Posts by hollowpilot9

Continued:
Walter Foster87 says: There are answers hidden in plain sight. A state is essentially forged by equals who share freedom, specifically so they can safeguard that very equality and liberty. But when those people turn out to be nothing more than thugs and killers—well, then they call themselves "capitalists." The state merely emerges as THEIR unified force, capable of hijacking the power of every other community member to serve their own interests. Capital is just crime in a fancy suit—a way to lock in their advantages and preserve the system. You could say "capitalism" is like that meditative stage a caterpillar goes through right before it sheds its cocoon (which is the state). In this light, the state’s whole purpose was always just a setup for the next big heist.
It’s honestly fascinating, though—given how students, parents, and pretty much every social authority reacted, how is it that these systems across the globe successfully invoke the French Revolution and its ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity?
hollowpilot9: Yeah, the answers are there, but the real question is: what kind of "evil" force drives people to act this way, eventually treating citizens—even the entire world—as mere pawns in a game? Where does this sheer audacity come from? This arrogance from "representatives of the people" to herd the public like cattle—cattle that, strangely enough, always seem to know exactly when to wander back to the barn on their own? People don't realize this—or rather, they aren't allowed to—thanks to the farce that is parliamentary democracy. Isn't party loyalty just a fancy synonym for a DICTATORSHIP that extends its grip over the PEOPLE?
Walter Foster87 says: The USA has handled this brilliantly. The biggest slice of capital doesn't actually belong to the state or the capitalists; it belongs to retirees and workers. When you pair that with a foreign policy built on "exporting war," the machine clearly works. However, the inevitable domestic shifts mean that the constant rotation of "Republicans" (who impoverish the masses to enrich the elite) and "Democrats" (who swing the pendulum back) won't be able to sustain the capitalist engine forever. That system has already started moving down paths that might just take everyone by surprise.
State ownership has found a way to compensate itself by aggressively encroaching on private property—specifically by limiting the actual authority of owners over the means of production. (This likely served as the blueprint for those massive corporate shake-ups and predatory privatizations we saw back home.)

hollowpilot9: I was thinking about the state's overhead: militarism plus organization plus administration plus representation... How many billions of dollars go to the bureaucrats running the USA versus those running the European Union?

Walter Foster87 says: Maybe it's because it's too hard to admit that we are living every single day alongside murderers and criminals—people who use their "righteousness" and hypocrisy to simply PREPARE FOR THE NEXT WAR, the next bloody feast.
I suppose we know—or feel—that we've accepted war and killing as the "lesser evil" because it allows us to teach ourselves and others that humans are some sort of multi-layered, unstructured mess where one thing is true one moment, something completely different the next, and occasionally, it's just "war of all against all"...

hollowpilot9: There’s that too, but I suspect the MAIN REASON is the dominance of STUPIDITY over INTELLIGENCE. Why isn't freedom taught the way animals teach their young—who, as we know, define their own freedom based on inherited abilities and learned skills? Instead, we are smothered by the omnipresent TUTELAGE of authorities, bureaucrats, soldiers, police, priests, and accountants... Overnight, we somehow turned into a global population of ignoramuses who apparently need a "tutor" just to figure out how to go to the bathroom.???

Walter Foster87 says: If inversion actually allows for the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF A MULTI-BEING, then we can't possibly be talking about discontinuity. Because, see, discontinuity has already been defined as that state of collapse within the "multi/legal world" where human existence is CUT SHORT, reducing a person to the mere existence of a human-like animal. Once that happens, continuity isn't re-established; instead, these intelligent beings start their relationships—and their very existence—completely "from scratch."
Look, if you’re going to stick to your guns regarding your view (treating inversion as discontinuity), then we absolutely have to come up with a NEW term for discontinuity—one where the APPEARANCE LOSES ITS ENTIRE IDENTITY, meaning it is no longer equal to itself.
hollowpilot9: The idea of continuity is like taking a pencil and drawing a line on white paper, whereas discontinuity is when you take that same pencil and draw a dash, then nothing, then another dash, and so on. A line gives the illusion of continuity, but if you get close enough, you see it’s just a series of dashes. That’s a one-dimensional representation. In two dimensions, things get messier because you're dealing with a sequence of planes. Three-dimensional representations are even more complex, because the continuity of volume would imply the entire universe is just one "rigid piece of iron" without any empty space. Actually, the situation is exactly what this English text describes:

A situation sometimes appears continuous but when you look closer it is discontinuous. A sledge descends along a snowy hill. After a brief period of time the sledge advances a small distance and after the next period it advances again. It seems a continuous movement. Now we make the sledge gradually smaller. At a certain moment the sledge has become so small that it falls through the holes between the snowflakes.
What happens after an infinitesimal Small Change? When the sledge is decreased in length by ten percent nothing will happen. When this process is continued a quantitative change will occur at a certain moment. after The Last very Small Change in length The sledge will fall down between The Small parts of The snow. in The theory of catastrophes and The theory of chaos IT is very important when you realise that a very small change in the primary conditions can cause a very large (and often non-predictable) change in the next situation. AT The end of The twentieth century this idea of discontinuity contributed to The Emergence of New mathematical theories connected with catastrophes, fractals and fuzzy sets.
We live in two worlds--a Real World perched atop a Quantum World. The Real World, we detect with our senses. WE call IT The real World because, to us, it is all that is real--all that we can really experience.
So, it's just an ILLUSION that things and phenomena are continuous, when they are actually discontinuous. This is a pretty massive realization for philosophy, wouldn't you say?

