple training sessions and more about the underlying framework of how knowledge flows through an organization. Is it a top-down stream, or is it more like a complex web? I often find myself wondering if we spend too much time focusing on the "what" of learning instead of the structural "how." If the architecture itself is flawed, does it even matter how much information you pump into it? Just some food for thought. Fuller Virtual institute Information on The tetrahedron logos Tetrahedron a tetrahedron concert Hall in Ghent tai chi Tetrahedron -- Mera Foundation 3-D geometric models and applications Foundation for a New Consciousness Fuller Virtual institut Information on The tetrahedron logos Tetrahedron a tetrahedron concert Hall in Ghent tai chi Tetrahedron -- Mera Foundation 3-D geometric models and applications Foundation for a New Consciousness Logos Tetrahedron Fuller Virtual institut Information on The tetrahedron logos Tetrahedron a tetrahedron concert Hall in Ghent tai chi Tetrahedron -- Mera Foundation 3-D geometric models and applications Foundation for a New Consciousness Tai Chi Tetrahedron--Mera Foundation 3-D geometric models and applications Foundation for a New Consciousness 3-D geometric models and applications Foundation for a New Consciousness, Chapter 6, Consciousness of Paradox index t Scroll down index to tetrahedron center for Tet Build a tetrahedron kite. So, I'm sitting here using six plastic McDonald's straws. Why? Honestly, who knows. It’s one of those things where you just find yourself spiraling into a weirdly specific little ritual—just me, some plastic, and a drink. Is there a method to the madness? Probably not. But sometimes, you just need that extra bit of structural integrity, right? Or maybe I'm just overcomplicating a simple task. Who am I kidding? That's basically my whole brand at this point. Synergetics Concentric Hierarchy The Tetrahedron science News online art of The Tetrahedron Tensegrity The Tetrahedron Science News Online Art of the Tetrahedron Jitterbug Shows The transformation of a tetrahedron fra positive to negativ as The compression struts Check out this QuickTime movie—it shows how a tetrahedron transforms from positive to negative as those compression struts (the tetra edges) rotate along the Cartesian (XYZ) axes of spin. Platonic Solids Starts with The tetrahedron -- ends with The dodecahedron CS 418 : Laboratory 1 Platonic Solids Starts with The tetrahedron--ends with The dodecahedron CS 418 : Laboratory 1 Platonic Solids Starts with The tetrahedron -- ends with The dodecahedron CS 418 : Laboratory 1 So, I’m looking into building a tetrahedron. Just one. Simple enough, right? Or is it? You start thinking it’s just about stacking some shapes together, but then you realize how much geometry actually dictates the whole process. It’s funny how a simple concept can turn into such a rabbit hole once you actually get your hands dirty. Is it really just about the structure, or is there something deeper happening with the way these pieces fit together? Anyway, back to the task at hand. So, we should probably talk about Buckminster Fuller's invention—the octet truss. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start pulling at the threads, you realize how much it changes the whole conversation around structural integrity. Is it just a clever way to stack shapes, or is there something deeper going on with how we perceive space and stability? Probably both. Honestly, it's hard to look at it without thinking about the sheer efficiency involved. Just a really elegant way to handle loads by using a repeating pattern of tetrahedra. It makes you wonder why we don't see this kind of logic applied everywhere in modern construction—though I suppose standard beams and columns are just easier for most people to wrap their heads around, right? Anyway, it's worth a look if you're into the intersection of geometry and engineering. Built fra tetrahedra Tetrahedron park in British Columbia Hiking and Biking The Tetrahedron Trail -- pictures d & m Pyramid The Built fra tetrahedra Tetrahedron park in British Columbia Hiking and Biking The Tetrahedron Trail -- pictures d & m Pyramid The Hiking and Biking The Tetrahedron Trail -- pictures D&M Pyramid The tetrahedron—it’s basically the key to resolving all that messy geometric ambiguity we see floating around in the cosmos. Why does everything feel so unstructured sometimes? Maybe it's because we aren't looking at the underlying geometry correctly. Once you start applying the principles found in Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics, things just... click. It’s like the universe finally stops being a blur and starts making sense through those fundamental structural links. Beautiful Code and fluid java animations of various tetra -- genom Beautiful Code and fluid java animations of various tetra -- genom, Mayan Timestar, Voxels Interlocking Wooden Voxels Interlocking Wooden Puzzles som tetrahedra Puzzles som tetrahedra Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics—Index T index t Scroll down index to tetrahedron center for Tet Center for Tetrahedron Studies Back to the homepage! Tetrahedron Trust Just scroll down the page for the Tetrahedron Trust—you can check out the tetrahedron global project there. Pascal's Pyramid, or should we call it Pascal's Tetrahedron? It’s one of those things where the terminology feels like it could go either way depending on who you ask—kind of like how people argue over whether a certain architectural style is modern or just plain weird. Is it a pyramid? Is it a tetrahedron? Does it really matter if the math holds up regardless? Probably not, but I can see why someone would get hung up on it. Tetrahedrons are just... everywhere. It’s like they’re multiplying right before our eyes. The Leary Tetrahedron Exploring the concept of the "global optimum"—it’s one of those ideas that sounds straightforward until you actually try to pin it down, isn't it? You start looking for that single, perfect peak in the landscape of possibilities, that one point where everything just clicks, only to realize the terrain is far messier than any textbook would lead you to believe. Is there ever really a single "best" answer, or are we just chasing shadows in a high-dimensional space? It’s easy to get caught up in the hunt for perfection—that singular mathematical summit—but most of the time, we end up stuck in local optima. You think you've found the top of the mountain, only to realize you're actually just standing on a small hill halfway up a much larger range. It’s a bit like trying to find the best burger in America; you might find a great spot in Chicago, but does that mean it’s the absolute pinnacle of all burgers ever made? Probably not, but it feels like it in the moment. The search itself becomes its own kind of loop. You adjust the parameters, you shift the variables, you tweak the system—all in an attempt to climb higher—but the landscape keeps shifting under your feet. It makes you wonder if the pursuit of the global optimum is less about finding the answer and more about the iterative process of realizing how many "almost right" answers actually exist. Is the goal the destination, or is it just the constant, restless movement between these peaks and valleys? Just some food for thought while navigating the chaos. Again Glass So, I'm thinking about picking up one of those glass tetrahedrons from the Sacred Geometry collection. You know, just one of those things that sits on your desk and makes you wonder if you're actually studying design or just staring into a crystal ball? It’s a bit of a niche interest, sure—maybe a little esoteric for some—but there's something about that specific shape that just hits different. Is it a centerpiece or just a very expensive paperweight? Who knows. Either way, I might just pull the trigger. Enersearch An alternative generalist approach—just some thoughts on how we might look at things differently. Imagine Geometry—the tetrahedron. The "living" tetrahedral structures of consciousness—now, there's a concept that really makes you stop and think, doesn't it? It’s one of those ideas that feels almost too abstract to grasp at first glance, yet somehow carries a weight that hits you right in the gut. Are we looking at something structural, or is it something much deeper? Perhaps it's both. When you start digging into how consciousness might actually be organized—not just as some nebulous cloud of thought, but as something with actual geometry—you begin to see the world through a completely different lens. It makes you wonder if our very perception of reality is just a series of interlocking shapes, vibrating in sync with some underlying cosmic architecture. Is it possible that what we call "awareness" is less like a stream and more like a complex, three-dimensional lattice? Just a thought. The Tetrahedron Revolution in Java An animation of a rotating tetrahedron. Omniscient Home School Synergetics World Study Group The significance of the Tetrahedron. So, I've been diving into some research regarding the tetrahedron—just wandering through the data, really. It’s one of those shapes that seems simple on the surface, but once you start pulling at the threads, things get complicated. Does anyone else feel like the deeper you go, the more the geometry starts to feel less like math and more like... well, something else? Anyway, just some thoughts floating around while I dig through the literature. The tetrahedron and those "crop circle" things—it’s funny how people jump to conclusions, isn't it? You see a pattern in a field out in rural Nebraska or somewhere similar, and suddenly everyone is talking about aliens or some grand cosmic design. But if you actually look at the geometry involved, there's a much more interesting conversation happening between structural stability and pattern recognition. When you start thinking about the tetrahedron, you aren't just looking at a simple shape; you're looking at the fundamental building block of spatial integrity. It's the simplest possible 3D structure, yet it holds everything together. There’s a certain irony in how we overlook the most basic geometric truths while chasing complex mysteries in the wheat fields. Is it a coincidence that certain patterns seem to resonate with these primitive, stable forms? Or are we just hardwired to find order in the chaos? I'm not saying there's a direct link, but the math doesn't lie—geometry has a way of showing up exactly where you least expect it. Tetrahedrite—you know, that Copper Antimony Sulfide stuff? It’s one of those minerals that just looks like it belongs in a high-end geometry textbook rather than a dusty rock collection. It’s got this specific crystalline structure that always makes me think about how nature loves its shapes, almost like it's trying to follow some cosmic blueprint. Does anyone else find themselves staring at these crystals thinking about how much effort went into forming such precise angles? Just a thought. So, I was thinking about this—just a random thought that drifted in—about minerals that are basically built out of tetrahedra. It’s one of those things where you realize how much geometry dictates everything we see around us, right? You look at a crystal structure and suddenly it isn't just a rock; it's a mathematical inevitability. It makes you wonder if everything is just a series of interlocking shapes waiting to be discovered. Visualizing 4D objects through four-space—it’s one of those concepts that sounds simple until you actually try to wrap your head around it, isn't it? You start thinking about how we perceive our own three-dimensional reality and suddenly, the math starts feeling less like logic and more like a fever dream. How do you even begin to project a fourth dimension onto a flat screen or a piece of paper without losing the essence of what makes it "four-dimensional" in the first place? It’s a bit like trying to explain color to someone who has only ever known texture. We’re essentially attempting to create a shadow of a shadow—a mathematical projection that hints at a depth we can't physically touch. It brings up all those old questions about perception versus reality. Are we just seeing the 3D "skin" of something much more complex? It’s a rabbit hole, for sure. One minute you're looking at a tesseract, and the next, you're wondering if our entire understanding of Euclidean geometry is just a convenient limitation of our biological hardware. Just something to chew on while you're staring at the ceiling tonight. Think about it this way—the tetrahedron is to a 4D raytracer exactly what the triangle is to a 3D one. It’s just the fundamental building block, isn't it? So, I’ve been chewing on this idea—it’s a bit of a rabbit hole, really—about how we structure our business and life models using the geometry of the tetrahedron versus the octahedron. Is there actually a functional difference in how we organize ourselves, or are we just playing with shapes? If you look at a tetrahedron, everything is about those fundamental points of tension and stability. It’s lean. It’s direct. But then you move toward an octahedron, and suddenly you're dealing with more complexity, more axes, more... well, more of everything. Does adding more facets to your organizational structure actually create better synergy, or does it just create more places for things to break? It makes you wonder if our current corporate hierarchies are just poorly constructed polyhedrons—trying to act like stable solids while being structurally hollow. Maybe we should be looking closer at the math behind it. Anyway, just some food for thought while I wander through these geometric tangents. So, I’ve been chewing on this idea—a potential model for business. It’s one of those things that seems straightforward until you actually try to map it out, right? You start with a simple premise, maybe a way to structure how value flows, and then suddenly you're three hours deep into a rabbit hole of organizational theory and wondering where the actual profit comes from. Is it about the structure itself, or the way people move within it? I was thinking about how most companies operate like rigid, top-down hierarchies—very much the "command and control" vibe you see in old-school corporate offices. But what if we looked at something more... organic? Something that mimics how complex systems actually function in nature. If you look at the way information spreads through a decentralized network, there's a certain efficiency there that a standard corporate ladder just can't touch. Of course, the skeptics—and there are always skeptics—will say it’s too chaotic. They'll argue that without that central pillar of authority, everything just turns into a mess. But then again, isn't most modern management just a different kind of organized mess? We spend so much time building these elaborate structures only to realize they're mostly just there to justify someone's corner office. Maybe the goal shouldn't be to build a perfect machine, but rather a resilient system. A system that can bend without breaking when the market decides to throw a wrench in the works. It’s a bit of a paradox, really—trying to create stability through flexibility. Anyway, just some food for thought while I sit here staring at my coffee. What do you all think? Are we chasing a ghost, or is there actually a blueprint for something better? The Tetrahedron A laser sculpture of a tetrahedron—over at Burning Man. Silver Ball Tetrahedrons: Modeling the Chaos of Light If you fire a laser through a tetrahedron made of silver spheres, you end up with this incredibly vivid, colorful fractal pattern. It’s wild, really—kind of looks like something out of a high-end digital art installation rather than a lab experiment. But beyond just looking cool, these images actually give scientists a serious look at the mechanics of chaos. Is it art? Is it pure physics? Probably both. Achieving Peace: A new paradigm Tetrahedron and the Game Silica Tetrahedron Picture a single silicon atom, just chilling there, completely surrounded by four oxygen atoms. This little setup—this silica tetrahedron—is basically the fundamental building block for silicates. It’s the starting point for everything else. Tetrahedron's Home Page It turns out those hyperbolic tetrahedra are actually starting to show some real utility—not just in theoretical math, but in cosmology and even quantum chaos. Who would've thought? So, you want to actually build a tetrahedron? Fine. Here are some instructions—though, let’s be honest, once you start messing around with geometry, things tend to get complicated fast. First off, you need to decide what kind of "build" we're talking about here. Are we talking about a quick little model made of toothpicks and marshmallows—classic, if a bit messy—or are you looking at something more serious, like working with structural struts? If you're going the advanced route, you might find yourself staring at the math behind tensegrity structures, which is a whole other rabbit hole. If you're just starting out, grab some basic materials. You basically need edges and vertices. It sounds simple enough, right? Just connect four points in space using six equal lines. But then you hit that moment where nothing quite sits right, and you start wondering if you've accidentally built a weirdly shaped pyramid instead of a true tetrahedron. Is there a difference? In a way, yes. Once you get the hang of the basic shape, you can start playing with the more complex stuff—think about how these shapes interact within a larger system. It’s almost like moving from a simple picture book to something much more dense, like diving into the deeper concepts found in Buckminster Fuller's Synergetics. Just a heads up: don't expect it to be perfectly easy. Geometry has a funny way of making you feel like a total North American fool when a single angle is off by a fraction of a degree. But hey, if you can master the tetrahedron, you're halfway to understanding the rest of the Platonic Solids. Good luck. So, I was thinking about making a tetrahedron out of a small envelope. It seems like one of those simple tasks that actually requires a bit of spatial reasoning—you know, the kind where you stare at a flat piece of paper and wonder why your brain isn't immediately seeing the 3D geometry. Is it just me, or does folding things always feel like a tiny battle against physics? Anyway, if you're looking to turn a standard little envelope into a tetrahedron, you basically have to treat it like a geometry puzzle. You fold, you crease, you pray the adhesive holds, and suddenly you've got a shape. Simple, right? Or at least, that's what I tell myself before I end up with a crumpled mess on my desk. Tetra Space Co-Ordinates A tetrahedron-based system of space coordinates—now there's a concept worth chewing on. Most people just settle for those standard Cartesian grids we were all taught in school, but why stop at three axes when you could rethink the entire geometry of how we map out existence? It’s a bit like trying to describe a complex melody using only two notes; you're missing the fundamental resonance of the structure. If you actually dive into the math, you start seeing how a tetrahedral framework offers a much more integrated way to visualize spatial relationships. Is it more intuitive? Maybe not for the average person walking down a street in Chicago, but for anyone looking at the deeper architecture of the universe, it changes the game entirely. A tetrahedron editor—now we’re talking about a medical application. If you want to figure out how to handle 3D morphing, the easiest way to look at it is by breaking a whole volume down into a bunch of tetrahedra. It’s basically the logical analog. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering Automatic Mesh Generation using Tetrahedron Elements Matchstick Meccano for Kids—Page 5 The inherent rigidity of the tetrahedron—it’s one of those things you don't really think about until you actually sit down to look at it, right? It just sits there, being structurally perfect while everything else is busy collapsing. Most shapes are out there trying too hard, shifting and sliding under pressure, but the tetrahedron? It stays put. It’s basically the backbone of structural integrity. I was thinking about this earlier—is it just me, or does everything in geometry feel like it's trying to escape its own definition? Except for this. There's a certain stubbornness to it. It doesn't need extra bracing or fancy reinforcements; its very nature prevents it from buckling. It’s almost frustratingly simple, isn't it? You can push on the vertices all you want, but the geometry itself refuses to budge. It’s a closed loop of stability. It makes you wonder how much of our engineered world is just us trying to mimic that specific kind of unyielding strength. We spend so much time adding complexity to solve problems that the simplest shape already solved ages ago. Anyway, just some random thoughts while staring at a desk lamp. Four Dimensional Tetrahedron Just a sketch. MERKABA—IMAGES Here’s a quick sketch showing how the star tetrahedron field sits relative to the human body. ZOHAR—The Celestial Tetrahedron The first major split in the Universe—it’s a massive concept, isn't it? Just one giant, fundamental division that sets everything else in motion. It makes you wonder how we even begin to categorize such a thing without getting lost in the weeds. TetraHedonism TetraHedonism—it’s basically the core building block when you're talking about the pure, unadulterated joy of navigating virtual 3D space. The Fractal Tetrahedron A viewer-controlled animation of the Tetrahedron—built as a Java applet. Ancient Egypt and Hyperdimensional Physics. It’s one of those topics that people love to dive into when they want to feel like they've uncovered some hidden truth—though, honestly, most of it is just speculation wrapped in mystery. But if you look at the way they constructed things, you have to wonder if there was a deeper understanding of geometry than we give them credit for. I mean, we're talking about massive structures aligned with celestial bodies with a precision that feels almost... well, let's say "unsettling" given the tools they supposedly had. Could there be a link between their architectural obsession and a primitive grasp of hyperdimensional physics? It sounds wild, I know. But when you start looking at the mathematical constants embedded in the pyramids, you begin to question whether they were simply master masons or if they were playing with concepts of spatial dimensions that we are still trying to wrap our heads around today. Is it possible they weren't just building tombs, but actually modeling complex physical properties through stone? Probably not. Or maybe. It's a rabbit hole that goes deep, and once you start falling, there isn't much of a bottom. The relationship between the double-tetrahedron and the Star of David—it’s one of those things you start looking at and suddenly realize how much geometry dictates everything we see, right? You have this interplay of intersecting planes that just feels... inevitable. It’s like trying to explain why a certain chord in a jazz standard sounds "right" without actually talking about music theory. It just exists. A few solid, three-dimensional geometrical facts regarding the Golden Section. Think about Earth—not just as a sphere, but as a tetrahedron spinning through space. It’s a wild thought, isn't it? Just a geometric shape tumbling through the void. That's a beautiful shot in color—though it’s a massive 500KB load. Musical Selection—Tetrahedron MP3 vs. MIDI music—it’s an interesting comparison if you actually stop to think about what’s happening under the hood. You've got your standard MP3, which is basically just a compressed snapshot of sound waves—a digital recording of something that already happened. Then there's MIDI, which isn't "sound" at all, really. It's just a set of instructions. A list of commands telling a computer how to play certain notes, how hard to hit them, and how long they should last. It's like the difference between having a photograph of a meal and having a recipe for it. One is the thing itself, captured in time; the other is just the data required to recreate the experience. If you have the recipe (MIDI), you can change the ingredients—swap a piano for a synthesizer, maybe tweak the tempo—and suddenly you have a different dish entirely. With the photo (MP3), you're stuck with exactly what was captured. Is one better? Well, it depends on whether you want to listen to a moment or if you want to control the performance. But then again, who really cares? Most people just want something that sounds decent through their headphones while they're commuting. Non-linear Advice for Living So, I’ve been thinking about how we might actually use the four faces of a tetrahedron to live a slightly less chaotic life—if that's even possible. It sounds a bit out there, I know, but hear me out. Think about it: if you treat each face as a fundamental pillar for your daily existence, things might start to click. You've got your physical reality, your intellectual pursuits, your emotional connections, and then that fourth, somewhat more abstract layer—maybe your purpose or your connection to the larger system. Is it a perfect blueprint? Probably not. Life isn't exactly a geometry textbook. But maybe by leaning into these four distinct directions, we can find a bit more balance in the middle of all this noise. Or maybe I'm just overthinking the math of being a functional human being. Who knows? Magnetic Toy So, you want to build a tetrahedron? Just like that. No preamble, just straight to the point. It’s an interesting starting move—simple, yet it carries all that weight from the geometry we’re always talking about. If you're looking to actually get your hands dirty and construct one, where do you even begin? Are we talking about a quick sketch on a napkin, or are we diving into the deep end with 3-D geometric models and applications? There's a massive difference between playing around with some wooden voxels and trying to grasp the actual structural integrity required for something like a tensegrity model. I suppose it depends on whether you're following the classic Platonic Solids route—starting with the tetrahedron and working your way up to the dodecahedron—or if you're just looking for a weekend project. If you're feeling ambitious, you could look into the beautiful code and fluid java animations of various tetra—genom to visualize the math before you start cutting materials. But hey, maybe you're just looking for the basics. Just remember: once you start messing with the compression struts, things can get a little... unpredictable. It’s all part of the process, I guess. Or maybe it isn't. Who knows? Meshing a Tetrahedron—Sandia National Labs The Napa Tetrahedron Building sustainable communities—it’s one of those phrases that gets thrown around a lot lately, isn't it? It sounds great on a brochure, but what does it actually mean when you strip away the buzzwords? Is it just about solar panels and community gardens, or is there something deeper at play here? I often wonder if we're looking at the wrong metrics. We tend to focus on the physical infrastructure—the "green" buildings or the transit systems—but we rarely talk about the social architecture. Can you really have a sustainable community if the people living in it aren't connected in a meaningful way? It feels like we're trying to build a high-tech house on a foundation of sand. Maybe we should be thinking more about systemic integration. If you look at how complex systems actually function, sustainability shouldn't be an "add-on" feature; it should be baked into the very logic of how a neighborhood operates. It’s about creating loops instead of lines—circular economies, shared resources, and social networks that don't just exist but actually reinforce one another. But then again, maybe I'm overthinking it. Maybe it's simpler than that. Or maybe it's much, much harder. What do you all think? Are we chasing a utopia, or is there a practical roadmap we're just missing? My Tetrahedron Experiment He built a custom tetrahedron—and ended up noticing some seriously strange energy. SpiritWeb The occult correspondences of the Platonic Solids—it’s one of those topics that really pulls you down a rabbit hole if you aren't careful. You start looking at the geometry, and suddenly you're deep into ancient mysticism and how these shapes supposedly map out the very fabric of reality. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is there a structural blueprint to the universe, or are we just seeing patterns where none exist? It's a bit like staring at an M.C. Escher print for too long—eventually, the lines start to blur between math and magic. A Java applet featuring an "exploding" tetrahedron. A mechanical device for 3-D input—now there’s an idea worth chewing on. Just a simple, physical way to handle three-dimensional data. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? In a world where everything is flattening out into two-dimensional screens and glass surfaces, why aren't we leaning harder into tactile, spatial interaction? We spend all our time clicking and tapping, which feels almost... bljak, if I'm being honest. There has to be a better way to bridge the gap between our hands and the digital space. An excellent Java applet featuring the tetrahedron. You can just move it around and around—it’s that simple, really. Winkahedron An animation showing a shift from a tetrahedron to an octahedron—this is basically a digital twin of a physical tensegrity model that morphs from a tetrahedron shape into an octahedron. Just a little bit of virtual movement mimicking the real thing. Tetrica So, there's this group—dissidents, revolutionaries, the whole bit—who have decided to rally around some kind of tetrahedron-shaped logo. It’s an interesting choice, isn't it? A bit niche, maybe. You have to wonder what they see in those four triangular faces that makes it worth adopting as their calling card. Is it about the stability of the geometry, or is there some deeper, more esoteric meaning tucked away in the vertices? Who knows. Just seems like a very specific aesthetic for a bunch of people trying to shake things up.
Since I somehow count as one of these "dissidents"—whenever you shout "ON THE CONTRARY" and I chime in with my own take... "AGAINST." And just like that, you're stuck—no movement, no progress whatsoever. That’s your "STAGNANT CATALYST" right there, acting exactly like the queen bee in a termite mound. It really comes down to a choice, doesn't it? You can choose to be the Queen, or you can just be another worker termite. If you opt for the termite route, you can spend your whole life being "yellow" or "black," fighting endless wars just to survive... but survive for whom? Not for the termites, obviously. You'd be fighting for the Queen.
Walter Foster87: No matter what dimension you're looking at, 1 + 1 is mathematically 2—but in reality? It’s actually 3 (you've got the first part, the relationship itself, and then that third element that emerges). So, if we're being honest about how things work, 2 isn't just some standalone prime number; it's the result of a relationship that had to exist beforehand. It's the same way a human being isn't just a simple sum of parts—we aren't just a collection of stations or organs or whatever you want to call those little clusters... it's more complex than that. hollowpilot9: Not a chance! There is absolutely no conversation to be had about some kind of MATHEMATICAL TWO. — 1 and -1, or +1 and -1, are just complementary pairs of a whole, which always results in Zero (not nothingness, mind you) when you look at it as an expression of complementary polar integers. As for the number TWO? Well, Bertrand Russell wrote about this, and it was never even touched!
Walter Foster87: Even if you look at "fractal volume" as just the multiplication of fractals—it isn't simply the sum of those individual parts. It’s like how a single water molecule isn't a droplet, nor is steam liquid water, nor is a stream a lake...
hollowpilot9: There's no "brainless babbling" going on here... what we're talking about is isomorphism—mapping the exact same thing onto different levels of manifestation!
Walter Foster87: You could have just gone with "quack, quack"—you know, like that old nursery rhyme, "Listen up kids, believe it or not, a school for little ducklings is opening on the lot!" Actually, since we're talking about adults, that song is really more about them and the way they endlessly carve out the same old grooves in their own mental maps—rather than the ones who still have a blank slate waiting to be written on. But anyway, your point
Walter Foster87: I don't think the issue is whether it works or not. It’s like when someone says, "Don't judge..." and follows it up with "...love your enemies." All of that is just repackaged versions of what you already think is groundbreaking. Nobody actually enjoys learning new ways to describe old concepts. People tend to reduce the actual goal to just a means to an end—so, much like how you might pin the blame on someone and label them as having a "wrongheaded" concept, one could argue that the CAUSE OF YOUR FRUSTRATIONS (the polarization, the half-truths, the dogmatism, the wasted energy, the conflicts, the wars...) lies precisely in the fact that we aren't actually tackling the task at hand. Instead, we just keep resetting it—always in NEW PACKAGING. hollowpilot9: First off, I don't have any "frustrations." Unlike many people—and maybe unlike you—I am SIMPLY EXPLORING, and through that exploration, I LEARN. I have the desire, and frankly the moral obligation, to offer my findings to others; they can take them as a "treat," or they can "spit" them out. What they choose to do is entirely up to their own will, need, and intelligence. If you think I'm just repeating things that are already known, then that falls under my own "bljak" disclaimer, but I KNOW this isn't repetition or bljak, nor is it old content in new wrapping. In a way, haven't you just confirmed that yourself with those twenty or so sentences you've written so far!?
Walter Foster87: Well, love itself is nothing more than the opposite of aversion, reluctance, or specifically—hatred. So, it turns out those two are just another form of polarization. Which would mean non-polarization would be—you know, that famous reconciliation, forgiveness, absolution... (bljak). hollowpilot9: If that's "bljak," then is "Blljak" even worse? By your logic, would the ultimate "bljak" be the ecstasy of a unified state where Man becomes—bljak!?
Walter Foster87: A whole made of wholes!??? And those "wholes" that compose it have to exist in some kind of relationship with each other, and with the whole itself, just as the whole relates to them—which brings us back to those potential feedback loops that cause deviations. So, once again, we're talking about a whole and its parts, not some collection of disconnected, independent entities.
hollowpilot9: Oh, please, Walter Foster87, a whole made of wholes!!!! You're acting surprised, yet it doesn't occur to you that YOU are a whole composed of billions of smaller wholes called cells. You can't just "fail to connect" that correlation simply because you probably never bothered to investigate it or even think about it. Want the equation in 2D? - 1 .... 0 ....+ 1. Or if you want it in 3D, it's - 1/1........... O/O ........... + 1/1. If the cell-to-universe relationship seems too complex for you, here's a simpler one: a single water molecule is a molecular unit of WATER; billions of those units make up the totality of all water on Earth, or they make up a liter of water, or they form a cloud of water vapor. Of course, in modern concepts, this is covered by fractal theory, where the whole is mirrored and multiplied throughout the entire fractal volume, regardless of its scale.
Walter Foster87: Fine, I'll admit that. But since repetition is the mother of learning, and I'm willing to repeat my thoughts to others just to find someone worth talking to—I'd hope for that kind of understanding from you, too. hollowpilot9: There's truly no problem on my end. It's just that I'm wired this way and I can't help it. Reading your famous line, "repetition is the mother of learning," immediately makes me think of Unamuno and his "Fog," where that incredibly brilliant Spaniard is saying something entirely different. I lean more toward Unamuno, because while repetition is a vital trait of nature for babies and toddlers, when adults repeat things without adding anything NEW—life just goes down the drain... croak, croak...
Walter Foster87: That's how it feels to me, too—that people don't want to accept what I'm saying. They only follow along as long as it fits their existing knowledge, their "hard drive" capacity, or the boundaries of social decency. They won't go further, even when they agree that what they currently hold isn't the final word—even though that's essentially how the State itself is built upon half-truths. See, I think THAT is where the DIVIDE occurs, for which we are all responsible. Eventually, one of us will have to become "SOMEONE" to fix it—if only it weren't for the fact that those we point fingers at today haven't stepped up yet. Just because someone seeks out more, or thinks they "know" the solution, doesn't change the fact that they are INCAPABLE of applying it or testing it in practice. And it's even more tragic when one of those exceptional people actually *does* have the right answer, or at least a better one than what exists—because they can only find interlocutors among the few whom the "Tower of Babel" has rendered deaf to the "speech" of others. And so everyone just shouts at the top of their lungs: "I have the answer! I want to help!" That’s how they twist philosophy, morality, and basically everything human—just to mask those "black holes" and protect the mediocre baseline that civilization has managed to scrape together through all its endless wars and philosophical debates.
hollowpilot9: I’m convinced they refuse to accept anyone else's ideas simply because they operate on a level of flat-out stupidity. A two-dimensional mind just can't process what a three-dimensional one is telling it—that's the core of the issue. Add mental conformism to the mix—basically the brain's inability to actually think—and you have the result of an educational system that teaches rote memorization of facts instead of actual logos. It's Walter Foster87's BLJAK! Soap operas, romance novels, comic books... that's the mass-market fuel for the BRAIN, right?? These brains are essentially destined to atrophy, much like hands that never work or legs that never walk.
Walter Foster87: That first sentence? YES. The second one? YES / MAYBE / WELL. Because once the Mind creates an invention, its job is to then find a "place in the sun" for it—multiplying it sufficiently, renewing all those processes, adjusting its relationship with other existing goods, and properly balancing relations between subjects. From the moment an invention is adopted, everything Reason does—which is actually the Mind in its highest sense—is part of that. But Reason hasn't even honestly begun the work of a single invention before the Mind hands it a new task...
hollowpilot9: My take is this: if logos doesn't embrace the whole, the whole doesn't function—or if it does, it functions "sickly." Therefore, only logos can constitute a whole. If something truly is a whole, as I said before, then it is neutral, harmony, life, love... that unpolarized state that you somehow find to be Bljak! (I actually quite like this "Bljak," which is why I keep using it.)
Walter Foster87: Don’t go getting discouraged by what follows... We’ve seen endless waves of new teachings—some revolutionary, others just coming along to sow discord rather than peace—and some have even been taught in vain: "Let your answer always be YES, YES – NO, NO!" It almost feels like all those radical movements were trying to solve problems where planar complementarity was barely even an afterthought. But honestly, even those earlier attempts at wisdom didn't really wipe out human stupidity or our limitations; even the most hardcore dialecticians ended up falling straight into the jaws of dogma... So, the intention is good, and the goal is ancient—let's just hope that after we settle the matter of polar complementarity, we won't need yet another "brand new" foundation for intelligence or science...
hollowpilot9: Don't worry about me being disappointed. If that "seed" existed within me, I wouldn't have spent nearly three years clashing with people who think they are so well-"equipped" with old doctrines. So, don't you go getting discouraged if I say it's a shame that you—clearly an intelligent person—don't feel the need to build upon the latest insights, but instead seem closer to the old ways that just don't work anymore.
Walter Foster87: It isn't really a choice between the whole and its parts. If we want to truly understand the whole, we have to study the components—because without analysis, we'd have nothing to synthesize in the first place... But, if you're suggesting that a person shouldn't be held prisoner by the limitations imposed by any Reason—the method for perceiving reality—then there's no argument there. Do you truly believe that making such a choice (an approach, a positive aura...) will actually make the "blessed fools" disappear? I'll shake your hand on that one simply because I know it can't hurt—in fact, it might help.
hollowpilot9: Regarding the choice between the whole or the parts, I haven't said a single word about that. I was talking about choosing the polarized versus the non-polarized, the linear versus the non-linear, the complementary versus the opposite—everything that falls under the umbrella of love rather than hate, goodness rather than malice, and similar relations. I don't know why you're ignoring what I'm actually saying and instead responding to what you imagine I'm saying. We haven't even discussed the whole vs. the parts, because the WHOLE I AM TALKING ABOUT HAS NO PARTS! That whole is always composed of wholes—from individual beings to a multitude of such beings structured in levels that form new wholes. It's a fractal structure; it's a biological structure!! Of course, this intellectual novelty is something I am at least partially "guilty" of. The one who is actually "guilty" is the person who fails to understand this novelty and clings to the old "truth" that everything consists of parts that are somehow different from the whole. The second part of your comment is the crucial bit; if that wasn't your intention, then everything written here is just nonsense. But I am deeply convinced, based on new perceptions and processes in the world, that every tiny effort to affirm knowledge, truth, and the pursuit of truth pays off. It is the only potential dam that can hold back the great (new) flood—and this time, it isn't water, it's pure stupidity!
Walter Foster87: When you talk about swindlers—it isn't quite that simple. It's perfectly fine that they roam free today, and we—well, we can just point a finger at them. For instance—admittedly a shameful example—but THEY ARE OUR OTHER FACE.
hollowpilot9: As for swindlers, if things were truly that simple, we certainly wouldn't have the symbols of Cain, Jude, and the Devil—who is a very clever "swindler," at least according to religious symbolism. To me, a swindler is anyone on the news media lying to thousands or millions of people; a swindler is every ideologue; a swindler is every professor forcing students to learn lies instead of truth; a swindler is any philosopher who is merely a devotee of some specific philosopher or school of thought; a swindler is someone who muddies clear water just to catch the "fish" more easily, and so on and so forth. Why swindlers multiply and why they "reign supreme" is a different question entirely. In my opinion, it's because people (and apparently you, too) are afraid of new insights, new knowledge, a NEW PHILOSOPHY. Swindlers know that true philosophy, morality, ethics, and love don't exist, and THAT is why they thrive. They certainly aren't my "other face"!
Walter Foster87: Interesting, though believing something *a priori* just means you're mistaking an assumed premise for actual truth and knowledge—you know, certainty about that truth. Everything else... well, that just follows as the only logical consequence. Not to mention all those layers of accumulated baggage and whatever other material is piled up there...
hollowpilot9: Belief without knowledge? Sure. But where do we get the knowledge to know that the belief arrived without any prior knowledge? Why couldn't that be a pre-ontological experience? Or why couldn't it be MITHA KNOWLEDGE, which is always absolute rather than relative? What exactly constitutes final TESTIMONY—is it knowledge or just an assumption? There’s been an accumulation of things here that leave no room for doubt, much like the things that have settled in philosophy and science, which are also beyond question.
Walter Foster87: It really shows how strange we beings are. On one hand—and this isn't just limited to Japan anymore—the phrase "May all your wishes come true!" is tossed at enemies like an insult. But on the other hand, you see so many scholars obsessed with finding "all-encompassing, all-inclusive, and frictionless systems." Out of this sheer love for perfection, they don't hesitate to lean on someone else's intellect just so their own doesn't end up being put to the test. As for speaking the "truth"—I suspect an analysis would reveal that society actually adds its own flavor to that borrowed intellect—adding a little more or less "holiness" or "interpretation," perhaps even dogmatizing parts of the original material. That's why they feel the need to invoke those authorities and their INFALLIBILITY so aggressively.
hollowpilot9: For me, there is only one authority, and its name is LOGOS! If the logos functions, then both the authority and the thing the authority refers to function as well. But in a holographic society, authority doesn't exist because everyone is an authority. In such a society, "May all your wishes come true!" becomes a meaningless phrase because "All wishes can be fulfilled or already are." I realize this sounds like some intellectual or social utopia, but my cells tell me so, and I BELIEVE them! They simply send out a SIGNAL, and all their desires are met—even if they are STARVING TO DEATH! See how strange we are? Sometimes we're full even when we're hungry.
Continuation: hollowpilot9: I agree that it feels WEIRD, but then again, serious news outlets have always seemed WEIRD to their contemporaries. Look, there’s a massive reality here: through sheer creative willpower, humans have built artifacts that—on one hand—MANIPULATE NATURE, while on the other—CREATE NATURE. Of course, claims like that trip us up because we get caught in this sense of macro-gigantism; the world still feels impossibly vast and overwhelming to a "tiny, insignificant human." But we really ought to remember that traveling around the Earth used to feel like an epic, insurmountable journey, whereas today it takes about an hour—or just a split second if you're chatting with a friend in Australia. In that light, calling this "old news" or saying we're "reinventing the wheel" is a bit of a trivialization, because "reinventing the wheel" on the other side of reality looks more like this: http://emeagwali.com/http://emeagwali.com/ Global Brain as a Super-Brain The personal computer, as we know it today, will become obsolete. Mainframe computers will be as relevant as dinosaurs. Computing in the future will be distributed on computers interconnected in a hyperball network. The personal computers of the future will primarily be used to access more remote computers that ara more powerful Than Any computer that exists today. As computing shifts from the computer to the Internet, the World Wide Web evolves into an intelligent superorganism or "brain of brains," which I will call a superbrain. The superbrain has a hyperball interconnection pattern with billions of nodes. Each node is powered by both a human- and computer-brain.
If you think all of this is just "old news" or "reinventing the wheel," then maybe we should just stop right there—is that where the "intersection" lies? Are we choosing four paths instead of three? Left, right, forward, and back. We're familiar with the first three, much like the "holy trinity," but we rarely bother with that fourth option of going "back." But you see, there is actually a FIFTH OPTION that makes us look incredibly STUPID—staying stuck at the intersection point! Just imagine the infinite possibilities once you branch left or right; the combinations of movement are endless. Before moving forward, sensible people should probably map out all those possible trajectories, understand where they lead and what they imply, and only then decide which path to take on the journey.
I’m talking about a reality that is currently emerging—one that was considered "science fiction" just yesterday. It’s a fact that humans can increasingly control macro-phenomena, much like how climatology works for the American environment. Where does the limit lie? Personally, I don't find the sheer scale of our galaxy particularly intimidating; after all, that massive scale is essentially analogous to the complexity of a large protein molecule within our own bodies—and yet, that entire organism and all its molecules are simultaneously compressed into the level of a single cell. So, I’m not entirely sure if space is actually huge or tiny. Maybe it only seems massive because, frankly, the universe as we perceive it no longer exists. Nobody truly knows what it actually is. Perhaps the entire universe has been compressed down to the size of our tiny Earth??
Walter Foster87: O.K.
hollowpilot9: That "O.K." is actually quite vital for defining and grasping the core concepts being used in this debate—concepts you are, quite correctly, insisting upon. On a side note, some gentleman has popped up elsewhere claiming that Feuerbach, Nietzsche, and Marx solved all the problems regarding religion and science, God and humanity. As long as that kind of mindset prevails, there isn't much actual philosophy happening; those late gentlemen didn't actually resolve anything in a philosophical sense, let alone in terms of religion, God, or Man.