Walter Foster87 says: I don't know anything about L and D molecules. But, if we need to use gloves as an analogy, it goes like this: turning a glove inside out DOESN'T STRIP IT OF ITS IDENTITY. On the other hand, the torn scraps of those gloves—they aren't gloves anymore, no matter how much of them you pile together.
That right there is the discontinuity of the gloves. The first thing is just inversion. And if you insist that these two wildly different states should be treated as THE SAME CHANGE (discontinuity), then we're going to miss the very essence of the thing. With the gloves (and similar objects), the essence remains unchanged. With the loss of identity, it is fundamentally altered.

hollowpilot9: L and D molecules are no different from your L and D hand, or your L and D glove. The identity of a glove isn't just "a glove"; it's the identity of an L or D glove. A person's identity isn't just "a human"; it's a male or female human. When a person shakes hands with someone else, which hands are being used—L or D? We’ll say we shake with a D hand, but the D hand we use is on our left side!? WHAT IS THE TRUTH HERE? The point is that an L or D glove or hand CANNOT be joined in this space, only in an inverse space!

Walter Foster87 says: Well, even the deepest human intuition has warned us that "Mind rules, while strength is just a block of wood." Despite that, alongside "ratio" (whatever that's supposed to mean), modern law in all countries has wedged itself into yet another "source of law"—WILL. And will rests upon force. Look—has it been MASSIVELY forgotten that both the state and force exist solely to ensure that laws don't remain empty words on a page, and that laws exist solely so that intelligent beings don't commit injustices against one another!?
You can see just how massive this sensory deception really is by looking at the scale and sheer number of people who believe that "Law" is anything more than just the codified will of the ruling party or class...
And all this happens despite the millennial repetition of devastating, bloody collapses caused by these exact types of "legislative" systems.

Or—if you want a closer example—totalitarianism was always accused of having a single-mindedness that rejects any alternative or choice, inevitably falling into a trap of dead ends and delusions. Democracy, by definition, should be the thing that offers alternatives by liberating the interests of both groups and individuals.
But—awareness of this doesn't stop the rulers in America from taking a cramped parliamentary system, with all its supposed "selection mechanisms," and using the FORCE OF LAW to turn it into a mere theater for two or three "major" parties—especially since the mid-2000s.
So tell me—what "sense" are the protagonists of such politics using to guarantee that these three actors, entrenched in the halls of government and riding on the backs of the public, won't just sink into a two-party or three-party stalemate? Isn't that just the prolonged effect of single-mindedness?
Now, if you prefer something a bit more pragmatic, ask yourself why humans invented clothes or shoes in the first place... Senses (even mental ones) are always assigned a FUNCTIONAL PURPOSE. We take it for granted that we invented clothes to stay warm or shoes to protect our feet—effectively distancing ourselves from the truth that all inventions exist solely to shift intellect from the abstract sphere into the functional one.
hollowpilot9: Agreed! But in my previous post, I was asking about that specific sense which recognizes what lies "behind the hill"—that which our normal rational mind fails to perceive, but which is instead grasped by the unconscious, the parapsychological, or if you prefer, the limbic mind.

Walter Foster87 says: Let’s take that as a starting point. But then the question arises—should we study the intellect by following what we find in nature, or by following what we find WITHIN OURSELVES, AS THINKING BEINGS?
If our cognition is owed to our senses and abilities—and if we possess higher capacities than those we actually have—then we aren't capable of knowing more than that. So, we really ought to start from the intelligence we recognize within ourselves.
It makes little difference, even though the external material is infinitely richer in form, imposed upon us by the necessity of living, and its existence in time and space seems so vast—so immense—that we perceive ourselves as nothing more than a tiny speck in the universe.

hollowpilot9: You have to study both! While the mind studies the natural, it is less anchored to individual parts; but while it studies what is WITHIN US, it is closer to the whole—to the Truth—making the mind closer to philosophy. The former is essentially the scientific mind, while the latter is the philosophical mind. However, in all of this—at least according to my research—there emerges a third or even fourth possibility: that the mind tunes itself to its own origin, or the origin in general. In that case, the mind becomes a "super-mind" because it simultaneously perceives two inverse worlds that interpenetrate to create the modalities and structures of the world. This is, in any case, a TETRAHEDRAL PHILOSOPHY WHERE THE MIND LIES AT THE CENTER—THE CENTROID OF THE INVERSE TETRAHEDRON. So, alongside everything you're saying, a "small step" is needed to move the perception of the mind beyond the mind itself, moving from libraries into the realms of hard drives, RAM, and CD/active media.

Walter Foster87 says: The problem stems from the abundance we’ve accumulated, which we aren't otherwise capable of controlling—if we choose to doubt and question everything. And why do we "turn a blind eye" to the lies we've witnessed? Is it because we're avoiding the effort required to penetrate the necessary depth, or perhaps due to a "uselessness of reaction" if we haven't grasped a logical alternative—or maybe for a "clumsy" reason, namely the fact that it is simply much easier not to disturb the system and, as Schopenhauer put it, live a pleasant life by "charging a high price for ignorance!"
Yet, there is something necessary in this. It is a human trait—most clearly seen in laws and justice—to pave the way for greater good or lesser evil, and to build that into a system. Once a system is built, it suppresses every part so heavily that it "screams" at any "violent construction," and therefore, it must not allow people to question even that which is held to be secure or settled.

hollowpilot9: That’s just one side of the coin—the other side is basically mental conformity and the sheer inertia of all that accumulated "knowledge." There’s a desperate need for existential order here, mostly because if we actually embraced radical change, professors would be out of a job and new generations would be left completely unprepared for the Real World. A student's "backpack" is filled with a mix of genuine wisdom and total nonsense. The question is, what’s the actual ratio? Even the professors themselves—at least the ones you see on CNN—seem to admit that stupidity is what really dominates the curriculum. If that's the case, what exactly is the so-called intelligence doing in the room?

Nastavak:
hollowpilot9: I’m with you there, but I’m talking about the necessity of shedding our "skin"—changing the very shape of how we exist. Most of the paradigms that underpin our traditional intellect today are clearly broken and useless, yet we keep struggling against them as if they still hold any weight or significance. Why do we do that? Maybe it’s because at the microscopic level, we’re incredibly sharp and intelligent, while on a macro scale, we’re still pretty damn clueless. It’s wild to me how, for supposedly smart people, social convention, tolerance, and things like that seem more important than the truths that are existentially fundamental for this generation—and the next, and the ones after those... Is humanity just becoming increasingly helpless against the stupidity we've manufactured? Because that stupidity is already actively killing and maiming us. I honestly can't wrap my head around people who are convinced, with their entire being, that their reflection in the mirror is the true original. They’re essentially selling an illusion as reality, and people are paying full price for it.

Walter Foster87 says: It’s almost cute, really—the way people talk about capitalism like it’s some grand design, when at its core, it’s basically just a fairy tale for adults. Even those much-discussed "social classes"? Purely theoretical fiction. In the Real World, what we actually have is a predatory society where your only shot at survival is selling your soul to the devil—mostly because the "vultures" are standing guard at the gates, making sure nobody enters their inner circle without permission. Being part of a certain class isn't even about one person exploiting another in any meaningful sense; instead, exploitation is just a framework built around systemic privileges—whether they're legal or just shady under-the-table deals. It's all just window dressing, a bit of fancy packaging... and honestly, that whole concept of profit and Marx's exploitation? That feels like a completely secondary detail in the grand scheme of things.
The fact that society spends such a long stretch of time operating on these "selection mechanisms"—relying on profits that are technically legal, if not exactly legitimate—doesn't actually change the core essence of the matter. It doesn't touch the fundamental WHY behind it all. It doesn't change why these systems are built in the first place, or why they inevitably spiral into bloodshed and total devastation. Everything stems from that same root.
In a properly functioning society, differences are inevitable—and honestly, whether they stem from class or not isn't really the point. It’s more about the underlying mechanism itself. The way things work is that people only end up holding onto—whether through ownership or just possession—what they can actually manage more rationally than everyone else, for both their own sake and the common good. Or at least, that's how it should function, right?
Personally, I reckon we’re going to see people far wealthier than Gates popping up in a functional society—but they’ll run into a massive catch-22. How do you actually activate that kind of wealth so it stays useful? If they can't find a way to make it circulate, all that money is just sitting there, sterile... and sooner or later, it’s just going to vanish.
hollowpilot9: Old man Galbraith does an incredible job in his book *The Age of Uncertainty* when he breaks down how economist fantasies act as the actual engine driving capitalism. They’re incredibly dynamic—basically working like animals from sunrise to sunset for some meager bureaucrat's salary—all just to cook up theories and models designed to make private capital multiply as efficiently as possible. But what exactly is the force that drives them to do this VOLUNTARILY? It isn't the capitalist mode of production itself—that's really just an illusion—it’s actually the emergence and shaping of the capitalist STATE. In my view, we made massive theoretical and practical blunders by tethering capital to capitalists—those wealthy individuals who are basically "bathing" in millions of dollars—when the true, insatiable consumer of capital is the STATE. Think of the State like any other biological organ in the human body; as it develops, it demands more and more capital and resources every single day just to sustain itself and grow. You have the capitalists and their "proletariat" getting more exhausted by forced labor every night, only to wake up the next morning with even more fervor, zeal, and intensity, chasing after yet another billion dollars.
It would be pretty interesting to figure out what the actual ratio is between private and state capital in the capitalist nations of the world today—assuming there are even any countries left that aren't capitalist? I don't know the exact math behind the relationship, but I’m fairly certain we're looking at an exponential curve leaning heavily toward the state. Based on everything else I believe, my take is that global processes are spinning—fast and aggressively—toward a much more complex organization of both the state and society as a whole. Of course, the cost of developing and maintaining a society like that is massive; you can already see it playing out in the wealthiest nations, the UN, or even the EU. To me, it feels like an objective process—one that will just keep placing more and more weight on the individual, who, quite "unconsciously," is the one who created this entire mess in the first place.