Walter Foster87: That’s just how it goes—etymologically speaking, the opposite is a bad thing. But I get what you’re saying—meaning, I understand the intent behind the words—but in the realm of philosophy, does it actually change anything? Calling it "complementarity," whether as a noun or a concept, doesn't shift the needle. The world is still going to REST on contradictions, opposites, and complementarities... hollowpilot9: Now we’re finally getting somewhere. We’ve hit the actual boundary line between the old mindset and the new—between the old way of doing science, the old way of philosophizing, the old way of making art, and the old way of practicing "religion." You seem to think that complementarity—that is, the LOGOS OF COMPLEMENTARITY in philosophy—doesn't change a thing, whereas I believe it CHANGES PHILOSOPHY in the exact same way COMPLEMENTARITY CHANGED SCIENCE, specifically physics, then chemistry, and then biology. People who don't see this, or simply refuse to, who won't distinguish what gives the world its complementary nature, stay stuck in a reduced world of polarities and linear perception. The world they inhabit might be just as "happy" as someone living on the streets of Mumbai or dealing with the nonsense of some "North American fool." Complementarity is this fascinating, fertile intellectual apparatus—without which Bhor, Werner Heisenberg, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck, and the others would never have achieved what they did in physics. It’s the same in biology for James Watson and circa [placeholder], in chemistry for the Nobelist Prelog and others working on chiral and stereochemistry. In art, you have M.C. Escher, and in philosophy, you have Bhom, Fritjof Capra, Douglas Hofstadter, my own little niche (at least here in America and on the NET), among others. It’s a shame more philosophers don't recognize this fascinating productivity of polar-complementary thinking for the field of philosophy itself.
Walter Foster87: Again, it comes down to the usage of terms. Because when something transforms into something else, it CHANGES FORM. And if the essence remains the same but wears a different mask—well, it deserves a different name.
hollowpilot9: You aren't talking about terminology; you're talking about the nature of essence. The first interpretation leads to delusions, while the second leads to truth!!
Walter Foster87: There’s no light in the brain!? Or, Mind!?
hollowpilot9: If the mind shines, then that light is of an entirely different nature than the (sun)light we're talking about.
Walter Foster87: On the contrary, they "think" using Reason, which is all about SEPARATION. An absurdly large number of people spend their entire lives relying on nothing more than Reason, perhaps with some "buffed up" memory skills and such.
Essentially, this is where you need to head. People aren't naturally inclined toward synthesizing alternatives. And when those alternatives don't offer a solution, but instead one is treated as true one moment and the other the next—then you either have to perform that synthesis or at least be open to it. And if such a synthesis were possible, it shouldn't be all that hard for our generation to prove. Take, for instance, how socialism and capitalism were turned into such bitter enemies that it led to unprecedented bloodshed and destruction. At the same time, we transitioned from one system to the other—practically painlessly—if it hadn't been for those wars fought over trivialities, and those trivialities fueled by the express production of capitalists. But what has actually changed in our lives? We still don't own anything of value; we still have to go to work or to the office; we pay our bills (and even more than before)... The only things that exist now are the political players, the big corporate tycoons. Can't you see the difference?
Regarding worldviews, it's somewhat similar. You could apply that "opposite" of yours—the one their FOLLOWERS IDENTIFY WITH—and that's where the trouble starts, because the MEANS gets mistaken for the ultimate end. Look, you just need to put materialism and idealism into complementarity... provided, of course, that the people you're talking to actually know the terminology you're using. hollowpilot9: I assume we both take freedom of inquiry and thought for granted. What I'm talking about is the possibility of choice. If someone is happy in a polar and polarized world, let them stay happy, but in the context of philosophy, that is always a lower level than the unified or synthetic one. The fact that people gravitate toward the polarized rather than the unified is just an illusion of the adolescent phase, when polarization is at its peak. But eventually, the unified becomes the center of gravity. It’s biological, universal love, friendship, cooperation, etc. When polarization isn't transcended and the unified is overtaken, problems and all sorts of crap start happening... that's what I'm talking about. That's why I believe the TRUE SUBJECT and calling for modern philosophers and philosophy is the philosophy of the unified, not the philosophy of the polarized. To better understand my point, imagine this: extremities like arms and legs represent the polarized and divided, while the torso represents the polar-unified. That simultaneously illustrates and demonstrates the difference between the polarized and the unified in a cognitive sense and every other sense.
Walter Foster87: So, isn't the exact same issue present within social systems? You have theorists constantly theorizing about how they might all coexist. Like—in one village you could have slavery, in another feudalism, in a third capitalism... and everyone just lives happily ever after. But then, suddenly—that theory falls apart in practice. It hasn't actually worked anywhere in the world....!? It would be lovely if robbers just robbed other robbers, killers killed killers, priests preached to priests, and so on... Anyway, getting back to the point—for a philosophy of that sort—you don't actually need anyone else. It’s the one thing you can truly do by yourself. hollowpilot9: Theorists are always theorizing, while agitators are always polarizing. Cause and effect are linked here because in a polarized state, it's much easier to deceive the "masses"—and steal from them more effectively. A harmonious and stable society is simply one that is maximally depolarized politically, economically, socially, and intellectually. That is the LAW of everything, including human societies!!
Walter Foster87: Okay. But look, the problem is this: we start a debate with someone, and they immediately cite—let's say—a prominent theologian. Even if we share the same views on God and theism, it opens a massive question: who should we actually consider a theist? Is it those who see God in "these" dimensions or "those"? Those who find God within Man, or those searching for Him outside of humanity? hollowpilot9: The distinction you're making is our reality, and sure, that's true, but I'm not talking about *that* kind of reality. I'm using an illustration regarding this: a certain public figure—a supposed great expert in his own field—suggested that the emergence of a NEW RELIGION based on intellectual foundations isn't out of the question. Naturally, that clashes with "my worldview," so I asked him if the starting point of monotheism could be shifted from Abraham to "some other point." First, he insisted no, because according to Catholic doctrine, Abraham is the one who introduces monotheism. Then I asked him: what about the Egyptian Amun? He mumbled something about there being some Aton or Amun out there... So, who is the actual theist here: Abraham, Amun, the celebrity, or my insignificant self? My point is what's already been said: a theist isn't just someone who believes in God, but someone who KNOWS God. Just as an atheist isn't merely someone who doesn't believe in God, but someone who KNOWS that God does not exist. If, currently, there is NO ONE who KNOWS GOD, nor anyone who KNOWS that God does not exist, then in reality, it means an honest priest or bishop isn't a theist just because he believes in God, just as an honest teacher or professor of philosophy isn't a philosopher just because he teaches philosophy. Therefore, if the question is who and what a theist is, to me, it can only be THE ONE WHO KNOWS THAT GOD EXISTS, certainly not just the one who BELIEVES THAT GOD EXISTS. If God truly exists, then the religious phase of believing in God is just a religious childhood. True religion only arises when, and if, the MIND discovers God as a reality—holding Him in its hands as a reality just as real as human reality itself. Now, whether that counts as religion, science, or philosophy—or none of the above—is really the heart of the debate. My take? It's all of them at once!
Walter Foster87: That's a bit strange, though. The only view I can counter that with is the old established fact that MAN RULES NATURE—that we don't adapt to our environment, but rather we force the environment to adapt to us. We are the only species that has left an indelible mark on Earth... compared to which your insight feels a bit like "discovering America" (meaning, discovering something incredibly obvious).
Hey Walter Foster87, here’s a bit of current news regarding theism versus atheism that pretty much nails my theory on the inversion of science and religion—basically, the idea that science is actually just checking off the boxes that religion talked about first.
So, on the July 28th evening news, there was a report about a new project being launched in England called "DNA Noah's Ark." Why? Because experts estimate we’re looking at losing about 1,000 animal species on Earth by 2035. About fifteen years ago, I wrote that the biblical concept of Noah's Ark isn't just some ancient story, but a symbolic possibility that we could actually pull off right here on Earth today. Back then, I argued it would be easy enough for Earth's flora—we could just gather and store seeds in a volume roughly the size of Noah's Ark. Compared to all the plants currently on Earth, that would be a tiny micro-volume of flora capable of regenerating everything we know. I also noted that thanks to modern microbiological and genetic molecular science, it's technically possible to store the entirety of life on Earth at the DNA level. Symbolically speaking, that would fit into something the size of a matchbox—a little kit from which you could always restore and regrow life on Earth or any other planet with conditions similar to ours. Now, fifteen years later, that prediction shows up as a legitimate scientific news story out of England. To me, it’s just more evidence that science is busy manifesting exactly what the Bible and religion described; it's just further proof of the inversion I’m always talking about. In that same vein—just to refresh your memory—I mentioned on this forum before how one scientist is obsessively researching how life arrived on Earth, developing a theory that life came from Mars based on certain molecules found deep in the ice of Antarctica. Does it ever cross that scientist's mind that life from Earth might already *be* on Mars? It's just another side of this inversion. Honestly, given these facts and the other points I make in my posts, it's getting impossible to defend the idea that God is just a fiction invented by uneducated, primitive people when humans are clearly doing exactly what the Bible says God did. Besides, these 1,000 species—which took millions of years of evolution to develop—are vanishing in an instant, leaving them zero chance to adapt or fight for survival, which is supposed to be the whole point of traditional evolutionary theory. Something has entwined itself into evolution and is essentially nullifying it, yet instead of looking at what's actually happening or finding the cause, traditional evolutionists just keep insisting that evolution without creationism is the only valid scientific framework. So, what are these English geneticists now? Are they creationists? Or are they somehow both creationists and evolutionists since they are elevating the expression of life on Earth to a whole new level??
Nastavak: Walter Foster87: Is this actually about atheism? Or is it just a case of people being cornered by their own reality—like a professor driven by nature or a student bound by their syllabus—forcing them to stay within the strict boundaries of science?
People who claim they don't believe in God usually base their entire argument on scientific consensus—though, if we’re being honest, the prevailing "scientific view" actually suggests that science can neither disprove nor prove God's existence. It's a bit of a stalemate, isn't it? My take is a little different—maybe a bit radical, depending on who you ask. I'd argue that science actually *proves* God by highlighting how human capabilities mirror divine attributes. It’s a complete inversion of the usual debate, which puts me at odds with both the hardline theists and the die-hard atheists. Think about it this way: if a professor stands up in front of a classroom and teaches kids that evolutionary theory is the only absolute truth, they're doing them a disservice. Sure, what they're teaching stays within the technical boundaries of science, but is it the whole truth? Not necessarily. We shouldn't just settle for staying within those lines if those lines are keeping us away from the actual Truth. Both scientists and philosophers have a responsibility to push those boundaries further rather than clinging to half-truths or convenient inaccuracies. That’s exactly what I’m trying to do here—by suggesting this inversion, I'm attempting to move that boundary a little further out. Walter Foster87: Hmm, let me toss you a quote from one of those massive, most-hated atheists out there: When you're actually out there building a life—really manufacturing your own existence—you end up entering into these specific, necessary relationships... types of connections that, frankly, are completely independent of your own willpower. It’s just one of those things, isn't it? You don't exactly choose them, yet they become these fundamental, proprietary parts of who you are.
So, it’s pretty easy to see why atheists exist—there's just a massive amount of stuff out there that functions entirely independent of human will or our little decisions. I mean, look at the way Earth orbits the sun, or the sheer, staggering distances between stars... it all just happens, regardless of what we think about it. But seriously, just think about it—how is an atheist supposed to wrap their head around the idea that things as trivial as ownership relations could actually be independent? I mean, how can those relationships exist as something real and distinct from our own human will and decision-making? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, isn't it? This whole thing is basically the root of so much confusion—mostly because we’ve been force-fed this heavy materialist perspective that suggests things just happen without any actual human agency. It’s a bit of a mess, really. You have the theists claiming that God’s will sits far above our own, while the scientific atheists argue that it's just natural phenomena—like those macro-phenomena you mentioned—dictating everything. In both scenarios, the human being is relegated to being an object—something to be manipulated by either God or nature. Any suggestion that the reverse could be true—that humans might actually be the subject while everything else is the object—gets tossed aside like some kind of wild fantasy or cheap fiction. I mean, just think about how many mountains of ink and paper have been wasted trying to settle the subject-object relationship in philosophy... which, let’s be honest, still isn't settled! But things are shifting now. There's a growing body of arguments suggesting a slow inversion is happening—where the human finally steps up as the subject, and nature or God become the objects of study. Of course, when you present such a "revolutionary" viewpoint here, people tend to stare in bewilderment or push back with total hostility. We're just too deeply soaked in the outdated perspectives handed down by the "great men" of the past, aren't we? If I ever need some ground to stand on, I tend to lean on contemporary texts—just a few titles that stick with me. There’s Peter Russell’s *Science to God*, then you've got that talk by Dr. Norman F. Hallo asking, *Can science find God?* And, of course, there's John Polkinghorne’s work on *Where science and Theology meet*. Then you have the massive body of work from physicist David Bohm, who draws these parallels between modern physics and religion—sort of like how Capra linked new physics to Taoism. In all these recent intellectual breakthroughs, there’s this shared realization—this sense that something massive is happening within the realm of human spirit and intelligence. It’s something that fundamentally shifts how we perceive our role here on Earth and in the wider universe. It all points toward the idea that labels like "the most hated atheist" are really just leftovers from a centuries-old worldview—the belief that there is always some sort of Force above us, whether you call it natural or Divine, that humbles us or forces us into things beyond our own control. Walter Foster87: I honestly think you’re just stuck on this idea of atheism defined by Marxist followers. Because that's all you're looking at—that specific brand of it—you're missing how atheism actually functions in the real world—you know, in the broader sense of things?
hollowpilot9: You probably forgot about my post that starts like this: I’ve never really had much interest in religion—or theism, if we're being technical—when it's broken down into these little fragmented pieces. You know, the usual stuff: religious splits like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam... or the specific philosophies peddled by guys like Clement, Luther, or Thomas Aquinas. That's not really what I'm looking at. To me, theism is more interesting as a massive, overarching mental phenomenon that has persisted for thousands of years. It’s the way it functions as a core component of the human experience through the centuries—that's the part worth examining. I’ve long since concluded that it is simply impossible to have two groups sitting on opposite sides of a fence like this—on one side, you have millions of religious folks who believe in God as a Creator, and on the other, you have those who consider themselves "enlightened" because they "know" God doesn't exist. You know the type—people who cling to the idea that faith is just pure stupidity, an idea that was pushed for years through the old ideology of materialistic Marxism-style atheism. Nowadays, even some scientists and philosophers are out there championing and spreading that exact same brand of atheism. This whole divide—splitting people into the "smart" and the "stupid," the ones who "know" versus the ones who "don't know," the believers versus the non-believers—seems like such a massive anachronism to me. It feels completely out of place in today's world, especially among the highly educated scientific, philosophical, and theological elite. I’ve spent quite a bit of time digging into the connections between ancient mysticism and modern scientific findings—looking at how religious anticipations might actually align with our current applied scientific reality—and I’ve stumbled upon a series of interesting tidbits, some of which I’ve mentioned here before. My goal is really just to point out these curiosities and perhaps nudge that sense of intellectual curiosity toward some more "up to date" insights. Maybe, if we look at it differently, we can finally start applying these ideas to resolve the age-old dispute between theism and atheism. Look, I’ll be honest—deep down, there’s still a bit of Marxist materialism running through my head, though it's mostly just idling in the background. But the real weight of my perspective leans toward that scientific, mechanical type of Marxist materialism. And honestly, that’s a massive distinction—one that most scientists who haven't spent a single second actually looking into Marx or his specific brand of materialism would completely miss. They love to throw around that tired old cliché about religion being the "opium of the masses," but they always seem to trip over the nuance between that and the actual idea of religion acting as an "opium for the mind." If you catch my drift, it should be crystal clear now exactly which flavor of materialism I’m talking about. So, within that clarity... why don't we all just start thinking this way instead? The world of David Bohm—now that we’re actually looking at it—is a bit of a trip, isn't it? It’s one of those rabbit holes where you start thinking you understand physics, only to realize you've been staring at a shadow on the wall the whole time. He had this way of looking at the universe that makes everything feel less like a collection of separate parts and more like... well, a single, flowing movement. It’s easy to get lost in the weeds of his theories, but there’s a certain elegance to how he tried to bridge the gap between what we see and what’s actually happening under the hood. Is it all just math, or is there something deeper—something almost poetic—happening in the fabric of reality? Sometimes I wonder if we're just trying to force the universe into boxes that were never meant to hold it. But then again, maybe that's just the human condition—trying to make sense of the chaos by building better boxes. New physics and a new religion? It’s an interesting thought—sort of a wild one, really. We spend all this time trying to wrap our heads around the latest breakthroughs in quantum mechanics, chasing after these tiny, invisible particles that seem to defy everything we thought we knew about reality. And then, almost as an afterthought, people start wondering if all this complex math and high-level theory could actually bridge the gap between what we observe and something... well, higher. Is there a point where the lab meets the altar? I mean, we talk about the fundamental building blocks of existence like they're just numbers on a chalkboard, but then you start looking at the sheer complexity of it all and you wonder if we're just staring at the fingerprints of a creator. It’s that old, nagging question: can science find God? Or are we just spinning our wheels, much like Sisyphus with his boulder, trying to find a divine pattern in a sea of subatomic chaos? It feels like we're constantly oscillating between two extremes—either everything is just cold, hard data, or everything is mystical nonsense. But maybe there's a middle ground somewhere in the messy overlap. Is it possible for the laws of physics to be the very language used to describe something more profound? It’s a bit of a rabbit hole, isn't it? One minute you're reading about particle accelerators, and the next, you're questioning the very nature of the soul. Just something to chew on while you're staring at the ceiling tonight. By. Kevin J. Sharpe The title of this book pretty much lays out my intentions—I’ve been circling the conceptual orbit of David Bohm for quite a while now. In digging through his work and trying to wrap my head around it, I’ve stumbled upon ideas that aren't just fascinating, they’re actually incredibly relevant to the mess we live in today. Initially, I went down the rabbit hole looking at his physics, but what I actually found was a man with an almost impossibly wide range of intuition. We're talking about someone whose systems and theories stretched from physics to biology, from the way we teach kids to the philosophy of science, and even into history and religion. It’s a lot to unpack. My plan here is to walk through some of these concepts, specifically focusing on the intersection of physics and religion. From what I can see, Bohm's view of the physical world and his spiritual outlook aren't separate silos—they seem to entwine quite closely. In the opening chapters, my plan is to dive deep into the physics of David Bohm and the circle of thinkers he worked alongside—a group I’ve decided to call the Birkbeck School, after the college in London where Bohm and several of his colleagues have spent time. Once I've laid that groundwork, I’ll shift gears to tackle his more metaphysical and religious leanings. Lately, there’s been this massive wave of interest in David Bohm and the "new physics"—you know, all that twentieth-century stuff born from quantum theory and relativity—mostly coming from people with a mystical or Eastern spiritual bent. Fritjof Capra’s *The Tao of Physics* is the classic example of that trend. But honestly? A lot of that fascination gets muddied by journalists who are just way too enthusiastic and, frankly, a bit uncritical. It’s all a little much, isn't it? My goal here is to take a more measured approach to Bohm's work—to actually sit down and weigh the pros and cons without getting swept up in the hype. The idea that we should look at the world not as some cold, clockwork machine, but as a living, breathing organism—it’s a perspective that's been floating around different cultures for ages. Take biology, for example. You've got your organicists who would argue that you simply can't boil life down to mere chemical reactions and physics equations—which is exactly what the mechanists love to assume, isn't it? If you want a deep dive into this, Ian Barbour’s massive encyclopedia, *Issues in Science and Religion*, offers a pretty solid breakdown of these organismic models and how they actually function. From what I can gather, the whole organismic approach really boils down to three main pillars: An organism isn't just a collection of parts—it’s a single, integrated whole. It works as one unit. So, we’re looking at how an organism actually functions—it isn't just some random pile of cells, right? It’s more like a complex hierarchy of levels all layered on top of one another. Everything is organized in this tiered structure... which, honestly, makes you wonder if there's a master blueprint or if it's all just incredibly lucky chaos. But yeah, that's the gist of it. It’s kind of wild when you really sit down and think about it—the idea that every single little piece of an organism, no matter what level you're looking at, is constantly being shaped and nudged by the whole thing. It isn't just a collection of isolated parts acting on their own, right? Everything is interconnected. You have these tiny components, then cells, then tissues, then organs, and yet they don't just exist in a vacuum—they're all essentially dancing to the tune of the entire system. It makes you wonder how much of "us" is actually just the sum of those individual parts versus the overarching influence of the whole structure itself. Is there a point where the part stops being its own thing and just becomes a subset of the bigger picture? It's a strange thought. We’ve all heard the usual catchphrases floating around the organismic approach—stuff like "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts," for example.