Walter Foster87 says it best. There it is—that whole thing about equating humans with animals. It’s one possible version of the truth, I guess—one that I’d personally pit against total social anarchy if we were dealing with a society made up of truly enlightened individuals (if such a state of human nature even exists). Honestly, there isn't any natural or social logic that justifies why a few hundred or a thousand "wolves" constantly emerge from the masses while everyone else just stays part of the flock. That kind of dynamic eventually has to hit a wall.

hollowpilot9: I don't really feel qualified to lecture anyone on the animal within the man or the man within the animal—or this whole blurring of the lines—because I’m too busy worrying about a pretty intense and messy analogy: Animals are basically the proteins of a human being. In other words, just as cells are built from proteins, humans are built from animals. But my issue isn't just that; it's that proteins are also found in plants, which means plants are essentially in animals too! It feels like we're just spinning in circles without having any clue what the circle actually is, or where the center is.

Walter Foster87 says: Well, that’s the human alternative—the one only people gravitate toward when they realize they carry something inside them that animals simply DON'T have... something that actually earns them a spot in the human race.

hollowpilot9: My question is simple and, frankly, a bit "deadly": Why isn't this being taught in families, orphanages, elementary schools, high schools, or universities? Instead, we’re still being taught, symbolically speaking: Long live the gentleman (of the other side)!

Walter Foster87 says: Absolute ...!? Aside from the Absolute, there is only ONE thing that is both and isn't, ... and that goes without saying when we say how (ABSOLUTELY) EVERYTHING IS - RELATIVE.
hollowpilot9: I wasn't suggesting that being absolutely relative is itself an absolute, rather I meant absolute—just plain absolute! In the relativistic perception of the world imposed by Einstein's authority during the last century, the "absolutist idea" was tossed aside for the sake of fashion—largely thanks to Einstein himself and his interpreters—because he built his relativism upon a physical absolute, namely the speed of light. So, I’m talking about that kind of absolute: the identity of particle and wave, that complementarity which constitutes the WHOLE! In actual human life, the Absolute is the simultaneity of female and male, while the relative is being female or male. Similarly, in the physical world, the Absolute is the simultaneity of the north and south poles, whereas the southern or northern pole is relative; it's the same for everything else, like the Absolute Day versus the relative day and night, or the Absolute Image compared to the relative negative and positive of an image, and so on. From this, you can see this interpretation is a bit different from what we're used to when discussing the relative and the absolute.

Walter Foster87 says: You probably mean the form!? It’s the form that obliges you to view the whole as a whole and the parts as parts, and not to attribute the characteristics of the parts to the whole (much like those who BELIEVE the atom is divisible, forgetting that the atom is already defined as the smallest particle of MATTER, even elementary matter).
hollowpilot9: No, quite the opposite! I mean the content, not the form. Form is just the "packaging" for the content of the origin. Based on everything I've said regarding the WHOLE, it should finally be CLEAR that by "whole," I mean the simultaneity of WHAT IS TRADITIONALLY CALLED duality, binarity, polarity, opposition, complementarity, and so forth. The content of the origin is always SYNTHESIS—that UNIFIED thing which creates and causes the polar world. The parts in such a world aren't "screws," axles, bones, or fingers; they are FRACTALS that are isomorphically mapped, shaped, and assembled according to the entire structure of the WHOLE! Let's say a fractal part of any whole, including the universe, is a tetrahedron—well, a tetrahedron is a whole unto itself!
Walter Foster87 says: Quantum, linear, nonlinear... the essence of appearance lies in the coordination of parts whose community forms a whole, specifically that kind of movement characterized by oscillation, involving both amplitudes, intensity, length, and INVERSION.
Well, that inversion IS NOT DISCONTINUITY, because it is precisely what allows the immanent (CHARACTERISTIC) opposition that maintains the WHOLE.
In humans, we deal with a NON-CHARACTERISTIC type of "opposition" that doesn't maintain their shape, but instead—constantly anew—forces them to "lick everything that is—as a non-human—gone to ruin..."

hollowpilot9: The first part is great, but when you claim inversion isn't discontinuity, I think you're mistaken because we are dealing with STRUCTURALLY INVERSE WORLDS, not just orientational ones. For instance, chiral L and D molecules are phenomena that are orientationally—mirror-wise—reversed, and that isn't an inversion; as such, they form an illusion of continuity like L+L+L+L...L + Ln, or D+D+D...D + Dn. But what I'm talking about is STRUCTURAL INVERSION, like when you "turn a glove inside out." Such a turning (an inversion) is discontinuous because the object exists one moment and ceases to exist in its polar existential definition the next. This is what Lorentz transformations discuss, which are actually inversions, not transformations. Otherwise, the term "transformation" is often misused for qualitative and inverse phenomena that have nothing to do with linear quantitative change—which is what a transformation actually is—whereas a qualitative and inverse phenomenon is always qualitative! Therefore, Continuity is made and can only be made by the simultaneity of a GLOVE and an ANTI-GLOVE (inverse gloves), which is something else entirely. That "something else" is the entry into a four-dimensional perception of the world where all our traditional Euclidean representations vanish and lose all meaning!
Walter Foster87 says: The possibility of construction and destruction can never be a synonym for good! Because that possibility also hides the possibility of constructing evil, or a lesser good, just as it hides the possibility of destroying good or a lesser evil... Thus, that claim is "true" (arithmetically speaking) only 3:1 (that 1 only occurs when the creation of good follows or completes the removal of a lesser evil or greater evil) and is completely devoid of any value, since anything can be packed into it and anything can be justified by it.