Walter Foster87: Is it possible that complementarity is actually just what happens when opposites exist within their own inherent differences?
hollowpilot9: I’m not entirely following you there—but if you’re talking about the fundamental distinction between "complementary" and "opposite," then in terms of how we process thought, that difference is massive. Someone who views the world through the lens of opposition sees an enemy—someone to be defeated, crushed, or eliminated. But someone thinking in terms of complementarity? They see an opponent as a necessary counterpart, someone to be preserved, uplifted, kept alive... sort of a dance. For instance, look at how a lack of understanding regarding complementarity led to the outdated idea that women were somehow secondary to men. Think about how much damage that specific brand of "opposition" has done to humanity over the years.
Walter Foster87: So, does that apply to converting matter into energy and back again? hollowpilot9: That is actually one of the biggest blunders in how people interpret matter. Most people tend to split things up into two separate camps—matter and energy—as if they were two different currents, where one is particulate mass and the other is pure energy. Those people miss the point: matter is simultaneously energy, and energy is simultaneously matter. These folks usually throw around Einstein's formula for mass-energy equivalence as proof that all mass can be turned into energy via E = mc², which isn't quite right. It’s more accurate to say only a PART of the mass is converted, so the formula should really be E = Δmc². You can see this by looking at the inverse: if you're solving for mass from energy, you get m = E/c², where c represents the mass limit. Essentially, matter and energy exist in a 1/2 : 1/2 ratio, constantly oscillating. As much mass is converted into energy, an equal amount of energy is converted back into mass. The crucial thing here is that this LAW applies implicitly and explicitly to any phenomenon—including life itself—as a fifty-fifty relationship between polar entities that act as inverses to one another.
Walter Foster87: That’s a bit "high-level" for me. But I get it—we’re naturally captivated by the sense and power of sight. Light means so much to us that we’ve basically identified ourselves with it. We view it as the BETTER ALTERNATIVE. And since alternatives usually develop out of necessity—finding either the lesser evil or the greater good—it makes for a pretty logical narrative: a journey from darkness into the light. hollowpilot9: Why call it "high-level" when the entirety of life and nature is structured exactly this way? Our sense of sight, which tricks us into preferring light, is actually a bit of a fraud. Everything we perceive as a colorful spectrum of light is actually playing out in the darkness of our own brains. There is no actual light inside your skull; the eye's retina is just a "screen," and everything beyond that is just electrical impulses. It’s the same with taste, smell, or sound. The final stop for sound is just the mechanism of the ear, and after that, it's just pulses. If you put on night-vision goggles, the night doesn't look dark anymore; it looks bright. Suddenly, our natural sensory judgment regarding light and dark becomes totally irrelevant.
Walter Foster87: I won't argue with that, except for one observation—when you look a little deeper—that even materialists can't agree on what materialism actually is, just as idealists can't agree on the definition of an idea. It's the same with atheists and theists; they can't even agree on what those terms mean. So, how do we ever popularize the connection between these two equally valid poles? It seems everyone is just dug in, convinced they're right—so be it! hollowpilot9: I completely agree with you, and that is precisely where the challenge lies: How do we move toward a higher, more refined perception of the world based on both the materialistic and idealistic legacies, unless we embrace both spheres and unify them? Many people think this is impossible because they "think" using a logic (logos) that prevents unification. However, if that logic shifts into a complementary, polar logic that allows for integration, then merging idealism and materialism into a new, higher sphere of consciousness becomes possible. That is exactly what I am attempting to do, and what we are doing here—whether consciously or not—because both of us seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the limits of materialism and idealism, or vice versa. A narrow-minded atheist will keep finding comfort in their strictly atheistic world, just as a narrow-minded idealist stays tucked in theirs, clinging to the "hard" stance that these are TWO SEPARATE WORLDS. But for those who don't feel at home in those restricted bubbles, there is the option of existing in an unlimited world composed of both—meaning you have the capacity to think both materialistically and idealistically at the same time. This unified world is far more beautiful, better, and more just than a divided one. So, that’s what I’m pushing as a NEW POSSIBLE PHILOSOPHY—take it or leave it! Walter Foster87: I honestly think the root of all crime is just plain old ignorance—or worse, that arrogant kind of "knowledge." Most people don't need a PhD to know there are certain lines you just don't cross; when faced with evil, there's almost an instinctive sense of where those boundaries lie. hollowpilot9: We’ve been on the same page about that for ages. In most cases, crime stems from ignorance or that smug, self-important "knowledge"—but if we're looking at the relationship between humanity and God, or the sacred versus the profane, or the ideal versus the flawed... well, the habitat for ignorance is actually found within the gap between the two. That's why I figure that when people drift away from God, they’re essentially drifting away from a unified, neutral, perfect order and moving toward a polarized, imperfect one where crime becomes inevitable. Think of it like this—imagine watching a huge rivalry game, say, the Yankees versus the Red Sox. If you're a die-hard Yankees fan and I'm a total Red Sox fanatic, we get caught up in that "polarization," and suddenly, it's way too easy for us to get into a brawl. But if we both just consider ourselves baseball fans—viewing the game neutrally—we can both just enjoy the play of both teams, and the chances of us turning into criminals over a game drop pretty significantly.
Walter Foster87: Something isn't adding up here. Either my understanding of theists is totally off, or they've managed to pull a fast one on you. By the way, I still remember that one theist on the forum who basically claimed that anyone who doesn't believe God exists in "those other dimensions"—and anyone trying to bridge the gap between God and humanity—is just an UNBELIEVER! hollowpilot9: Here’s how I see it: It seems like you're treating theism more as a religious practice—you know, like church rituals or catechisms—whereas I approach it as theology, as the actual science of God. Personally, I couldn't care less about what a believer thinks or feels in a philosophical context. What interests me is what a believer actually *knows* about their object of faith, and let's be honest, very few people actually do. From my research, religious texts, church architecture, and even classical art seem to revolve around human figures rather than some mysterious, unknown entity. No critic of religion can deny the fact that the concepts of God and humanity have always been linked through the relationship of God in heaven to God on Earth, though those interpretations change depending on the era. All the religions I'm talking about start from the premise that there is a supernatural Being standing behind and before everything—God, the creator of the world and the universe. I won't get bogged down in the usual arguments and counter-arguments, because the reality is that the concept of a Creator has existed for thousands of years. It’s only in the last century or so that people have tried to toss it aside just because modern science hasn't found this supposed "old man in the sky" out in space. That's the crux of it, as I mentioned before: scientific denials of God rely on the logic of matter—the idea that everything is just an evolutionary, materialistic process without any supernatural Creator. That serves as the atheist materialist stronghold. I think you're interpreting that view correctly. But here's what isn't "O.K." in my eyes: I'd argue it's harder for atheists to accept that man is God than it is for theists to accept that God is man. In theology, the core premise is that God is the father of humanity, whereas in scientific atheism, a human is just an evolutionary byproduct, far removed from any primary Cause. In the atheist perception, man is always just a consequence, never the cause, while in theology, those things are all tangled up! Is my interpretation right? I think so. And if it is, then it follows that searching for solutions in either God or man is somewhat futile, since neither concept is clearly defined from a phenomenological standpoint. Given that God's attributes are laid out in the Bible and theological texts, and human attributes are scattered throughout various scientific disciplines, there isn't a more logical thing to do than put those attributes on a single sheet of paper—God's attributes on the left, human attributes on the right—and start comparing them. If human attributes tend toward God's, then it’s PROOF that humans possess qualities similar to the anticipated God. This view is grounded in modern realities—specifically, the fact that humans, as the evident stewards on Earth, have directly entwined themselves into the biblical concept of Noah's Ark of God's work. For me, and many others around the world (though certainly not in our local circles), this is an unmistakable sign that something HUGE has happened—something that transcends traditional theistic or atheistic beliefs. In the future, theists will have to admit that science is actually fulfilling God's attributes, and science will have to admit to theists that they were right to believe in God—but from now on, they'll also have to actually GET TO KNOW Him. SO, WHAT EXACTLY ISN'T WORKING HERE?
Walter Foster87: And that’s not even the half of it. When you look at an individual—or even just the idea of a community—there’s this absolute principle at play here, isn't there? It’s a total imperative for awareness and self-discovery.
hollowpilot9: At a certain evolutionary stage, the drive to understand things becomes an absolute necessity—it’s just built into us. So why is there such massive resistance to actual knowledge? It’s baffling. For instance, if you look at Google in English, there are over 3,000 websites dedicated to the "Tetrahedron of Taste," yet you won't find a single thing about it in American searches. It’s like the "Logos of the Tetrahedron" only interests a tiny group of "enlightened" seekers, while everyone else—even people right here on this forum—just couldn't care less. And that’s a shame, considering it contains the actual universal logos of philosophy.
Walter Foster87: It’s probably the centerpiece—not just for philosophy, but for life itself—so it really ought to be the core mission of our education system and how we raise kids.
hollowpilot9: If that’s really how it works, then why isn't this "central role" showing up anywhere else—like in livestock farming, the school system, or even just here on this forum and others like it?
Walter Foster87: It only really counts as complementary if those opposites are actually laughing together—in other words, if the whole thing is built upon that opposition to "complete" itself.
The whole idea of "opposites" is really just a byproduct of Euclidean and Cartesian logic—you know, that rigid way of thinking we've been stuck with forever. They love to claim that Point A is the opposite of Point B on a circle, or that the North Pole is the opposite of the South, or even that men and women are opposites... it goes on and on. But honestly? Is it possible that Point A is just complementary to Point B? Or that South is simply complementary to North? Or that femininity is complementary to masculinity? It feels much more accurate to say they complement one another rather than being "opposite." This obsession with duality is just part of that baggage of stupidity we've been lugging around since we were basically embryonic beings in this universe.
Walter Foster87: There’s something interesting about that whole "small school" idea—and even that old Sisyphus myth—but here's the thing: what we're looking at isn't just some random result of simple oscillations. It feels more like a fundamental distinction, a sort of signpost suggesting that "humanity's universe contains enough matter that it actually starts to contract." Or maybe I'm overthinking it? Who knows. It’s all about moving forward and backward—which is just a fancy way of saying oscillation. We like to imagine a locomotive is only ever heading one way, right? But in reality, it’s constantly oscillating forward and back; that "forward" motion we perceive is really just what allows the inertial force of the engine's mass to take over. Everything is doing this... matter is in a state of constant, perpetual oscillation. It isn't some linear journey like those materialist dialecticians would have you believe.
Walter Foster87: Consider it signed—with all the fine print included...
hollowpilot9: Honestly, everyone on this planet should probably just sign off on this—because the Origin is really the only thing that actually provides any sense of meaning or purpose to our existence. It’s the one constant that gives purpose to every single individual and to humanity as a whole—whether you're looking at the tiny, microscopic details or the massive, macro scale of everything out there. Does anything else even come close?
Walter Foster87: If we’re talking about the integrity of legal structures and whether a person's existence actually carries on—well, I guess my answer would be that there is a type of motion out there that preserves nothing but light.
It’s all part of the conversation, sure—but isn't the bigger issue that we still haven't actually figured out what light and darkness are supposed to be doing in this existence? I mean, why do we act like "light" is inherently better than "darkness"? We have plenty of animals—and honestly, humans too—who thrive in the dark and just sleep through the day. It’s the same deal with nature; you’ve got plants leaning toward the light while most fauna seems perfectly content in the shadows. Maybe that’s what drives the whole pull toward a sort of "night civilization"... who knows? And then there's the ultimate question: is the universe actually bright or is it dark? Some theories suggest it’s simultaneously both—which would mean it doesn't really matter which side anyone belongs to, does it? So, here’s a thought—God is essentially a fan of the light, while the devil is all about the darkness. And they were actually "partners," at least back at the beginning? Or was that just some ancient narrative we've been fed?
Walter Foster87: Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that philosophical atheism acts as some kind of "scientific approach"—mostly because it's positioned as an a priori opposition, which isn't exactly free from bias. It doesn't really qualify as true philosophy, I suppose—but then again, it serves as a pretty significant anchor for it, doesn't it?
Let’s not just "say" it—atheism, at least the version I’m talking about, actually grew out of a specific branch of science: physics. Specifically, mechanical physics. It's the foundation for that whole materialistic worldview, which sits right there in opposition to idealism—you know, the classic materialism versus idealism debate. Now, this particular brand of philosophy is limited—and when you say it isn't "free enough," that’s exactly the point. It’s limited, which makes it profane and, frankly, not very philosophical. But look, the importance of materialistic philosophy within the field of Philosophy is just as significant as the importance of idealism. They are two equally vital starting points—two pillars, if you will—and to me, it’s perfectly logical that Philosophy is simply the union of the two.
Walter Foster87: Is it really just them?
I always tend to look at things through this evolutionary lens—sort of a seesaw between the absolute minimum and the maximum. It’s like a cosmic balancing act: when God is at His peak, humanity is at its lowest ebb; when we reach our zenith, God becomes minimal. But here's the thing—they are fundamentally, inextricably ONE. To me, trying to draw a line between God and man, or man and God, is just plain foolish... and if you really want to get pedantic about it, that's where the root of all evil lies.
Walter Foster87: hollowpilot9 — seriously, don't go living "in your own little bubble." The idea of God wouldn't even be a bias—not if we actually had an undeniable grasp on who and what everything is—you know? Like, if we truly understood the first cause and the ultimate purpose behind it all... then it wouldn't be an assumption anymore. It would just be a fact.
That’s really the whole point of the philosophical grind, isn't it? Trying to figure out who we are, what we actually are, and what our ultimate purpose is—the true cause and the final destination. Personally, that’s all I deal with. It’s my entire world, which, if you think about it, is basically everyone else's world too. In this shared reality of ours, I’ve mostly just stumbled upon what people have been realizing for ages: that God and humanity are essentially one and the same—it’s just a matter of different evolutionary stages. Anyone trying to split God from man, or vice versa, is honestly just being foolish. They’re missing the bigger picture—because behind those dusty old books and all that theoretical dust, there’s actual substance living inside the skulls of both theists and atheists alike. So, you’re telling me, "Look, I get it—you don't want to drive a wedge between God and humanity—BUT THINGS WORK DIFFERENTLY IN THE REST OF THE WORLD!" Well, newsflash: I know. I actually *know* that things work differently out there. And it's precisely because I KNOW—and I mean really, truly understand how things stand—that I find myself "fighting" for my own way of speaking, and for the sake of everyone else who sees things exactly the same way I do...
Walter Foster87: When you start trying to bridge the gap between God and humanity, you might just stumble right into this particular trap...
Look, when you’re talking about the connection between God and humanity, there aren't any real traps—provided we're strictly discussing attributes. The only time things get messy is if you start demanding a dialogue between a specific, personal God and a specific, personal human being. A little "human" isn't going to become God, obviously, but the Great Human—the Creator—is God because that Being is what brings us all into existence here on Earth. It’s just a plain fact. Honestly, resisting that is pretty much pointless, and frankly, it's only hurting the person doing the resisting. You have to keep in mind that what we're dealing with here isn't some simple, Cartesian, arithmetic "one"—it's more like two complementary polarities that actually function as four. Walter Foster87: If the idea of Man being synonymous with God is just a total myth—basically an empty concept—then we’re essentially circling back to that weird intersection between your version of relativity (the Human element) and the Matrix (the Divine). Or are we? And then there’s that whole other thing—the fact that we don't actually have any real understanding of either humanity or God. It all feels sort of forced, doesn't it? Half-baked, really... just this constant cycle of alienation.
hollowpilot9: I’m with you on this—and honestly, it’s precisely because we lack any real, valid understanding of either humanity or God that I see the answer in the MACROCOSMIC BEING... which, as you already know, goes by the name HOMOTERAS. It functions as both a great and small master—a concept that, in my deep conviction, resolves the tension between God and Man, provided we agree to account for the evolutionary distance between Earth and the macrocosm. Through our own growth and work, humans are essentially constructing this macrocosmic being. Just chew on that idea for a bit—if you really sit with it, you’ll see pretty quickly that it’s the only solution that actually possesses sense, purpose, or beauty. Anyway, I should probably comment on your take regarding how it’s harder to reach an "end point" with theists than with atheists—your theory being that atheists are somehow closer to the human experience. My own experience suggests otherwise. I haven't yet run into a single theist who tries to separate God from Man; every one of them has offered a mountain of perspectives and evidence suggesting that God and humanity are in constant correspondence. Their trump card, of course, is Jesus as the God-man. It’s a completely different story with atheists, though. They view humans merely as a level of evolutionary matter that—for reasons unknown—happened by pure accident in some primordial "primordial soup." Fast forward from that beginning, and you get a human who formulated such a scientific theory and refuses to budge from it. An atheist like that will never accept the premise that Man is the creator of life; they’ll stubbornly insist that life, and therefore Man, is just the result of material evolution. So, in a way, it’s much harder to convince an atheist that Man is God than it is to convince a theist that God is Man. You see? It’s perfectly logical to say God and Man are one and the same—and if an atheist fights that, it's clearly because they want to reduce us to mere animals, just "material dust" from which everything originated. That’s the weak link in atheism. Walter Foster87: I don't know anything about that specific case. Do you have any of his papers handy—maybe some links? By the way, it’s pretty wild that you’re claiming Marx pushed him to the fringes of philosophy for two reasons. First, because Marx wasn't the sole authority back then, and second, because he positioned his own work against traditional philosophy—basically forcing it into the realm of the scientific. hollowpilot9: Just pull up Google and search for Josef Dietzgen if you want to see what catches your eye. That Josef guy was actually competing with Marx within the German socialist movement, which is why Marx "loathed" him—not just because of his philosophical stances, which ran counter to Marx's own, but because of the rivalry. Besides, it was an era of massive German philosophical arrogance, so it isn't exactly shocking that Josef was sidelined and tossed out... Marx's ego was basically "limitless"... in his mind, he was the genius and everyone else was just an idiot. Just look at how he completely "lost it" regarding Proudhon?? And one more thing: You didn't respond to my suggestion that you take on the role of commentator, analyst, and—if you're feeling ambitious—critic of the theory regarding the UNIVERSAL TETRAHEDRAL LOGOS—the ABSOLUTE LOGOS OF PHILOSOPHY? You've got the ability and enough decency for the job! Come on, accept it, and we'll start with the tetrahedral logos of taste, which is completely unknown and ignored here in the States.
demos: Honestly, I think if you’re ever going to promote that kind of force within a broader context—well, you won't be able to ignore at least a shadow of a "pilot"... Even when forces act blindly, you'll still find Stanford University at their core.
hollowpilot9: Constructive force "builds the nose," while destructive force "breaks the nose"—and those aren't the same thing!! There's no doubt that both types of force have Stanford University behind them, but one also has pure stupidity backing it up.
demos: That kind of unified state—it's nothing more than fiction. Reality always oscillates between the dominance of one side or the other.
hollowpilot9: Fiction? What are you talking about?? A unified state of forces is what we call BALANCE, HARMONY, STABILITY. What you're describing is anything but unified; it's polar, divided, and polarized—which is exactly why we get tension, conflict, wars, frustration, and so on. That stuff is real enough, sure, but it belongs to the "profane" realm—the split, binary world. I’m talking about the "sacred" polar unity—NEUTRALITY! You aren't actually going to tell me that being neutral is a fiction, are you?
demos: In reality, all that Greek and "pseudo-Greek" stuff is just a tool used to achieve an end. The goal is to describe what is "visible" in the abstract. We just use whatever tools we've picked up or have lying around (which is why I'm interested in Eastern philosophies—as something different and distinct—because just looking at things doesn't get you anywhere, unless I haven't stumbled upon the right literature yet). Truth, anyway, encompasses both the most accurate perception of what IS (in terms of practical action) and what ought to be (since what *ought* to be already exists as a possibility, and exists within the abstract sphere too). So—when you pull it all together—you come back to the idea that TRUTH is what unifies all human needs and our capacity for perception—because FOR ITS OWN SAKE (or if you prefer, for its own needs), MAN SEARCHES FOR WHAT IS TRULY REAL AND WHAT COULD BE BETTER, which is why philosophy and morality are both held together within truth. In short, my logos-um, the creative power of man—or rather, the very essence of the generic (gendered) nature of the human species. But what I mean is, the dominant factor isn't Intelligence, it's Reason. Intelligence participates in thought only indirectly—through the Stanford University we have to acknowledge and respect, whether as relationships between intelligent beings or as acquired wealth (the principles of Reason). Intelligence is certainly the cause behind enhanced memory and the development of various uniquely human abilities. However, Intelligence—or logos—manifests somehow as CREATIVITY ITSELF. We approach it through Reason, which provides the raw material. Whenever Reason asks a question inadequately (by over-constraining the solution or stepping outside obvious limits), Intelligence will hand it a DISTORTED SOLUTION. Or rather, a "solution" to a problem that is just as GOOD (PURE) as it is free from ulterior motives—where Reason itself stood before Intelligence. In those rare instances, Reason receives a solution we call an invention. Even when it's just a principle or an approach—it's a TRULY NON-EXISTENT (but abstractly existing) SOURCE from which we manifest a good that never existed before. And those things (fantasies, utopias, and inventions) are parts of the ULTIMATE TRUTH.
hollowpilot9: In this specific detail of my question, I'm talking about the LOGOS we use when we speak, investigate, and conclude. Stanford University without logos is just madness, confusion, fantasy... You've mentioned METHODOLOGY several times, but methodology simply doesn't exist without logos. So, I'm always in favor of a methodology where the applied LOGOS is clearly defined. My question is: With what methodology and what logos does philosophy philosophize? Does every subject in philosophy have its own methodology and its own logos, or is there one universal methodology and one universal logos for all of philosophy? Without clear answers to these questions, philosophy makes no progress toward Truth, because LOGOS IS WHAT RECOGNIZES AND DEFINES TRUTH, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! For instance, it's a polar logos that determines, among other things, the Truth of Man. It seems philosophy knows very little about that logos, or uses it very little. I use that logos quite often, and that's why I say so clearly that philosophy must rise to the level of creation, rather than the destruction usually called "CRITICISM"—which is then misinterpreted as construction because it rejects what's bad and promotes what's good!? But please, according to whose opinion? The opinion of some critic-philosopher? That's just stupidity squared, because you're just interpolating two stupidities to make one bigger one!! I’d argue that most misunderstandings between people stem from a failure to recognize—or actually apply—the appropriate logos relevant to the subject at hand. For instance, the logos used in casual, everyday "water cooler" talk works fine when you're just recounting life events, but it falls apart the moment you pivot to analytical or investigative discourse. And once that shift happens, everyone involved needs to be operating under the same logos regarding the field or topic. Otherwise, you’re basically asking for a breakdown in communication, which inevitably spirals into arguments and, frankly, insults. You can see this happening on nearly every thread on this forum—people applying different logoses to the same issue. It’s because most people haven't been taught, nor have they been trained, to utilize the specific logos required for the context they're discussing. First off, it all comes down to the perspective being applied. As Jaspers suggested, there is as much philosophy as there are philosophers—meaning, as many philosophies as there are philosophical viewpoints. I've touched on this before. In that light, two perspectives have dominated for ages: materialism and idealism. Both ended up in the trash heap because they were built on the absolute nature of either matter or the idea as the primary cause of everything. Materialism met its ignominious end through the logos of dialectics, while idealism fell via the logos of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Essentially, it was the wrong logos that sent both to the scrap yard; they failed to apply the LOGOS OF LIFE. That particular logos was never utilized in traditional philosophy or academic dialogue, simply because humanity hadn't discovered it yet. The real kicker is that if you write ATGCCGTTGAAT, I might write TACGGAACTTA, and we’re both technically writing the exact same thing—except you’re doing it with deep knowledge and intelligence, and I’m doing it without any. Yet, we both claim the right to call it Truth! So, traditional science and philosophy remain oblivious to the fact that the value of cognition for TAAGTTGCCGTA is identical to that of ATGCCGTTGAAT. This kind of higher-level knowledge currently only applies to the micro-phenomena of life, while the macro-phenomena of life continue to drift without a logos. Not knowing the complementary and inverse logos is the primary reason for the cacophony of conflicting views on the same subjects. Beyond that, in the humanities—specifically philosophy—I don't see much discussion about how differing views arise from variations in how we perceive space and events within it, leading to a massive mess of overlapping terms for the same reality. Most people are essentially hardwired to live and think in two dimensions; traditionally, we exist in a flat, two-dimensional way. People with those habits—which is most of the population—struggle immensely with three-dimensional thinking. Consequently, any conversation between a two-dimensional person and a three-dimensional one usually ends in total confusion the moment they move from form to substance. A two-dimensional philosopher can only philosophize about form, because their mind is blind to the substance, which is inherently three-dimensional for both the individual and the universe. Total chaos ensues when the mind begins to recognize the fourth dimension, which carries a completely different logos than one, two, or three-dimensional space. In that realm, substance is paired with an "anti-substance," which "drives crazy" traditional philosophy, which is still barely grasping the concept of three-dimensional substance. Our philosophy is stuck in two-dimensionality and linear perception, treating the world as if it follows a simple arithmetic order, when things are fundamentally different. Take Buckminster Fuller, for example—a significant 20th-century philosopher. Very few people here even know he existed, or am I mistaken? And what should I say about myself? I am certainly on par with, if not a better philosopher than, Fuller—not because I’m more learned or more intelligent, but because I understand the logos better, whereas he was merely intuiting it. These differences aren't just between Fuller and me; they exist everywhere due to the application of different methodologies and logoses when solving the same problems. My methodology and my logos are superior not because of my intellect, but because I recognize the superior axial cross-section of a phenomenon, rather than relying on radial views or three separate looks at the external shape—looking at form without looking at substance. Anyone can apply this axial cross-section if they want to, but it remains unknown to most, except perhaps to engineers and designers of complex artifacts. The truth is that traditional philosophy, and even a good chunk of modern science, is unaware of such a superior "viewpoint"—this cross-section. My discovery is that the axial cross-section belongs to science and philosophy, specifically to a philosophy that philosophizes ONLY about the whole—the totality. I brought up the question of logos to explain why differences in thought occur, where "my thought" isn't actually mine, but rather the "thought" of the axial cross-section. If you actually want to know what I'm talking about, just say the word, and I’ll dive into the logos of the tetrahedron, its meaning, and its implications for Stanford University-level human intelligence—which, based on what you've written so far, you would likely be able to verify and comment on quite accurately. If you convince yourself that this is indeed a superior logos, start applying it to your own reasoning and debates. If you do, we’d see actual progress, and no one could complain that we’re just talking and writing without producing tangible results. If you—and I’m opening this up to others—could confirm that the tetrahedral axial logos is indeed superior, it would constitute a massive leap forward in philosophy, thanks to a tiny tetrahedron: the elementary geometric fractal of the universe.
it swings from darkness to light and back again. And as for God—well, you already know that talking about God isn't really going anywhere because nobody in this world actually knows who or what God is. I can't even begin to argue about some vague concept or mental image. Please, I’m just leaning on Hans Küng, a very fine theologian, and Scharden—who was quite the innovator when it came to interpreting the divine. Without a grasp of the concept of Man, the idea of God remains empty, and I simply can't engage in a debate about an empty concept.
Walter Foster87: If you’re thinking of Diogenes—I’m familiar with a few of his witty little outbursts, though not necessarily his philosophy. I haven't heard much about this specific attack by Marx, but I do know that Marx rarely bothered quoting the ancients; out of all of Aristotle's massive body of work, he only ever cites the idea of completing the commodity form—and he does it twice!
hollowpilot9: I didn't mean Diogenes, I meant Dietzgen. During Marx's era, he was considered a "lay philosopher," and his ideas were actually closer to modern understanding than Marx's were. He viewed idealism and materialism as equal sources of knowledge and cognition, advocating for a certain kind of monism. Because of that, Marx gave him a pretty harsh verbal beating and pushed him to the margins of philosophy, even though the man arguably had more philosophical depth in his head than Marx did.
Walter Foster87: Why shouldn't we be able to distinguish between past labor and living labor? It's pretty obvious that without past labor (investments, capital), living labor can't even be affirmed. Look, I'm asking you now—DEFINE THIS "PAST LABOR" YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT!
hollowpilot9: Theoretically, maybe you can draw a line, but practically speaking, the big shots won't allow it (at least not yet). Past labor is basically an endless supply of "milk" for the "milkers"—it's capital so massive that ordinary people, the little guys, can't even see the scale of it. It’s also, among other things, the "milk runoff" known as the "state budget." Just look at how many bureaucrats are hooked up to that "milk supply" within the EU alone, not to mention everywhere else?? To me, past labor is everything that exists and functions today, including the money sitting in banks that was created by people long dead, or by those who no longer possess what they built because it was taken from them one way or another. That capital—whether it takes the form of cash, knowledge, buildings, or operating machinery—is the "property" of people who no longer exist or people who have been stripped of it, which then becomes the property of their successors or those who seized it. People born into that lineage—say, through real estate, factories, or banking—are born wealthy, while everyone else is born into poverty. Since the wealthy and the state have, in various ways, appropriated huge swaths of wealth from past labor—and criminals around the world have done the same—there's this constant scramble and chaos over that wealth. It shows the blatant criminality present in many governments worldwide and so-called "organized crime." That’s the kind of past labor I'm talking about. In contrast, living labor is just what a LIVING human being performs in exchange for... well, just some meager paycheck. Alongside this, there's a parallel inflation of legal norms—laws that restrict human freedom because they are built on negatives and prohibitions. I met this young, supposedly bright lawyer who had absolutely no clue that restrictive laws are often generated based on the actions of a tiny 5–10% of criminals, yet these laws end up banning or imposing things on everyone, including honest people. For instance, a law might mandate video surveillance and physical security "to prevent petty theft," but then the camera and the security guard end up eyeing and suspecting perfectly honest citizens. I’ve actually dealt with a rather unpleasant incident myself because of exactly that. The old "establishment" used to demonstrate this on a 1:1 scale, but these rules are dreamed up by lawyers and politicians, not by "honest citizens," right?? Generally speaking, when you look at social phenomena and processes, you see an increasing tendency toward hermeticism and everything being regulated by rules invented by people for other people. In my opinion, the consequences are already catastrophic, because this trend directly undermines Constitutional provisions regarding freedom of labor, thought, speech, and so on. Where prohibitions and bans reign supreme, you simply won't find happy, satisfied, constructive, or creative people.
Walter Foster87: You know what they’d say to us? "Be brief, and you'll have accomplished much." But besides all that—of course—none of us can honestly claim to be immune to political entanglement. hollowpilot9: People who write short stuff usually just don't have anything worth saying, so they pretend they're being profound. I once told them I could describe the entire universe in a single sentence by just putting a dot on a blank sheet of paper, but nobody among those "shallow-minded" types would get it; they’d probably just tell me where to shove it. Political involvement is stifled by the very structure of politics itself—take party discipline, for example, which acts as a direct middle finger to the Constitution regarding freedom of thought and acting according to one's conscience.
Walter Foster87: See, I’m not actually sad about it. That’s because the standard was forced upon us, and it came straight from Washington. hollowpilot9: I never bought into excuses, and I’m certainly not starting now. It’s easy to just point fingers and say Washington is to blame. Personally, I think it's a mix of external and internal primitive tendencies. I’ve "slipped up" on the topic of American identity a few times. Back when we were living under that old-school era of supposed liberalism, our anthem at the military base in San Antonio was "The Battle Cry of Freedom," but in this current state of affairs, when I asked to sing that song, I practically got jumped by some "patriot" because apparently, it was "too radical." To people like that, I wouldn't just spit in their face—I'd give them a piece of my mind—and I'm not afraid of a scrap... though I usually just run away, since unfortunately, there's nobody around to defend me. There are plenty of primitives like that, which is why we're stuck taking lessons from people who completely confuse cause and effect. Half the country just sits there swallowing the nonsense spewed by these self-proclaimed domestic saints and "humanists." Once, a rather "unrefined" former President put it perfectly: "It's no longer just Washington's fault for all the bickering and stupidity in America." The American people are just split—left vs. right, Democrats vs. Republicans, nationalists vs. globalists, honest folks vs. liars, and truth-tellers vs. everyone else. Who caused that? (And look, I really don't want to get into a debate about it.)
Walter Foster87: So, you're saying it's just semantics.
hollowpilot9: Sorry, but that isn't just semantics. Every speech used to start with "This administration," or "My administration," and it always came back to the administration. It seems like leaders just catch a fever for power, because they’re constantly obsessing over "this administration" versus "my administration." I mean, does the Constitution actually say that elected officials *are* the Government after the election? If it does, then the Constitution is a joke, because the term "Government" carries all these sociological and psychological implications—it leads the clerk at the local DMV to actually believe they *are* the ultimate authority, and they act accordingly. Who needs power besides THOSE WHO RULE, or maybe just the mindless masses—though I highly doubt that, given that even cattle leave the house and come back without any sense of being "bosses"? Under the old regime, power was clearly defined as the power of the people and the party, whereas nowadays, every little party faction acts like it's the actual authority. That’s why I don't see this as a nuance; it’s a DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED USE OF A TERM to facilitate political reductionism rather than actual political freedom. Politicians, if we even need them, should be "servants of the people," not "the government of the people"—at least, that's how they're *supposed* to talk.
Walter Foster87: Well, yes and no. While man is obviously the center of everything, the modern world is carved into nation-states. Since people affirm their humanity through RIGHTS, and since every right is still a STATE right (rather than an international one), defining the membership of a political body is essentially—fundamentally—the process of OBJECTIVIZING HUMAN NATURE through the force of public authority.
hollowpilot9: I guess I was wrong there, because if a person affirms themselves through rights rather than through their own actions, then my entire humanist disdain collapses like a house of cards. If a person is validated merely by the rights written in the Federal Register, God help us! Renowned lawyers used to tell me, "Just tell us what you want, and we'll tailor a 'suit' for you." Often, inside that "suit," you find nothing but anti-humanism and criminality, yet fools actually believe it's the Law that must be obeyed!
Walter Foster87: It’s basically the core of both Cicero's and Kant's insights—the only real "difference" being that one deals with pure philosophy (Kant) while the other tackles philosophy alongside the complexities of being human (Cicero). From their perspective, the only variable is whether a philosopher realizes that their entire body of work—all those various sides, relationships, and laws—is actually just spiraling around a single central principle, essentially discovering deeper principles within existing ones...
hollowpilot9. So, there are already four of us thinking along these lines...
Walter Foster87: Obviously, the paths aren't identical—since turning inward toward the human psyche is what eventually leads to the essence, the core, the very being—the actual substance of human nature.
hollowpilot9: You know that everything traces back to Socrates' maxima—know thyself if you want to be a philosopher. This "know thyself" bit can be interpreted in a dozen different ways, but it really does come down to reaching that essence, that core, that fundamental truth of human nature, just as you said. Not to be arrogant, but I think I've reached—or am at least incredibly close to—that essence of being human. I managed it by synthesizing the micro-knowledge of modern science with the macro-knowledge found in fields like religion, philosophy, and art.
Walter Foster87: Everything exists in opposition to its opposite, which is probably why, when ideas clash, people feel compelled to pick a "black" or "white" side.
hollowpilot9. Try swapping "everything exists in opposition" with "EVERYTHING EXISTS IN POLAR COMPLEMENTARITY." If you do that, you get this intellectual microscope and telescope combo that lets you refine and expand your ideas, though you'll inevitably have to toss some of them out. This thing you mentioned, "avoiding traps," could also be called "avoiding deception." Personally, I think that's the real task for both formal and informal intelligence—not for the highly-paid police officers who are busy hunting down thieves, especially when there seem to be more thieves than ever, right??
Walter Foster87: Even so, the point is that humanity keeps moving forward. When you see how usurpers are forced to invent increasingly devious ways to manipulate and exploit people—or even exploit "natural" and acquired privileges—you HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE HUMAN MARCH TOWARD THE LIGHT IS UNSTOPPABLE.
hollowpilot9: I agree that movement is key, but I think you're familiar with the "Myth of Sisyphus," which clearly defines the boundary where "moving forward" turns into "moving backward"—which is a crucial feature of every oscillation we've discussed. In Camus' version, Sisyphus is constantly pushing something up a hill, only for that "object" to roll all the way back down once he reaches the peak, or perhaps even sooner if he loses his grip. Sisyphus' "hill" is essentially a synonym for all wave amplitudes, because that hill is really just half of a wave's amplitude. Therefore, forward motion has an evolutionary limit that I call the EVOLUTIONARY MAXIMUM. Beyond that maximum, an INVERSION occurs, and all processes begin heading back toward the starting point—not as a regression into a "primitive existence," but as a return to renewal, much like the cycles we see in any form of life. It's where the evolutionary minimum and maximum meet at a "single point," and that is what philosophy must recognize as the Truth. Only then can true philosophy be written, and the best name for such a discipline would be the Philosophy of Origin! The origin is always there, right where the inversion happens!! You say the movement toward the light is unstoppable, which makes sense if you look at how the "point" of night moves toward the light of day, but you have to remember that the "point" of day is simultaneously moving unstoppably toward the night. The crucial question is: can these directions of movement be avoided? Or rather, is there a type of movement that stays solely in the light or solely in the dark? My answer is yes, such movements exist—people just need to become aware of them. They need to learn how to "run backward" or simply stay still.
Walter Foster87: On the contrary, a philosopher shouldn't start from the assumption that all laws of nature and society can be arbitrarily changed by some omnipotent will. If they did, philosophizing would become mindless, incapable of reaching anything beyond a single conclusion. That's why, in a way, the starting point for actual research is the premise that God (an Uncomposed, perfect, unchanging... being) DOES NOT EXIST.
hollowpilot9: Look, we were talking about philosophical atheism here—which, let’s be honest, isn't even a standalone philosophy, is it? It’s more like a tiny sub-branch of philosophy, because you also have philosophical theism. As far as I can tell, the laws of nature and the laws of theism have never actually been in "conflict." The conflict only exists in the minds of people who completely misinterpret and misread both the laws of nature and theism. That should be pretty easy to prove, right? And as for drawing a single conclusion from all this... well, saying there's only one conclusion is like saying there's only one circle just because you can measure its radius. Or like concluding there’s only one shade of white, when white is really just whatever happens when you mix those four primary colors together. I honestly don't get why people keep insisting that the idea of God is some kind of prejudice or limitation. Because if that’s true, then Man is also a prejudice and a limitation—and since God and Man were never truly separate to begin with, that logic falls apart. They were only split by the ignorance of materialistic philosophers like Feuerbach and those Marxist dialecticians. Those guys "killed" God rather than establishing the connection between God and Man, and that’s where all the delusions start. You know my views well enough, but why aren't they ever actually taken seriously? Why do you, too, dodge the conversation regarding the ATTRIBUTES OF GOD AND MAN and avoid comparative analysis? To even attempt that, you'd have to abandon the notion that the idea of God is a prejudice. It's blindingly obvious today that the primary attributes of God and Man have grown so close that Rifkin had to write "Who Will Play God?" after touring secret underground bio-labs in the US. Basically, God and Man are moving toward each other, not away—which is the massive flaw in atheistic philosophy. Attributes are the facts that define what something is, regardless of how we choose to perceive it. Fiction or prejudice can't possess attributes. If an attribute of God is omnipotence, then it must also be an attribute of Man. If it isn't an attribute of Man, then it isn't an attribute of God either; in that case, it’s just fiction or prejudice. It’s funny how people will talk endlessly about everything under the sun, yet when it comes to Man, they become so reductive or just stay silent.
Walter Foster87: Change and variability aren't just one thing, you know. Relativity covers a huge range of different perspectives and points of view—even in certain "worlds" (you know, like a dog that is simultaneously consuming the food it eats and not consuming it!?)
hollowpilot9: It seems to me we're interpreting relativity in very different ways. I've already said it: Man is constantly changing, which makes his status and appearance relative, while his underlying matrix remains unchanged through all that flux. That’s the reason and the explanation for why we don't feel motion at all... even though we're hurtling through the Earth and the universe at dizzying speeds, we have no sense of that velocity. Is that a fact? Yes. And if it is, it should be respected. The idea that there is an objective physical speed of motion but no subjective one is just a fairy tale for children. In oscillatory motion, all points, all definitions, all beings are simultaneously moving and not moving. Most people miss this contradiction because they were never taught to study the phenomenology of oscillation as a universal phenomenon in the cosmos.