hollowpilot9: It really comes down to how we define "construction" versus "destruction," doesn't it? To me—just thinking out loud here—construction is the process of crafting something exquisite, like a high-end Waterford crystal glass. Destruction, on the other hand, would be that exact same glass shattering because the sound wave amplitude of a high "C" from a Calasica hits it at just the right frequency to cause destructive interference. So, if the way the glass was made isn't considered "good," but its subsequent destruction is labeled "evil"... honestly, I’m lost. Where does that leave us?
Walter Foster87: Somehow, they’ve managed to convince us of something else entirely. Or—let me put it this way—no matter how much they claim that force is the "Absolute strongest," it’s clearly been somewhat muddled by that Mind of theirs... and now, that supposed supreme force? It's basically just a toss-up.

hollowpilot9: I’d love to know—what exactly is this "sense" that convinces us of things that aren't true? Is it just some glitch in our wiring? Because apparently, the brain’s internal sensor convinced humans not to mess around with matching sound frequencies to Earth's resonance—lest we accidentally shatter everything like a crystal glass out of pure ignorance or sheer laziness. So, what? The brain is basically whispering, "Watch out for destructive wave interference," because it's terrified we might trigger a Jericho trumpet situation? Just a thought.

Walter Foster87 says: Even when you look at all that intelligence woven into nature, human intelligence just hits different—it’s its own thing entirely. That potential creates this incredible dynamism, sure, but it also brings along this massive, sprawling pool of possibility where it doesn't really matter if only one in ten thousand or one in a million people actually triggers it. I mean, think about it—if you pull 6,000 or 7,000 people out of a million, that’s still a pretty staggering number, isn't it?
Beyond just the sheer dynamism of it all, there’s this sort of path unfolding—a trajectory woven from two distinct threads. On one side, you have the needs that evolve from our basic, natural characteristics as living creatures. Then, on the other, there's this simultaneous existence inherent to being a conscious, mental entity. It's a strange intersection, isn't it? One thread is pure biology, and the other is the complexity of thought, both pulling at us at once.
At the end of the day, there’s this uncomfortable truth we tend to ignore: your relationship with the world isn't actually with "the world" at all—it's just with other people. That's it. Whether that other person is a rational human being, some kind of primal animal, or just a total lunatic... well, that's where things get messy. It’s exactly why we build these massive buffers to protect ourselves—our legal systems, our government, our social etiquette, and what many people claim is their faith. We wrap ourselves in culture and bureaucracy just to keep from having to deal with the raw reality of who we're actually interacting with.
Sure, we’ve got nature to deal with too. At the end of the day, nature acts as a backdrop—a starting point, if you will—but the actual core of any relationship, the true territory where all philosophy and science actually live, remains firmly rooted between people. Even the most narrow-minded physicist can't study atoms or subatomic particles "for their own sake," right? They do it because we possess the capacity to understand them. And those capacities don't exist because of some external force; they exist because of themselves and their own inherent nature.
But hey, obviously that doesn't stop us from expressing ourselves—whether we choose to be blunt or sophisticated, or just plain stupid versus acting "wise"...
hollowpilot9: I honestly think the matrix of intelligence is fundamentally the same thing—what we’re actually seeing is just a difference in scale and scope. Take a plant, for example; its intelligence manifests as thorns to fend off some herbivore eating its leaves. Now, look at humans—our version of that same drive is building an "elastic" nuclear bunker to survive the shockwaves of an atomic blast. So, isn't it just the evolution of intelligence trending toward a SUPERBRAIN designed to "save us from the stupidity of individual minds"? You keep insisting that everything in existence boils down to a relationship between one person and another—and sure, I’m not disputing that—but I don't see it as the "final" truth. My take is that while a person is constantly interacting with other people (much like how one cell interacts with another, which is what you're getting at), they are simultaneously in a relationship with a HIGHER BEING—the very entity they are constructing and existing within. It’s like a cell and its larger biological organism; that's what I'm talking about. In my view, philosophy—as the human intellect attempting to grasp the Whole and the Truth—has to study the world of this Higher Being. I get that your philosophical boundary is limited to the living, biological human made of "blood and flesh," whereas my philosophy encompasses yours but adds this layer of the HIGHER BEING that I've been touching on in my previous posts. Philosophizing about an individual is one thing, but philosophizing about the entire human universe—humanity itself—is something else entirely. An individual is just an individual as long as humanity remains an amorphous mass, but the moment humanity starts behaving like a single, autonomous organism, the individual becomes something more. That’s where the NEW PHILOSOPHICAL DISCOURSE begins—though right now, it feels like we're all still just mumbling.