Walter Foster87: Now I'm getting the feeling you're talking about a version of "relativity" that isn't much different from what I mentioned regarding the consequences of theistic philosophy (I mean, what could there even be to study if God can just change everything instantly and completely)?
hollowpilot9: There's no need for me to explain relativity, because I always imply the relativity that belongs to the complementary polar entities of the whole, whereas the whole is always absolute. I know this contradiction isn't easy to grasp at first glance, but if you put in the effort, you'll see that the relative and the absolute are simultaneous. I explained this using the relationship of a polar pair, oscillation, and quantum motion. These are the insights and conclusions of nonlinear perception. So, I don't need convincing regarding the relativity of space-time and polar entities up to the point of the singularity—that is, until the Absolute begins the inversion of the relative. Acceleration turns into retardation, and life moves toward the light instead of away from it.
Walter Foster87: Direct democracy doesn't actually exist—but why is that? Seriously, why? They taught us that nonsense too—treating us like children, really—under the ridiculous pretext that we can’t all just gather in one place, say, downtown Chicago or something, to have an actual discussion and reach a consensus. As if 330 million people couldn't just get together and figure things out? It's a bit much, isn't it? But look—even if you take all that criticism into account, it still doesn't explain how we ended up with this absolute disaster of a government. We’re talking about a bunch of "chosen" elites who basically use Federal Reserve money to bankroll the interests of the major political parties... which, let's be honest, is just a way to more effectively crush anyone representing smaller factions or independent groups. Those guys? They usually end up footing the bill themselves out of their own pockets. It's a rigged system, isn't it? That’s really how you have to look at it—the way the American political landscape leans against democratic ideals is pretty clear, if you actually bother to look at the election results. It's right there in the numbers. And honestly, the shift toward parliamentarism? That wasn't some grand ideological choice because it's the "gold standard" system. It was more of a necessity—a move made because they simply couldn't maintain a one-party rule anymore. Just look at how much they’re going to squawk about "two major parties"—it’s predictable, really. Honestly, you have to wonder—have these establishment journalists completely lost their minds? Or maybe they just don't have any brains to begin with? Or, more likely, they’re just naturally anti-democratic by design. Because let’s be real—in a true democracy, any significant interest or idea that manages to pull a decent chunk of voter support actually deserves a seat at the table within the government. It’s not that complicated, is it? So, there’s basically zero foundation for it—no systemic way to stop an idea from creeping into the minds of a hundred representatives if it happens to be backed by just one or more percent of the voters. I mean, how do you even begin to design a system that prevents a small minority interest from infiltrating the legislative process? It's almost impossible, right?
hollowpilot9: I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t shake the feeling that the real culprit here is the West's entire worldview—this deep-seated perspective that basically asks: Why is Jesus looking so somber while Buddha is just sitting there smiling? We have this habit of treating an Emperor like a god, a King like God, or even a President like some divine entity. Whether it’s Harry or Serge, we turn people into idols... and honestly, that seems to be the root of the idiocy you're talking about. If you want to boil it down, the cause is just plain stupidity—which, unfortunately, still seems to be running the show. The real question is: what are we actually supposed to do to make people smart—or "intellectual," as you put it? In my view, helping people develop actual intelligence should be the primary mission for any modern intellectual, rather than just recycling the same old nonsense from the past and present. If you want to look at our political democracy, it really says everything you need to know about the caliber of representatives we’re stuck with in this country. If this is supposed to be the gold standard—if this is what "functioning" looks like—then I guess I’m just a sad guy living in a democracy where the top leaders and high-ranking officials bicker like they’re working at some local corner grocery store. Seriously, is this really the best we can do?
Alright, let’s look at this from another angle. Imagine we actually wanted to follow the old Greek ideal—you know, the idea that we shouldn't be ruled by some guy, but by the Law itself. It just makes sense when you think about it. I mean, humans are famously unpredictable, right? One day a leader simply wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. The next, he’s being swayed by his buddies, his family, or whoever happens to be in his inner circle. Then there’s the third scenario where he just has a momentary lapse in judgment or logic—we've all been there—and by the fourth time, maybe his focus just isn't what it used to be... why gamble on that? Well, if we aren't going to go the "Methuselah" route, then let’s just look at the French Revolution—you know, the one that actually tried to establish a Constitution as the ultimate rule of law to protect the people from any kind of government overreach or abuse of power.
So, who exactly is going to pass this thing—and more importantly, how does that even work? Is anyone actually pulling the strings here, or are we all just watching the gears turn without knowing who’s turning them? Would you actually call that entity the "body of power" and just accept that neither its existence nor its actions—nor even its position—are really anything more than markers of social primitivism? Or are we still pretending otherwise? If that’s actually how you see things—then honestly, you might need to take a long, hard look at your entire concept of power.
hollowpilot9: It’s funny how our media handles terminology—when they talk about the USA, they refer to the "federal administration," but when they talk about things here at home, they suddenly pivot to using the word "Government." Honestly, I don't get it, and frankly, I don't want to. To me, that concept of "The Government" feels like it’s designed to limit freedom; it implies something looming "above" us. Why don't we just call it the federal administration, or maybe state management—the kind of management that runs the country much like a CEO manages General Motors? I mean, what’s actually the difference between managing a workforce of a million people at a General Motors plant and managing the citizens of a nation? They’re all just people, right? In my view, unless running a country becomes a legitimate, professional career—much like the professional job of managing a massive corporation—we aren't going to see any real political progress. We see this concept of autopoiesis—self-creation, for those who aren't familiar—developing within modern companies all the time. Well, shouldn't we be discovering and developing autopoiesis within society and the state as well? In a truly autopoietic society, there wouldn't be any room for "The Government" or those in power, no matter how many democratic pretenses they try to wrap themselves in.
Look, I’m pretty sure Americans were actually the first ones to roll out this whole dual citizenship concept. And if you follow that logic to its natural conclusion—which, let's face it, isn't hard to do—it means actual citizens don't even exist in the States anymore. Instead, you just have two groups: those who merely "think" they’re American citizens, and then there are the ones who actually KNOW they are something else entirely—true citizens of America.
hollowpilot9: Alright, we’re thinking along the same lines—we're talking about the HUMAN being!
Walter Foster87: Well, you could look at it this way. In order to protect production and ensure the prototype of the primal organism actually works, people first had to defend that entire process with JOINT EFFORT—protecting it from wild animals and those leftover members of the old pack who haven't quite "realized" what's happening yet. hollowpilot9: I’m more focused on THAT POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE FORCE, even when it manifests as a component of human society. Those forces stay invisible until you slam your fist into a wall—or when someone else decides to hit you in the head with a "wall."
Walter Foster87: I think force is just force; what you’re describing—the varying quality of its expression and results—actually belongs to WHATEVER DRIVES THAT FORCE, or whatever stands behind the action as the underlying CAUSE.
hollowpilot9: No, I’m talking about the equivalence of constructive and destructive force, much like the equivalence of mass and energy. They both look and act like force, but they are fundamentally OPPOSITE, which makes them distinct rather than identical. One is a negative force, the other is positive. They only reach neutrality at the center, in a unified state—but does philosophy even bother to tackle that?
Walter Foster87: True, though—judging by everything—there is ONLY ONE COMBINATION that actually works.
hollowpilot9: WORTH REMEMBERING!
Walter Foster87: Right... well, there's the rub. Because, for instance—I don't see much point in seriously obsessing over mayoral or gubernatorial elections until we actually GAIN THE RIGHT TO ELECT local judges or police chiefs.
hollowpilot9: That really highlights how far we still are from an immediate, or as I like to call it, a biodemocracy. It shows just how much of our current democratic model is nothing more than a farce.
Let's have a little chat about LOGOS when we think, talk, philosophize, or put forward theories. Which Logos are you using when you think—when you philosophize? Is it Greek, or something else entirely? And finally, do you have any actual IDEAS regarding the Truth? What does Truth mean to you? I suggest we return to Truth (assuming it exists) as the central concept of philosophy.
Walter Foster87: Here’s the thing—it all comes down to the human being. Since everything we actually *do* is driven by what makes us who we are, our own inherent capacities act as this insurmountable boundary, a sort of ceiling on our ability to truly perceive anything. The Truth is both exactly what it is and, simultaneously, completely unknown. Can we honestly say that we—as conscious beings—are so dim-witted that we don't know a single thing, or that we have absolutely no concept of ourselves? Of course not. But then, we fall into this hypocritical trap where we claim something is "common knowledge"—which is probably the most criminal phrase in all of philosophy and science—to define what a human is. Yet, at the same time, we can't decide if a person (including ourselves) is this or that—whether we are rational, intellectual, willful, soulful, or just a chaotic mess... you get the idea.
And this is exactly where the "Jehovah's Witnesses" come crashing in. They spend all their time blaring about how wonderful life would be if we all just bowed down to some divine set of laws.
hollowpilot9: I decided to take a different route in my search for the Truth—something more anti-Jehovah, if you will—because I wasn't particularly interested in their specific interpretation of divine law (their leaders usually have the Bible memorized word-for-word anyway). My primary interest was whether there exists a UNIVERSAL TRUTH that encompasses all truths, including those of Jehovah. In a sense, I dove into merging the profane with the sacred, joining heaven and earth, as one gentleman once put it. Most people think that's impossible, but I think it's entirely doable! Once, I actually had an encounter with a Jehovah's Witness leader who was incredibly slick with his Bible quotes, but it quickly became obvious that he didn't have the slightest clue who or what Jehovah actually is. That case perfectly illustrates how easy it is to parrot memorized text, while grasping the core thought behind the text—the very thing everything revolves around—is incredibly difficult. If the central thought is Jehovah or the Christian God, and we can't actually MAP out that thought, then the only RIGHT move is to go "mining" and look at what the ancient peoples thought: the Chinese, Indians, Incas, Aztecs, Assyrians, Egyptians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Europeans, and so on... When you sift through all of that, you find the same interpretations of God, cosmology, humanity, and Truth, expressed through the methodologies of their respective eras. Since these truths are often marginalized or dismissed as mere "mysticism," I looked to see if these "MYSTICAL" truths exist within modern science—doing something similar to what Capra did with Eastern "mysticism." And, naturally, the result was the same: I found that ancient ideas and symbols regarding Jehovah and God are present in modern science as well. Given that most people are tuned to intellectual conformity and rote learning, it's easy to see why this merging of the profane and sacred, of heaven and earth, is easily brushed off as just some nonsense from hollowpilot9, while total lies are sold off as truth. To me, that's the heart of the problem with our modern intellectual landscape: it's overwhelmingly conformist, trendy, and extremely subjective. Based on those subjective views, MAN is seen as this terrifyingly complex and tangled natural or divine creation, because that fits the narrative for all sorts of mystics. But I start from the FACT that a human is a very simple bio-sexual creature that perceives and interprets itself falsely because it isn't able to SEE ITSELF—except in a mirror or indirectly through another person. Only when the MIND takes action and turns toward the internal workings of the HUMAN—something people are either reluctant to do or simply don't know how to do, since they rarely investigate themselves biologically or structurally—does religious, scientific, philosophical, and artistic Truth emerge, because it is UNIVERSAL. After such a structurally concrete encounter with "JEHOVAH," everything becomes TRANSPARENT—so transparent that every intention and identity is visible in advance, because we are dealing with the phenomenon of UNIVERSAL TRUTH, an image, a formula, or a definition. Painting only the "dark side of the coin" isn't correct or truthful, because it's certain there is also a "white side." Since religion has "stuck" itself to the white side of the coin despite wearing BLACK clothing, and the secular MIND has stuck itself to the black side despite wearing WHITE clothing, I'M NOT "WRONG"—rather, it's the flawed phenomenology of dividing the world into black and white complementary entities that appear both polaristically divided and polaristically united, which is the essence of human existence and all other simplicities. So, the fundamental philosophical question for me is: toward which side of the coin does man and humanity gravitate—the black, the white, or both?? We already have plenty of PHENOMENA arguing that secular culture is moving toward the BLACK side of the coin, which seems to support the thesis that we are sinking further into a civilization of night rather than day. It looks credible and true to me. Light obviously tends toward a "civilization of night," evidenced by all kinds of nocturnal mass attractions, parties, and orgies. So, whether we like it or not, the fact remains: WHILE WE SLEEP, THEY—the "night birds"—are working. WHEN WE WAKE UP, WE FIND WE'VE BEEN ROBBED, DECEIVED, OR OPPRESSED. Therefore, my thesis is that an INVERSION IS NECESSARY. The "night birds" need to start working, and WE (the philosophers) should head into the "nightlife" so we can get better acquainted with the hookers, the hustlers, the lesbians, the homosexuals, the gamblers, the criminals, the thieves, and all the other "night birds" who WORK while WE sleep. Without that, no matter how hard we work, there is no rational realization or benefit, because while WE are working, the "night birds" are sleeping!!?
So, here we go again—back to the same old collision between theism (the idea that an Absolute actually exists) and atheism (or if the non-believers prefer to get fancy with it, "philosophical atheism," which claims the Absolute doesn't exist *a priori*, yet somehow ends up being both existent and non-existent *a posteriori* at the exact same time). Isn't that just grand? So, that’s why philosophical atheism works the way it does—everything is relative, sure, but it isn't exactly devoid of the concept of NON-EXISTENCE, is it?
hollowpilot9: Philosophical atheism isn't actually a philosophy—it’s just a misguided worldview held by certain atheist thinkers. Philosophy itself is something much broader, deeper, and more encompassing than mere atheism. It relies on the idea that things both exist and do not exist simultaneously—you know, that quantum, non-linear way of perceiving the world. We seem to agree on that part, don't we? But you can't really say the same for the relative, because the relative only ever *exists*. If you can wrap your head around that contradiction, it becomes much easier to embrace both the relative and the absolute within philosophy—which is exactly what makes it actual philosophy. Leaving only the relative to the sciences, where it belongs. Philosophers and philosophy itself ought to be lovers of the absolute, not the relative; lovers of the sacred rather than the profane; lovers of the infinite, rather than the finite; and lovers of Man—with a capital M—rather than just some random individual.
The kind of relativism you’re bringing up—it's probably just that blind version peddled by those "dialecticians" who basically reject any idea of an Absolute from the jump. They seem to start from this shaky ground they don't even fully grasp themselves—you know, that whole "everything is constantly changing" or *Panta rei* bit. It’s all very circular, isn't it? I mean, if everything is constantly shifting, then it’s pretty obvious that "Everything" itself is in flux. Which would make the Whole—the Totality, the Absolute—part of that change too. Or is it? Does the foundation move along with the building, or does it just stay put while everything else slides around it? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, really. I mean, I’m thinking of them, sure—but I’m also thinking about that massive crowd of incompetents out there who can do nothing more than parrot whatever Einstein or Marx said, or some random philosophy professor... Relativism always ends up acting like a barricade—a total roadblock preventing us from actually reaching the Truth. And without that, philosophy is basically in a coma. You can only breathe life back into it through the Absolute, not through this relative nonsense that has left the whole field begging for scraps on the street.
Unfortunately, if you actually look at the data, the analysis tells a different story—namely, that the old bearded philosopher definitely knew about other sources of value, and likely other forms of commodities too... maybe even non-labor-based ones. His spiritual mentor—Hegel—actually dedicated quite a bit of space to this exact idea, even if he didn't explicitly label that specific social form of things by name. But he certainly shouted about it from the rooftops through all his deep dives into property and ownership! Look, I don't buy the idea that students know less than their teachers—that just doesn't track for me. It’s a bit like that whole fairy tale about how Marx supposedly had no clue what Schopenhauer was writing; if you ask me, that story was probably cooked up just to gloss over the way Marx used eristic dialectics in his own work. Why would anyone bother making up a lie like that? It feels a little too convenient, doesn't it?
hollowpilot9: I probably don't know if Marx actually realized it, but he went after Diogenes—or someone like that—pretty viciously, essentially tossing him to the fringes of philosophy. And yet, from a modern perspective, this self-taught philosopher arguably thought and wrote better than the great Marx himself? I suspect Marx just didn't see it coming. I mean, as a supposedly massive economist, he argued that gold is valuable because it requires so much actual human labor to mine, which is widely considered total nonsense today, isn't it? By that same logic, he couldn't have known that some rock band, just by thrashing electric guitars and jumping around on stages, would end up making more dollars in ten years than the entire American working class earned while he was "passionately" scribbling away *Das Kapital*. But honestly, that’s beside the point. The real issue—the thing we can't seem to wrap our heads around—is our inability to fix the relationship between private capital and social capital (read: State-run capitalism). We lack a mechanism to distinguish between past labor, which creates wealth *today*, and current living labor, which is tiny compared to the sheer volume of accumulated past labor that continues to drive the economy in every sense. So, it’s no wonder we’re shocked when someone becomes a billionaire overnight just by capturing the productive value of all that past labor, while the people who only earn based on their own current labor are left scraping by. That right there is the genesis of all the economic and political injustices that nobody talks about—or maybe they just don't want to.
That’s more or less it—except you’ve basically lumped everyone together. You’ve got the folks who actually doubt their own mental capacity—you know, the ones questioning their own perceptions—mixed up with the crowd that only climbed the intellectual ladder so they could secure a cushy seat at the banquet table, just like their fathers did. Is it really the same thing? Not quite. hollowpilot9: Fair point, really—but I’m not trying to paint everyone with the same brush here. I'm just pointing out what the dominant trend seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of brilliant, wonderful people working in academia and the intellectual circles out there... it’s more about the specific dynamic between the two groups, isn't it? Most academics and intellectuals have basically checked out long ago—they're just sleepwalking through life at this point.
Continuation: It’s all about the masses. Let's be real—they are the ones actually feeling the squeeze (not the academics or the intelligentsia, let's get that straight), they hold the actual keys to any election, and if you bother to listen to them in a bar or a coffee shop, you realize they aren't nearly as dim-witted as the pundits claim. The real question, though, is why on earth would anyone vote against their own common sense and lived experience? hollowpilot9: It isn't about whether intellectuals are innocent or guilty—it's about their obligation to act. Look, just like a cobbler is expected to actually fix a shoe rather than just write essays about leather, it is the duty of the academic and the intellectual to engage with the world. They shouldn't just sit in ivory towers; they need to work on the public good, from major existential crises down to the mundane stuff like the price of groceries. These political grifters are successful because they're smart enough to invent social rules—smart enough to manifest a political party designed solely to siphon off taxpayer money—and then they have the nerve to say, "Don't blame me, blame *them*, *they* are the thieves stealing your money, so vote for *me* to stop them." The sheer audacity of these political hacks is endless... and yet, the citizens just stay silent, look the other way, or pretend not to notice, effectively handing over the steering wheel to the crooks. Walter Foster87: Sure, in a culture that recognizes it relies on creation, reproduces it, and enjoys its fruits. But how many of us have actually chosen that identity? How many truly understand *why* we respect the law, even when it's terrible, simply because the alternative—living without any rules at all—is much worse? hollowpilot9: There you go again, prattling on about UPBRINGING! Where does that start, and where does creative development actually end? Certainly not in a dive bar or a nightclub! Walter Foster87: Well, following the principle of the fulcrum and the lever... obviously, it happens indirectly. In a society, it happens through persuasion, suggestion, and—if necessary—deception. That’s how they supposedly spread potatoes through France and the rest of Europe. Instead of giving lectures on nutrition, the French king allegedly piled up two massive heaps of potatoes, stationed guards nearby, and threatened death to anyone caught touching them. Of course, he told the guards to "sleep" and "see nothing," so—as the story goes—both piles vanished by the next morning. (I suppose Parisians can be just as stubborn as people in the South, or maybe just as defiant as folks in the Midwest...)
hollowpilot9: Great point, Walter Foster87, but go ask ten of your acquaintances and you'll see they haven't the slightest clue how the levers and fulcrums that build the foundation of the world actually function. But my question is deeper and broader because it involves Archimedes and his (ABSOLUTE) fixed point—the one that, if found, could move the Earth! However, the transformation of force works differently here, in a way that escapes both philosophy and science. Traditional theories suggest force builds up by accumulating units of power, but with a lever, force is created by the relationship between the arm and the load—and the arm itself isn't the force! Walter Foster87: Let’s look at it this way. Force has a very specific meaning today. After all, it was force alone that affirmed and maintained parliamentarism, imposing it upon the world as the standard DEMOCRATIC (!?) system. But even such a system and such force are merely "for the era." The reason they exist right now is something far more sublime and magnificent than the systems themselves. In practical terms, there’s a certain blending of things, but in the grand historical process, intelligence eventually drives force, and in the end, there’s no doubt which one will end up in the driver's seat.
hollowpilot9: You make valid points, but it isn't ENOUGH to grasp the ROLE OF FORCE in existence and human society. My hesitation and "uncertainty" come from the fact that force has an incredibly dual nature: it is simultaneously CONSTRUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE. Forces, large and small, are EVERYWHERE, and the question is which face they will show. Very few people realize force has two sides—like when you're driving a car. You usually don't learn about its second, destructive side until it's TOO LATE OR NEVER.
Walter Foster87: Humans are strange creatures. If all their desires were met and they had no more tasks to perform, they’d die of boredom (if they didn't finish themselves off first). Besides, optimism provides the fundamental sense of purpose to everything. Pessimism might be a temporary state, or perhaps a symptom of opportunism (which is a form of critical thinking that I don't think is as useless as people usually assume), but it cannot be a PERMANENT VALUE. That makes it extremely dangerous. By the way, supposed followers of Marx practiced a PESSIMISTIC IDEOLOGY—following every period of growth and wealth creation, there was always the collapse of social relations and war!
hollowpilot9: Humans are such strange creatures, aren't we? We're told we're made "in the image and likeness of our creator," yet the statistical number of ways that could actually manifest is just... massive.
Walter Foster87: It’s obvious—they’ve managed to force themselves on us. But what have we actually done about it? Or do we just sit here whining on this forum, or gossiping over coffee and at the dinner table?
Granted, experience usually shows there isn't much you can do. But that's only because any attempts are isolated—just specific districts, counties, or small towns. The whole system is rigged to be a COMPETITION OVER WHO HAS THE MOST CASH AND THE BIGGEST FINANCIERS rather than an ACTUAL CLASH OF IDEAS... But, look, if suddenly in every single town, every city, every county, and every district across we saw candidate lists stepping into the light with SIMILAR programs—even just five or six core points—only then could we honestly judge how much of this mess is actually our own fault.
hollowpilot9: They’ll keep forcing their way in because—well, as you keep saying, RADE, RADE, RADE—while we’re busy babbling away in cafes and online forums. In one of those chatty little cafes once, someone actually asked me what my model for a local municipality would look like. So, I laid it out for them: For mayor, ONLY successful, respected individuals could run—people with proven business track records, plus cultural, intellectual, and social contributions. Basically, no political party members allowed! From maybe 1, 2, 5, or even 10 such candidates, the citizens would choose one person to receive a MANDATE to act as the municipality's social MANAGER for four years. My first day on the job would start by asking the local administration for a curriculum vitae for every single citizen—which, of course, they wouldn't have. If they didn't, they'd have to build them from scratch. Then, I'd pick 3 to 5 distinguished locals to serve as advisors. I'd ask them to use those CVs to select the 30 most capable citizens based on industries vital to the town. Once they proposed names, I'd call those 30 people in and explain my concept of a mandate (not a "rule"). If they bought in, I'd propose a management team of, say, 12 people assigned to specific roles. Each would get the authority to handpick their own sector's staff, creating a municipal team to run things for the next four years. That team would then present itself to the public along with its program for the term. Everyone in that cafe agreed with the concept, but it’s impossible to pull off because of all the legal red tape cooked up by the "nobodies." One of our local leaders was thrilled with the idea and wanted to publish it in one of our newspapers. The editor-in-chief loved it too, but the political columnist tossed the whole thing in the trash because he belongs to the same clique as those "nobodies." And that's it. That's why we have what we have.
Walter Foster87 says to Amanda Fowler2: When you’re talking about justice, equality, and freedom—don’t bother asking questions, just WORK, WORK, WORK...
hollowpilot9: That’s fine and all, but you missed one massive thing—the TRUTH. So, if we look at your sentence through a four-dimensional lens—which is really the only way to get a FULL AND REAL PERCEPTION—it actually goes: When it comes to justice, equality, freedom, and Truth, don't ask anything, just WORK, WORK, WORK. I see your point, but how can anyone work, work, work if they don't know the Truth? Just look at the Western humanists and how much they worked, worked, worked... and there isn't even a single "h" left in "humanism." Why? Because they didn't know the Truth! It’s the exact same story today.
Walter Foster87: I sort of prefer treating those "absolute constants" as scientific terms, because in philosophy, everything is relative. Even when things seem different to us—different enough, or "absolutely" different.
hollowpilot9: Oh, come on, Walter Foster87! Philosophy without knowing the Absolute isn't philosophy. What you're saying—that everything is relative in philosophy—is simply WRONG. I could just point to Chinese philosophy with the absolute concept of TAO, or European philosophy with Hegel and his absolute idea in *Phenomenology of Spirit*. Besides, you seem to think there’s no distinction between a scientific Absolute and a philosophical one. For instance, the scientific absolute might be the four fundamental forces of the universe, whereas for Buddhists, the absolute truth lies in the Four Noble Truths. For me, personally, the absolute truth is that the tetrahedron is the universal fractal of the cosmos. And let’s not even start on the absolute in theology; relativism regarding the absolute is just mental conformism that clings to the relativity of the "radius" while ignoring the "absolute circle"—you know, the absolute value of PI. Relativism in philosophy basically put it on a beggar's crutch because the "absolute God" was killed, and instead of affirming Humanity, we just got physics-based relativism.
Walter Foster87: But that carries a different kind of danger; for example, people defined a fork as a utensil for eating, a weapon for killing, and so on... We need to find a middle ground. Especially since research seeks to investigate the individual parts of a phenomenon. So, the middle ground would involve bringing out everything that has been relativized, suppressed, or stripped away during the process of examination.
Look at this example. In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx writes, "The wealth of a capitalist society appears as an ENORMOUS COLLECTION OF commodities." In other words, he REMOVED from social wealth all the goods that have a social form but aren't "commodities" (meaning, they aren't for sale). Then, throughout that entire massive work, he takes a PART for the WHOLE, pitching capitalism as a system where EVERYTHING CAN BE BOUGHT WITH MONEY, where the commodity form is the universal form of all labor products...
The problem here is that this "sterilization" successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes right from the start. And whoever missed the beginning—well, ask God—WHERE did they end up!? hollowpilot9: You probably haven't grasped what a functional, harmonic system means, because a "fork" can only be a tool within a system, not a functional part of it. A functional part is always in interaction with all the pieces that make up a harmonic whole, and a fork isn't exactly the best example for that. A better example would be, say, a gear in a Swiss watch. Your Marx example is a bit better, but that messy, bearded gentleman didn't realize that CAPITAL isn't just the result of human labor, but also the result of "THE COMPASS AND THE WIND," as Karl Sagan so brilliantly established! The Marxist concept of a "commodity" is total nonsense today because a COMMODITY HAS BECOME SOFTWARE, not just hardware... something Marx obviously had no clue about. It's like how many people don't realize that wealth is created by SINGING, not just by MINING!
It's still not being taught in schools, even though Walter Foster87 says: How can they not!? "What is possible to achieve partially is also possible to achieve in its entirety" (Aristotle). But there's something else being hidden regarding philosophy and philosophers. Their goal isn't some pursuit of truth just for the sake of truth. That phrase is just plain stupidity anyway, because a human BEING HAS CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, so they only discover what they are capable of discovering. The truth is that the search for truth is primarily done FOR THE SAKE OF MAN AND HUMAN SOCIETY. This includes the natural sciences—it's as much a necessity as the physical side of a person. But the essence of philosophy isn't found in reflection (God), nor in the obsessions of science, but in the PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE WORLD RESTS, because that world is MAN, and that applies to every single INDIVIDUAL. (When I die, literally—the whole world dies with me!)
hollowpilot9: They just don't have it because they lack the capacity to think—and honestly, it works both ways! AGCTGSATTCAG... you see, it doesn't just read from left to right; it reads from right to left too. It’s a pattern, a symmetry. And yet, they still aren't teaching us how to read like that in our schools, even though it’s basically baked into our everyday existence. Why is that?
I’m not exactly losing sleep over the masses—honestly, they’ve always been perfectly content with their "bread and circuses," haven't they? It's more the supposed "intellectual class" that gets under my skin. There’s something deeply unsettling about watching the intelligentsia stop leading and start mimicking the crowd... though, I suppose that just aligns perfectly with what everyone expects from them anyway.
hollowpilot9: What you’ve laid out there is basically a "disturbing snapshot of the modern world." It makes me wonder—why is intelligence so incredibly lazy when it comes to facing this blatant, widespread disregard for the common good? My take is that this supposed "crisis of intelligence" exists because it has retreated into its own microscopic bubble instead of engaging with the macro-level reality of life. These massive, sweeping shifts in our society catch the intellectual class so off guard that they can barely manage to report on what's actually happening, let alone make sense of it. So, isn't the real issue just a fundamental inability—a genuine lack of knowledge—to tackle today's actual problems? By the time these thinkers come up with a solution, the problem has already moved on, leaving their ideas obsolete and useless. It’s not really about how we run things—the mechanics of the process aren't the core issue here. The real problem is that we haven't actually built a system modeled after direct democracy yet. Isn't that the whole point? If history teaches us anything at all—and I suspect it does—it’s just that usurpers are constantly (so far, anyway) finding some shiny NEW way to keep the masses under their thumb. This whole concept of modern parliamentarism? It feels like a total coward's egg, really—just a thin shell hiding all those little 밑 subplots like dual citizenship, immunity, and that supposed "separation of powers" that everyone claims keeps things balanced. Is it actually balance, though, or just more layers to the game?
hollowpilot9: See, the problem really lies in the METHODOLOGY. Direct democracy doesn't actually exist, sure—but what’s even worse is the complete lack of actual communication "feedback." We don't have that two-way, multi-directional flow you see in biological organisms. Instead, you’ve got a standard newspaper editor acting as an anti-democratic filter—not to mention all the state bureaucrats, local officials, and those other filters we deal with daily. Until we develop some kind of meaningful, spiritual, and deeply pragmatic way of communicating, we won't have true democracy, unity, or freedom. The whole thing about subjugating individuals—or "the masses," if you prefer—only works because, within our social system, the individual is treated as an OBJECT rather than a SUBJECT of power. As long as people are viewed as subjects instead of collaborators; as long as the lowest-level worker is seen as a tool rather than a partner; as long as stupidity is prioritized over intelligence; and as long as a regular person isn't treated with the weight of a Pharaoh (the elite)... then any talk about democracy is just a farce.
Actually, I’d argue that power should be the primary subject of any philosopher's research—I mean, isn't power essentially the foundation of an organized society? If you look at it that way, a society working toward true justice—or freedom and equality, if we're talking about what makes sense for a productive community—builds its institutions and its authority for its own sake. It’s all about securing liberty and equality for every single member, right? The fact that the government remains completely out of touch with the people—well, that isn't actually a failure of the administration at all (they don't even seem to grasp the concept, let alone the vocabulary)—it’s really a problem with the "people" themselves.
hollowpilot9. Not in any way, shape, or form. Power is just a label for social primitivism—it’s basically proof that we haven't actually evolved much as a society. So, I guess that’s basically how it works—but let’s be real: an administration is just supposed to *administer*. When you start talking about the general application, the actual force, or the validity of laws—especially when we're dealing with things like denied rights, legal contradictions, or the enforcement of specific rulings—that isn't really the administration's job. That’s why we need to use the right terminology here—we have to talk about actual power. By the way, you keep using the term "citizens" as if we’re all standing on level ground—but let’s be real, there’s no such thing as true equality among us. We aren't really "citizens" in that philosophical sense; we're just subjects of the state. There's a massive distinction there, isn't there?
hollowpilot9: There’s really no doubt about it—an administration actually administers—it's just a matter of figuring out how they do it and whose interests they're actually serving. Take the US federal government, for example; they have these internal protocols that basically mandate an official has to respond to every single piece of correspondence from a citizen. It's built into the system. But here? Well, you could practically call our bureaucracy a series of administrative black holes. Is anyone actually getting answers, or are we just shouting into the void?
Look, we can't exactly claim the academics are innocent in all of this. But honestly? Being exposed by the public is punishment enough. History is going to remember them for how easily—without a shred of scientific integrity or any sense of shame—they just swapped their "communist" outfits for "capitalist" ones. Honestly, I’d structure your pyramid a little differently. The political thugs are at least taking the blame for this mess—mostly because, let’s face it, we clearly aren't capable of picking anyone better than them. Or maybe we just can't—for whatever reason—make a better choice? It's a question, really. Then you’ve got the academics and the "intellectuals" right under them, because they should have actually stepped up and done something about it... but they didn't. Aside from that recent shake-up over at Yale, anyway.
Walter Foster87: I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that's quite it... Because if a constant... goodness, it only holds true THROUGH THIS OR THAT MEDIUM... otherwise it’s DIFFERENT, making it a variable after all... -
hollowpilot9: Fine, I won't insist on everyone grasping the concept of an Absolute Constant, but if you're curious, just look at what happens to a single point during wave oscillation or circular motion. See, all circles are relative—you can have an infinite variety of radii—yet PI is the ABSOLUTE constant for all of them. That’s the kind of absolute constant I believe philosophy ought to be studying.
Walter Foster87: Well, that’s already a question of methodology. I don't have anything against relativizing the trivial or the incidental—you know, to highlight certain features or aspects of a thing—but... that kind of relativism is SIMULTANEOUSLY UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS if the "experiment's" extraneous elements aren't skillfully isolated and accounted for.
hollowpilot9: In any harmonious, functional system, nothing is truly incidental; everything matters. A harmonious system doesn't view the incidental as such—it tosses whatever can be relativized out like "waste," and constantly replaces the other things that seem relative. This actually illustrates why relativization ALONE is dangerous. In psychology, it leads a person toward meaninglessness and, ultimately, suicide.
Walter Foster87: Now, that is a brilliant point. Not necessarily because such a matrix exists or doesn't, but because—at least from my perspective—philosophers always seem to lose their grip when it comes to genomes and their matrices. Philosophers struggle to define human NATURE, and their "great Leviathan" (the state) can't really find its footing until they uncover that "spiritual" GENOME and its underlying matrix.
hollowpilot9: Since you called it "brilliant," I'm convinced that traditional philosophers aren't just losing their grip because of genomic matrices, but MORE SO because of the LOGOS that contains those matrices—something they simply cannot grasp. The young duo Watson and Crick, who discovered that logos within the DNA molecule, were primarily PHILOSOPHERS rather than scientists, despite how they are portrayed today. They set themselves an IMPOSSIBLE task: to connect the SAME with the SAME. Before them, it was IMPOSSIBLE; after them, the IMPOSSIBLE became POSSIBLE. And unfortunately, philosophers still haven't realized that.
Walter Foster87: Well, there's still that "wide open door"—at least that's one thing that could never be denied to us.
hollowpilot9: Sure, the "wide open door" is always there, but modern processes are driving us toward micro-polarization and capillary action. These days, a "pirate earring on a man" or a "belly button piercing on a woman" seems far more important to people than the actual Human standing behind those "wide open doors." It's incredible how many people would rather stay hermetically sealed—say, inside the tin can of an automobile—than actually walk through an open field.
Walter Foster87: It's good to develop the idea of the creator (the Inventor). But it isn't just about providing support or a special social status for those who innovate.
hollowpilot9: My thesis is that the current model of power—the party-based democracy practiced not just here, but throughout the world—will vanish within twenty years, replaced by the oncoming bio- and cyber-democracy. The very concept of POWER should be wiped from public (political) discourse. It is genuinely terrifying how our political clowns view themselves as THE POWER, rather than mere administration—civil servants working for the citizens. It isn't the fault of the masses, nor is it the fault of those political hacks playing at being rulers; the blame lies with the academics and the humanist intellectuals who endorse this version of POWER by remaining "wisely" silent. In a culture that fosters and supports true creation, things operate entirely differently. For instance, a police officer in Seoul will tow a wrongly parked car to the right spot, whether the driver is there or not, whereas our "repressive" police officer—because he is tasked with protecting POWER—will penalize the driver simply for parking in a forbidden zone.
Walter Foster87: You see, you know: FORCE IS ALWAYS A MEANS, even when it's abstract. Which means the intelligent force used to mediate is the MIND.
hollowpilot9: Perhaps I only know this subconsciously, but as someone well-versed in PHYSICAL FORCE, I certainly can't explain how a force of 15 kg—just the strength of my own hands—can, thanks to a MEDIATOR, produce a force of 10,000 kg and lift a loaded freight car.
Walter Foster87: Not really. Even when they try to feed us some nonsense about where laws actually come from—it feels like a total smokescreen, doesn't it? It’s just a way to mask the RATIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL REASONS behind passing legislation. You know, the kind of stuff where those who are seizing control want to beef up their own positions, their economic clout, or their rights... or, you know, just systematically weaken everyone else who's been pushed under their thumb.
hollowpilot9: I can't bring myself to be quite as blunt as you, Walter Foster87, when you say there's "NO" such thing. See, force—even if we're just looking at basic biology—serves two functions at once: one existential and one lethal. It’s vital for the one doing the "hunting," but obviously fatal for the one being "hunted." Is it really that simple?
So, you can already see two distinct paths emerging here—on one hand, there's the defensive side, protecting ourselves from cosmic threats (think meteors and stuff like that), and on the other, this weird competitive drive that pushes us toward constant innovation. It’s all about creating new forms of invincibility. Especially since modern warfare isn't really about destroying an enemy anymore—it's more about dismantling the very concept of enmity itself. Ever since World War II, the goal hasn't been to redraw borders, but rather to reshape the defeated territory to fit a specific image. Because we aren't out there carving up maps like we used to, wars might actually become incredibly short—to the point where surrender feels less like a defeat and more like a nationwide celebration.
hollowpilot9: I have to say, I dig this kind of optimism! But let’s be real—"viruses" aren't some new phenomenon; they've always been around, and they always work. Even when we talk about defending ourselves against anything—even a meteor streaking in from deep space—it’s really just two sides of the same coin as an attack. You surely realize that terms like "defense" and "offense" are inherently dualistic—kind of like everything else in this world, right? Personally, I’m leaning toward a third or fourth direction—one that gives militarism its actual purpose and existential function, much like how "militarism" operates within our own biological systems.
So, here we are again—back to square one. It turns out we’re once again staring down the barrel of the same old reality: if we actually want to see any meaningful change around here, we’re going to have to rely on thick connections and playing the game with a bit more cunning. Is there any other way? Honestly, it feels like we've circled right back to the necessity of knowing the right people.
hollowpilot9: That’s a fair point, I guess, but why wouldn't the whole thing just follow the logic of technological evolution? It’s almost predictable—the teleprinter sort of "faded away with a whisper" when the fax machine showed up, and now the fax machine is basically a relic compared to the modern computer. Or look at film cameras—Super 8 just "elegantly" vanished once video cameras entered the scene... isn't it always like that? Look, wisdom is great and all—it’s essential—but thick connections? No way. Absolutely not. I’m convinced that those deep-seated, messy connections only exist to serve stupidity. Wisdom, on the other hand... well, if we play around with the butterfly effect just a little bit, I think wisdom easily triumphs over nonsense. Think about it: why do we still celebrate Copernicus as this massive scientific icon when his actual findings weren't even the ultimate truth? If we just stand our ground and shout the truth, those "Copernicans" will wither away like a plant left without water. Honestly, who actually needs Copernicus in science anymore, or Erasmus in humanism? Not really.
It gets even more ridiculous—because apparently, the "Trump supporters" actually realize there isn't some master thief out to get them, and they know exactly who drafted and pushed through that specific "LAW"—yet, somehow, they still went ahead and re-elected about 60 to 70 percent of the exact same people who were sitting in Congress when that "LAW" was passed in the first place!