Walter Foster87 says: So, look—you’re basically programmed from birth through upbringing, schooling, and general culture to adopt this mindset where you view your private, individual ego as somehow MORE IMPORTANT than your actual essence as a human being!
I’m pretty hesitant to even use the term "social" person anymore, mostly because collectivism has probably corrupted the word beyond repair.
Even though our sociability doesn't stem from some primitive pack instinct or a desperate need for group defense, but rather from the very NATURE OF THE HUMAN MIND.
But why is a person so incapable of defining themselves as something distinct from their private persona? It's a question that can't be answered just by pointing at pragmatic imperatives, deep-seated biases, or the systematic brainwashing we endure in our schools and universities—basically, the whole spectrum of modern culture.

Walter Foster87 says:
Does anyone actually expect looking to be this seamless thing that doesn't involve blinking or the occasional glance away? If you do, you’ve basically just drawn a line between seeing something as a mere object and seeing it as some continuous stream of incoming visual data—which, let's be honest, isn't really how it works.
Everything is obviously relative—which means we really ought to have equally relative criteria to go along with them. Otherwise, where does it end? We could just keep developing these things indefinitely—straight into total absurdity.
hollowpilot9: It isn’t really about whether someone expects something to happen or not—that's beside the point. It’s actually about how we interpret phenomena and our own subjective experiences. But more importantly, it comes down to PHILOSOPHY. In my view, philosophy doesn't give a damn about what anyone thinks or feels; it only cares about Truth. And the Truth is that humans perceive the world discontinuously rather than continuously. There are two reasons for this: first, there's the simple fact of how our eyelids blink, and second, there's the matter of frequency—specifically, the oscillation of light.
Sure, things are obviously relative—but then again, they’re also clearly Absolute. It’s all about perspective, really. Everything feels relative when you're looking at it from a position that's polarly divided, yet everything becomes Absolute once you're viewing it from a positionally unified standpoint. That’s basically the whole deal. Beyond that, there's just... nothingness. A void. And that's where the philosophy of the whole thing—the essence of what I'm talking about—actually lives.

Walter Foster87 says: There’s always some sort of reference point tucked away in all of this—something that either gets understood implicitly or just gets pulled into the equation. When you start talking about oscillation, you’re inherently including that single point of absolute stillness. If you try to break down an oscillation, you end up splitting it into components, only to find that you’ve just rediscovered what you already did: that discontinuity sitting between the parts. But here’s the thing—as long as we're observing any kind of oscillation, we aren't actually talking about a discontinuity in that oscillation until we notice a shift in intensity—you know, amplitude—or a change in speed, like wavelength. And honestly, as long as the movement doesn't fundamentally lose its oscillatory shape, can we really say there's a discontinuity in the motion itself? Not quite.

So, everything in existence is relative—but maybe not quite as much as that old Greek guy thought when he stood right in front of a speeding carriage, convinced relativity meant he could just "pass through" it without getting flattened. Not exactly a foolproof theory, was it?
hollowpilot9: Absolutely—and that’s precisely the "point" that should be keeping philosophers up at night. It’s that specific junction where the "hillside and the valley" meet, manifesting in the Quantum World at certain intervals. It acts as the point of Origin for the wave's rise and fall, but it’s also the point of inversion. Just as we see this phenomenon in physics through waves and frequencies, we see it in biology through copulation—the joining of male and female at specific intervals—making it a quantum, non-linear occurrence rather than a linear one. Personally, I think studying these phenomena leads to some incredibly fascinating insights, which inevitably lead toward the UNIVERSAL—that is, the realization that the LOGOS of this point of union and inversion is UNIVERSAL. From a human existential standpoint, it’s vital to understand that this wave-oscillatory phenomenon inherently contains the potential for both construction and destruction—which is basically a synonym for "good" if you look anywhere from the Bible to modern times. I should probably mention that physicists—likely just rookies—spent quite a bit of time "fumbling around" trying to define darkness until I stepped in to define darkness as a phenomenon of destructive wave interference; a senior physicist actually confirmed my definition and added another layer to it. Not many people realize that the Absolute greatest force in the universe is DESTRUCTIVE WAVE INTERFERENCE, capable of shattering anything and everything—much like how Calasica used to shatter glasses with her high-pitched "C."

Walter Foster87 says: Fine. Let's just say it's all true then.
So, should we just roll over and accept this completely non-harmonic discontinuity within the human condition—simply because we’re living in an era of total discontinuity? I mean, does it even matter if the oscillatory motion continues its current path in reverse, or shifts into some broken linear trajectory, or just devolves into something entirely irregular and unpredictable? Is that really where we're headed?
Or maybe I should just frame the question like this: what actually happens when a mere fraction of the FUNDAMENTAL movements in nature takes on an ATYPICAL shape? You know—when that specific discontinuity occurs—the one you claim you "can't see," but which remains so incredibly vital to me?