You nailed it, Walter Foster87! Honestly, those thieves were just running wild two, three, maybe four years ago—right up until the "trumpeters" seized control. And once they actually took over the reins? Well, suddenly, the theft just... stops existing? Remember how we used to hear that nobody is a thief until a court proves it? Now look at what’s happening. It’s just one thief telling another that they’re both honest citizens. The prep work for the local elections—for that local POWER—has already kicked off. They’re out there signing coalitions to secure control over this little empire of petty crooks, where being corrupt is perfectly legal because it happens outside the laws passed by Congress. See, if you're a crook at the municipal level, you aren't technically a criminal because you're just following the ordinances passed by the local clique. It's a closed loop. The whole thing honestly transcends any political fantasy you could dream up, yet people still show up to vote and then just stay silent...? Why is that? There’s this huge uproar going on lately about people turning the entire coastline into nothing but short-term rentals—as if the whole concept of hospitality hasn't already been gutted by the shift toward apartment rentals. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous. I was talking to a local business owner the other day—he runs both a restaurant and a few vacation rentals—and he asked me something that really stuck with me. He was like, "How am I supposed to run a successful hospitality business when my guests just stay in the apartments I built specifically for them, cook their own meals, and eat in private?" It makes you wonder... is that really how I'm supposedly "destroying" the service industry? Is providing exactly what people want to rent actually considered sabotage? So, we’re pouring massive amounts of taxpayer money into building high-tech sewage systems to pump waste far out into the ocean—you know, the stuff from those luxury beachfront rentals? Fine. But what about the mess being dumped discreetly and individually just thirty yards away from a packed public beach? I actually had a guy tell me he’s stopped swimming altogether because, well, he’s a bit tired of having someone else's literal crap swirling around his head. When I brought this up to a local politician once, he had the nerve to call me "conservative"—as if wanting a beach without sewage makes me some kind of reactionary. I told him, okay, if I'm the conservative one, then he must be the "progressive" here—because clearly, being so forward-thinking is why we deal with an intestinal illness outbreak every single summer. He just stared at me like a deer in headlights... though, honestly, it was more like a deer staring at a cow. It’s hard to expect a politically corrupt, overheated brain to grasp the basic cause-and-effect relationship between the waste tourists leave behind and the local health crises. Is it really that complicated?
Walter Foster87: So, what makes it ABSOLUTE? I mean, haven't we already discovered something faster than that? hollowpilot9: When I use the term "absolute," I’m talking about a CONSTANT—something that remains unchanging for the "subject" it refers to. Take the speed of light; it’s a constant for the velocity of both particles and waves (photons), which is what we call light. In a vacuum, we’re looking at 299,792,458 m/s. Of course, in material environments, that speed fluctuates depending on the medium—and if you’re measuring it with laser light and an atomic clock, you'll get a reading even more precise than that figure. But for the sake of our little debate, the crux of the matter is this: at the speed of light, the concept of time essentially vanishes. Time becomes simultaneous—timeless—and that is why it is ABSOLUTE. You might be thinking about things like the interaction speed between an electron-positron pair, or maybe something involving communication between entangled twins, or even holographic communication. In those scenarios, the concept of time doesn't exist, so the very notion of "speed" disappears too. That is precisely why the speed of light acts as the ultimate limit; beyond it, there is simply NO OTHER SPEED. Ignoring such a specific constant (the Absolute) actually robs a scientist or a philosopher of their CREATION freedom. You see good examples of this in Kelvin's Absolute zero acting as the temperature boundary—in the mathematical universe, that’s Absolute Zero, whereas in the biological world, the Absolute boundary is found in AGCT molecules. Therefore, you have one thing that is merely a relativistic perception of the world, and another that is SIMULTANEOUSLY relativistic and absolutist. That kind of perception is True, real, and philosophically the only correct way to view it. Here are a few quotes that explain pretty well what the speed of light actually is and why it’s Absolute: It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts: · The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer. · The speed of light does not vary with time or place. Minkowski's theory showed that Einstein's theory of relativity could be understood in terms of a four-dimensional non-Euclidean geometry that considered space and time as one entity, ever after called spacetime. And here is how Newton wrote about the speed of light: "Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change." Walter Foster87 says: In that case, the MATRIX would correspond to either a mere pattern (form) or an idea, and that kind of philosophy—well, that's just idealism. "Absolute" can only refer to something that HAS NO ALTERNATIVE—something that is One and Only of its kind. hollowpilot9: I think you actually made a very fair point by suggesting that "mere patterns and forms"—which are just external descriptions of reality and always two-dimensional or superficial—can be projected into 3D, and then into 4D space. Once you do that, that "mere pattern and form" transforms into the MATRIX I’m talking about. For instance, a certain pattern might be a matrix for dyeing fabric, or a specific structure might be the MATRIX for a human, a mouse, a dog, and so on. What I am actually referring to is the matrix that serves as the human genome! That matrix is ABSOLUTE, not just for humans, but for all living things! It’s high time philosophers realized this!!!
Walter Foster87: Can there be any purpose more magnificent than achieving a system of social relations and a life worthy of a—HUMAN BEING!? hollowpilot9: What you wrote is incredibly important, but it’s equally vital—if not more so—to recognize the emergence of consciousness regarding the fact that the system of social relations needs to be one that ensures a life worthy of a—HUMAN BEING. And I mean a HUMAN being who is leaving, who is currently existing, and who is arriving—and the one who ARRIVES must possess attributes that are worth loving; otherwise, all we’re left with is "reverse gear" and the abyss...
Walter Foster87: That’s about it. Though, the first guy has an issue here—someone with a "pragmatic mind" will unhesitatingly identify themselves with Reason. They literally exist within the grip of that power. That’s why I call them a rational animal. And I won't argue that a certain type of intelligence must exist, simply because it participates in post-creation intelligence—those relationships between intelligent beings and all that. ... But I suppose someone who actually knows, and doesn't doubt, that they belong to the species of the Inventor, could accept identifying with a "pragmatic mind" just for the sake of practicality. As for the "Rationalists"—well, I don't intend to grant them even that much formally.
hollowpilot9: If that's the case, let's develop this idea of the creator—the designer. And I don't just mean the BIG ones—the cosmic ones, or our NASA, or Ford, or General Motors—but also the tiny ones. Those little creators and designers who make everything from dresses, pants, underwear, and hats to doorknobs, windows, forks, plates, bicycles, watches, pencils, and so on, much like how "foreign manufacturers" extensively do these things already. If we took that path, I'm certain an American citizen would feel a lot more comfortable than they do when surrounded by "neighborhood handyman types," small-time traders, and middlemen—just a bunch of hustlers. We have the exact same situation on an intellectual and mental level. There is no creation, no innovation; instead, there's just a surplus of copycats, plagiarists, and people interpreting someone else's ideas and innovations.
Walter Foster87: Well, what purpose could there possibly be in that!? It was a kingdom of animals and a hierarchy of force. How could intelligence ever break through into the sphere of action!? Because without that, all biological invention and the vast, abstract enjoyment of that boundless good and the state it brings—what we’d call a Utopia today—would be useless to pre-humans. Therefore, the mind could only mediate THROUGH THE BODY and man's physical talents—which ultimately manifest as material (real) force.
hollowpilot9: I don't know what the point of FORCE is, since it functions once as construction and once as destruction. This duality of force, especially regarding Paul's message to the Corinthians, amplifies that duality to "infinity," because Paul suggests God doesn't love those who struggle or hold onto force, yet that same God APPLIES FORCE when he needs to bring sense to disobedient Egyptians. That image feels familiar even today, since "the stick and the carrot" still work, which makes me think the force we're discussing must have some other role. It would be worth discussing whether we should look at what kind of force the great POWERS of the world possess in an energetic and militaristic sense? I don't believe the force they wield is solely for "destroying the enemy"; there must be some other meaning—perhaps something cosmic, macro-creative, or something along those lines? I agree with you and anyone else who sees and knows that FORCE isn't as terrifying or powerful as it seems at first glance. Force is only FORCE as long as there is no COUNTER-FORCE, and counter-forces are equivalent to forces. So, your last sentence makes perfect sense because you're talking about "opposing particular intelligence," which is the cause of all past, present, and future "shaking," or waving around a "deadly sword"??
Walter Foster87: See. I'm much more moderate. Stupidity doesn't hurt me because I don't know what someone in the future will know. What hurts me is stupidity—specifically, the fact that we aren't applying the knowledge our "uneducated and primitive" ancestors knew 2,350 years ago. hollowpilot9: Maybe you haven't noticed, but I "argue" precisely because of what you say!? Aren't many of today's problems caused by the fact that HIGH INTELLIGENCE abandoned and FORGOT its early wisdom? I've spent a lot of energy on this Forum trying to show that measured, little-minded science isn't the ONLY science—though, of course, it's been futile, since only science knows what NATURE KNOWS!? Walter Foster87: Traditional political theory never really aimed to uncover the truth about the state anyway. But since you love MATRICES, take it that the matrix of the state exists in a causality formed by Mind—justice—laws—and the force that subjects everything to the law.
hollowpilot9: You have all the advantages when it comes to the state. I only got involved because I'm drawn to the evolutionary picture where the organelles of a higher social system act as components—which is just a hypothetical thesis until HOMOTERAS comes to life. Actually, I'm inclined to believe—as I think Goethe once said—that every nation (state) has its own FUGUE in history.
Walter Foster87: This one hits the mark. But—when the masses are perfectly happy paying those parking tickets—you’re stuck with a choice: either just follow the herd or risk getting trampled in the stampede.
hollowpilot9: If that one is "good," here’s a little extra for you: It’s honestly wild how everyone blows their own horn about being such big patriots, while certain THIEVES get a free pass—simply because the "trumpeters" are too clueless to realize the thief isn't actually missing, since they already rigged and passed a LAW making them legal thieves instead of illegal ones, or at least that's what the "trumpeters" think or believe.
Walter Foster87 says: The fact that everything in this world is relative—or, if you prefer, imperfect and constantly shifting—means there’s a layer of relativity baked into every single phenomenon. It’s in the individual parts of that phenomenon, and it extends to everything those parts build upon, even when they're just acting as the raw "material" for something else. Isn't it strange how that works? Everything is just layers of relativity all the way down. We aren't going to ignore Chaos Theory, obviously—that would be a mistake—but let’s not get ahead of ourselves and start prioritizing the oscillations over the actual phenomenon itself. Why focus on the ripples when you should be looking at the wave?
I mean, look—Discontinuity is basically just the total termination of whatever existence we're talking about. It’s a complete break. Simple as that, right?
Look, if we’re actually talking about a human being—real, living people—then there is absolutely no way to equate any process that sustains or maintains our existence with a human Discontinuity. It just doesn't track, does it? So, when a person stops being just a private individual and starts becoming a functional unit—where those "tools for maintaining humanity" just keep shifting indefinitely (you know, in a constant stream)—what we're actually looking at isn't a Discontinuity of the human being itself. It’s more like a Discontinuity of one or both of the underlying mechanisms driving the phenomenon. Or maybe it's just how the gears grind? Makes you wonder.
hollowpilot9: Look, Walter Foster87, not everything in this universe is relative—seriously. That’s just one massive mistake made by people misinterpreting Einstein's theory. Sure, all speeds are relative—they change right up until you hit the speed of light, which is Absolute. But let's take this further: all geometric shapes are relative, except for the tetrahedron, which is Absolute because it's an elementary building block. All chess games are relative, except for the matrix of the chessboard itself, which remains Absolute. Even the biomolecules inside a human being are relative, with the exception of those four nucleotides—AGCT—which are Absolute not just for us, but for all life. So, if we're looking at the big picture: the MATRIX is Absolute, while whatever fills that matrix is relative—and that "relativity" is really just nothing more than the number of possible combinations or variations. I honestly think any philosophy claiming that *everything* in this world is merely relative is just plain wrong. Philosophy should instead say: everything that fills the matrix of existence is relative, while the matrix of existence itself is Absolute. By that logic, even the philosopher Peter Peric is relative—constantly changing—while Peric's matrix stays Absolute. I think I’ve already covered everything there is to say regarding continuity and Discontinuity—honestly, what else is there? Look, a human being—regardless of whether they're male or female—represents continuity. It’s the individual, the whole unit. But if you isolate just "male" or just "female," you're looking at a Discontinuity. So, really, both sides are talking about the exact same thing... we're just looking at different sets of numbers. You're over here counting 1, 3, 5, 7, 9... while I'm just sitting here counting 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. Same logic, different sequence. Simple, right?
Walter Foster87 says: What you’re calling our "rational mind" isn't really just a standalone tool—it's actually Reason, which has developed its abilities to an extreme scale through its relationship with the Mind. And honestly, the more you look at it, the more you realize that whether we're talking about reproducing what we've already learned, participating in intellectual (social) exchanges, or even the most basic practical tasks—none of it is truly "humanized" in a vacuum. Or, to put it another way: nothing happens without some underlying level of intelligence being present. Even within Reason itself, you can't escape the influence of the Mind. The whole thing is just... inverted. We’ve basically handed over total control to pure reason—which, let's be honest, is always a bit of a gamble, isn't it?
What you’re actually hunting for—it isn't just about stumbling upon some freak occurrence where a person finally develops that "sixth sense"—it's more about the sheer weight of the responsibility that comes with it. Honestly, it feels less like a discovery and more like a series of revelations... or maybe "manifestations," if we're being precise. Or visions? It’s hard to pin down, really. But look, you see the point right there. It’s never a straight line—it always goes through an intermediary. Everything is mediated. I mean, if you can't quite wrap your head around who you actually are—just let it go for a second and imagine you belong to the species of the Inventor. And once you finally realize that your animalistic side isn't even more than some foolish, robotic suit of armor—where Reason is nothing but a puppet controlled by some wise master—won't it start to feel like the Mind is just... some kind of PARASITE?
So, won't that thing eventually try to break free from its own Creation—but, of course, only if it can somehow manage to keep all its gifts intact? Just a thought.
See, that's the thing about gifts—there’s always some kind of leftover—even if it just boils down to basic fairness or a sense of proportion—that no sane person, under any circumstances, would ever dream of giving up.
hollowpilot9. I’ve spent more than my fair share of time wading through endless essays about the mind, reason, consciousness, the subconscious—you know, all that deep stuff regarding how the brain actually functions. And honestly? I find myself constantly wondering where an idea actually comes from. How does a thought just... pop into existence? One second there's nothing, then suddenly—BAM—this crystal clear concept is sitting there, having never existed in my head or in reality before that exact moment. Is it induction or deduction at play here? Does knowledge build itself piece by piece, moving from the simple toward the complex, or is it more like peeling back layers from a grand, totalized body of knowledge—an Absolute truth? Most people seem convinced that knowledge is inductive, but I'm not so sure—I mean, we all know that "lightbulb moment" feeling where everything just clicks instantly, right? My own take is a bit different—I feel like the collective human intellect—which includes everyone who ever lived, everyone alive now, and everyone yet to come—must have a fundamental purpose. A reason for being. Personally, I find that the ultimate goal, the true purpose of this entire intellectual endeavor, is simply providing INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTENCE. It's like a blueprint or a projectable potential for renewing existence itself. You see it all over the world—people talking about the concept of an Intelligent Designer. Anything below that level of intelligence falls into what I’d call the pragmatic mind of a "predator or a pillager"—you know, that mindset focused entirely on usage, consumption, and exploitation. It’s all about taking. But then you have the designer's mind—an intellect that actually understands the concept of Creation. That’s probably the kind of thing you're talking about, right? That specific mental shift that happens when we finally strip away the animalistic instincts from the human experience?
Walter Foster87 says: Of course, a "party clamp" is tyranny in its purest form—and if you try to limit it to just two or three specific instances, you're really just delaying the inevitable moment when all its classic, nasty traits finally rear their heads. Look, Ali—there’s a much bigger realization hitting here. It doesn't really matter what kind of degrees people hold or how many high-tech information systems they have at their fingertips. You can watch them stumble through their daily lives, whether they're in private conversations or out in the public eye, and it's clear: most people just aren't mature enough for actual freedom yet. They only know so much—and frankly, they don't get it. They just act and make these big, sweeping decisions based on some tiny little spark of an idea, acting like they've suddenly mastered the universe when they haven't actually grasped the bigger picture. So, despite all this massive technical progress we boast about—not to mention how much "socially advanced" we claim to be—it seems the powers that be always find a way to keep the light of humanity essentially shackled. It’s almost impressive, really. Sure, the chains might be woven a bit more subtly these days—more sophisticated, less obvious than the old ways—but does that actually change anything? Not when you look at the sheer weight of the masses. There’s this almost inhuman level of inertia where people just... comply. And honestly, isn't that the whole point? That collective inertia exists just to ensure everyone stays exactly where they're told to stay.
hollowpilot9: If you asked someone from the Midwest, they’d probably just shrug and say, "Sure, why not?"—but there’s this certain... let's call it a "mysterious" quality that Americans refer to as POWER. What is the actual point of force? What's its true purpose? That's really the core question if you want to distinguish between mere information and actual understanding. See, it's only once knowledge is fully realized that we can truly grasp the consequences—and by then, it’s often too late. Actually, it’s frequently way too late, and usually, it's irreversible. Which is exactly why I advocate for a type of knowledge that actually accounts for its own fallout.
Walter Foster87 says: It’s probably just the SYSTEM at work. And look, a system has to protect its own existence if it ever hopes to preserve the very thing it was built to serve in the first place. But—and here’s the kicker—once a system reaches this level of complexity, it starts developing its own autonomous little moments and reflexive behaviors... things that actually end up making the whole situation even worse. Isn't that just how it goes?
hollowpilot9: Could we be talking about different levels of "consciousness" here? I mean, it’s impossible to truly grasp what someone in the year 2000 knew back in the year 1000, right? There’s an obvious gap of pure ignorance between those two points. We feel foolish today simply because we don't possess the knowledge that will be common sense tomorrow. But—and here's my little theory—I actually think there might be some kind of "mechanism" that allows us to understand what's coming tomorrow, even while we're still stuck in today.
Regarding the whole STATE debate—specifically that back-and-forth between Walter Foster87 and Amanda Fowler2—my take is that the traditional theory of the state just doesn't cut it if you actually want to understand its role, its lifespan, or how it transforms. The state is a dynamic subject, much like a person who is constantly evolving while remaining within the same unchanging matrix of "statehood." I view the state as a functional community of people that, through interaction with other nations, forms a community of states—or essentially, humanity itself. The emergence of these states follows recognizable stages. One such stage is the capitalist state, which stops functioning solely for its citizens and starts adopting external functions in relation to other nations. Once a state reaches the point where moving to a higher level becomes a necessity—think a UNION—it begins to shed its individual attributes and takes on the characteristics of a union actor instead. The next level up is what’s currently hiding behind the community of all world nations (the United Nations) and what we commonly call GLOBALIZATION. Since capital is associated with the flow of wealth—which can manifest either as an individual capitalist or as the state acting as a function of capital—it must have a purpose beyond just the enrichment of an individual, a group, or even a specific nation. That secondary purpose can only be found if we view the function of state capital as a driving, almost metaphysical force that compels people to work on "metaphysical" projects. We're talking about building spacecraft, launching communication satellites, or churning out computers to construct a new cyber reality. This layered structure ensures that every new level holds dominance over the old one. This is precisely how those forces of pressure are born—the ones we experience as state terror through legal obligations, social pressure, and outright repression. Of course, this brings us to the crucial issue of human freedom, dignity, and simply being a human being rather than some kind of animal. These concepts are clearly starting to erode... are we actually becoming unfree because of the "freedom" provided by marketing pressure? Is that the joke? Given that these objective, powerhouse forces of "pressure" are essentially unavoidable, transformation isn't just coming—it’s already happening. We just have to actually notice it. Sure, these shifts come with their fair share of negative baggage, but they also carry positive traits that emerge as a NEW REALITY—sort of like a fresh global landscape of freedom, dignity, and purpose. The influence is hitting everything at once—economic, financial, technological, even psychological. Honestly, if we don't recognize these processes, how can we even pretend to discuss the concept of a "state" using nothing but outdated definitions and dusty old terminology? The state needs a total redefinition, much like the individual does, because our roles have clearly shifted—and they aren't done shifting yet. We could argue that China operates under a quasi-communist structure, but the reality is that they are changing so rapidly and radically that some are already calling Eastern nations a NEW PACIFIC CIVILIZATION—something fundamentally different from the old Western model. The traditional definition of man and state simply doesn't cover REALITY anymore. So, can we finally start working on definitions that actually reflect the world we live in? Dictatorships are popping up everywhere—they’re definitely at work, they just wear different outfits these days. You can see it most clearly in those tiny little fractures within society. And honestly? It’s perfect for the local thugs. A dictatorship is basically what happens when some lowlife BANS you from walking down the street just so he can collect parking fees and pocket the cash himself. He managed to snag a municipal parking concession because he and his little gang of buddies voted themselves into power under the guise of "citizen representation" and "democracy." Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed "philosophers" are busy sipping their coffee, having these deep, "democratic" little debates about the continuity and Discontinuity of the locally elected CITY COUNCIL.