hollowpilot9: I think I touched on this in my previous comment, but since we're deep in this dialogue—and specifically looking at your perspective, which seems heavily geared toward the practicalities of political and social humanism—it’s vital to talk about tuning the mind to wave-like and oscillatory patterns. It sounds abstract, I know, but it opens up entirely different ways to interpret social and political phenomena across the globe. It changes how we define life itself, and how we live within it. Besides, as I've pointed out a few times now, we are already living through this exponential acceleration of technology and "time." To actually keep pace with the shifts happening right now—and the ones headed our way—we need a NEW LOGOS. We need a logic capable of reacting, explaining, and acting instantaneously across any distance. Ultimately, I find it crucial because a mind tuned to wave frequencies, oscillations, polarity, complementarity, and holism allows for a "metamorphosis of philosophy." It turns philosophy back into a universal, fertile mental activity that can actually help a person rationally navigate and survive their natural existence here on Earth and out in the cosmos.
Your last sentence—"What would happen if just a part of the FUNDAMENTAL movements in nature took an ATYPICAL form? That is, when that discontinuity which you 'do not see,' but to me is so—important?"—actually encapsulates everything I’m getting at. It’s all contained within the ability to recognize and distinguish between construction and destruction, equilibrium and disequilibrium, harmony and disharmony. A deformed, asymmetric mutant is, unfortunately, the result of destruction, imbalance, and disharmony within its "cellular universe"—the organism. This is, of course, an ATYPICAL PHENOMENON, but it could easily become a TYPICAL PHENOMENON if some LINEAR FOOL triggers a radioactive potential here in the States that deforms the symmetric pattern of the human organism into some kind of "lumpy, liquid, gaseous, or plasma-like shape." Essentially, atypical movements become possible if STUPIDITY—FOLLY—gets tangled up in typical movements, much like it has so often happened throughout history.

Walter Foster87 says: No, let's look at how beautifully that aligns with killers. Phenomenology is, therefore, in that service of inhumanity, for which man has no natural predisposition, except for one: from his very inception and the beginning of his species, he hasn't been capable of constituting himself as a being (a person) different from a private individual.
hollowpilot9: Sure, okay, but the key question remains: Why is man incapable of constituting himself as a being different from a private individual? In my opinion, it's BECAUSE he is a follower of self-perception and world-perception imposed upon him by a linear way of thinking—one where HE, as a private individual, is more IMPORTANT than HIMSELF as a social being. Additionally, it's BECAUSE the concept of the SOCIAL has been conveniently deformed by the force of atomistic or mass materialism, rather than following the bionic social logos found within our inner being. External worker-class and elitist-class logoi prevent man from constituting himself as a SOCIAL PARTNER, as a FACTOR, because in a world defined by class or elitist DIVISIONS, he is merely a SUBJECT!! Don't get me wrong—I'm not advocating for some new kind of classless society, whether elitist or non-elitist. In a functionally organized and ordered society—the kind that is bionic—all people can constitute themselves as both private and social beings. That's what I'm talking about!

Walter Foster87 says: So, let's put it this way. Man is a whole, and his elements are the peaceful man and the warring beast. That is the natural order of things, and we ought to abandon any thought that human nature is richer, more humane, or more magnificent than that.

So, what exactly prevents you, me, and all these people from grabbing some sticks, putting logs in the middle of the road, or simply starting to loot, kill, and burn whatever happens to be within reach?
Even more so, because we are aware that such a period will return—only next time, someone else will be more organized and better prepared for that "devil's feast" than we are. Why, then, should we leave it to others to decide the time, place, and manner of the "great pragmatic revelry"?
And—what are we even waiting for? For them to declare the end of this "frog-like peace" again? For them to drone on about politics as the "art of the possible"...?

hollowpilot9: They are! He is a duplicitous one, and separation isn't possible. He is simultaneously the peaceful man and the warring beast, but there exists something that neutralizes both sides—both the peaceful and the warring aspects within man—and that is CONSTRUCTION—CREATION. Very few life forms are warlike during "mating" and the raising of offspring. The beast emerges before and after mating as a force to eliminate "competition," while in other cases, it's a predator that must feed itself and its young, basing its belligerence on cellular, and thus personal, egoism driven by hunger. Hunger isn't just a search for any old snack; it's a search for a "better and larger" snack...
Now, human intelligence is supposed to be—or at least ought to be—that which KNOWS there are at least TWO WAYS—the log-filled path and the clear path. I believe it is our intelligence that keeps you, me, and people like us from becoming "log-placers," because we know the same goal can be reached via the "reverse"—the other way around. The inevitability you mention is certain UNLESS NEUTRALIZING FORCES APPEAR. In engineering, they call this RIGIDITY—resistance to the aggression of force!

Walter Foster87 says: So, there’s no such thing as a "short circuit" here, except for one single point: Does a person actually have the potential to become a true Human Being, or do they not? If they don't, then they aren't to blame—they aren't responsible for it. But if they do... well, then things look pretty bleak and miserable for the individual.

hollowpilot9: I actually think they do! That potential starts to unfold, and honestly, it feels like it's already taking effect on both a mental and physical level. Everything I stumble upon online—at least on the mental side of things—convinces me that's the case. A slow but steady shift toward a neutral, open, and constructive mindset is forming... and I suppose our dialogue is contributing to that to some extent. It’s just a shame more people don't jump into the mix with the same kind of constructive energy.

CONTINUED

On page 313 of *Logos origin Philosophy*, there is a chapter titled HOMOTERAS. It says this:
When discussing planetary life, you can no longer ignore the concept of Humanity. In Jewish tradition, there’s this idea of the "GOLEM." (A lengthy quote from Mr. Scholema follows). In any case, those early researchers of life—using methods known only to them—essentially anticipated the relativity of space-time, which science wouldn't actually uncover until much later. Their vision of condensing a "mega-human"—a golem at the scale of an earthly human—is actually a reduction we see in every biological entity, scaling down from a human to the very first cell. The fact that identity remains constant between an adult human and those roughly 60 trillion individual cells is a scientific reality today; logically, the reverse holds true too—from the first cell to the adult. Therefore, the term HOMOTERAS is nothing more than an extrapolation of what we observe from the first cell to the adult, based on the Logos origin. In short, Homoteras is the macro-organism of man, what we call Humanity today. Between a human, humanity, and Homoteras, there is an equals sign; the differences are merely evolutionary stages. The gap between current humanity and Homoteras is simply that Homoteras is an autonomous cosmic macro-organism capable of self-renewal within existence—meaning it is polarly mature. While there have been past ideas—like the golem or that famous Walasov concept—suggesting "a time will come when man will build a new empire among the stars," this points directly toward the idea of Homoteras. However, here Homoteras is clearly defined as a cosmic being with specific characteristics, because those characteristics belong to humanity. So, this isn't some vague metaphysical space entity or a "gaseous vertebrate"; it is a concrete, real Being in the likeness of Humanity. The Logos origin understands that the evolution of both man and humanity moves toward Homoteras. Homoteras is a genuine philosophical concept and substance—an idea above ideas—making it the intellectual frontier for future philosophy. Homoteras is a concrete, actual subject for philosophy, just as the biological Human is the actual subject for science. By philosophizing about Homoteras, one philosophizes about Man and Humanity from the distance of their polar evolution from the Origin to the Origin. By introducing Homoteras into philosophical study, the age-old questions regarding the meaning and purpose of human existence, our history, and our political and technological development finally receive answers and a sense of meaning previously unknown to the human intellect. Man learns what he truly is, where he is headed, his ultimate goal, and where he came from.
I hope this excerpt is enough to show that Homoteras has been living and pulsing for a long time—it has its own organelles, metabolism, circulatory system, nervous system, brain, and, of course, the MIND, which I've already written about.
By the way, if you head over to Evolution.com, you'll find my 10 ESSAYS DISCUSSING THIS, which our dear little evolutionary scientists decisively and smugly DISMISSED, because apparently, the evolution of a worm is far more important than the evolution of man!
Walter Foster87 says: Morality is always found in the relationship between the state of WHAT IS and what SHOULD BE (what ought to be made real, to exist). Even when there is a small amount of immorality—which often feels like too much to us—we EXPECT that it too will vanish, be uprooted, or simply SHOULD NOT BE.
But, in that "WHAT SHOULD BE," the intellect possesses a single metric, because it POINTS TO AND ENFORCES the greater good that exists. Meanwhile, the Mind—sooner or later—mocks and dismantles that by offering an EVEN GREATER GOOD, including the very thing the intellect had established as "sacred" (the standard).
hollowpilot9: I can only repeat what I've already said: To me, everything is moral if it encompasses the creation, development, and maintenance of NATURAL LIFE. Everything is amoral if it opposes natural life, and it is especially immoral to violently disable or terminate life. In that sense, "devouring" is simultaneously moral and amoral, so it really comes down to the relationship, doesn't it? For instance, the world of flora is more moral than the world of fauna. A plant doesn't kill another plant just to eat, whereas animals—and the animal within man (as you put it)—do exactly that. From this, what logically follows as moral versus amoral??

Walter Foster87 says: BECAUSE THAT’S JUST THE SHAPE OF IT—CONTINUITY. Change isn't some glitch in the system; it's just how Everything exists.
No, we’re approaching this from a completely different angle—one centered on the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF MAN. What history actually records as "change" is just the temporary, fleeting oscillation between a semi-human state and that of a killer. If we want to talk about what would actually affirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE, we have to look at change through a different lens—specifically, a change based on the two distinct ways a human being (and their inherent humanity) can exist.
Does vision actually feel like one continuous stream to us? I mean, what’s the deal with a blink? Is it just a momentary lapse in sight—a split second where the eye simply *isn't* seeing anything at all? That specific break in perception—that little gap—is exactly what creates a discontinuity in how we view the world. Because if you're trying to argue that vision and blinking together somehow form a single, seamless loop of continuity... well, I have to admit, I haven't exactly encountered a version of "continuity" like that in my life.
Here’s another little deep dive into why oscillation—that constant, rhythmic vibration—is basically the absolute baseline of the entire universe. It’s more than just physics, really; it’s the ultimate intersection where science and philosophy finally shake hands. Or maybe they’re just dancing to the same beat? Either way, it's all there.
So, if you look at everything out there—every single galaxy, star, sun, planet floating in the void—they all seem to be caught up in these apparent circular motions. But here's the kicker: a projection of a circular motion is just a sine wave. And a sine wave? That’s just an oscillation. A wave. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? Is it all just one big, rhythmic pulse?
Every single atom and molecule on this planet has its own specific frequency—they’re all vibrating, oscillating, just constantly humming away at their own little rates. It makes you wonder, doesn't it? If everything is essentially just a series of rhythmic jitters, where does that leave the idea of "solid" matter? Just a bunch of tiny, restless waves masquerading as stuff.
Every single biological movement in the animal kingdom follows an oscillatory pattern—it’s just how things work. And because of that constant back-and-forth, there’s always going to be a DEAD POINT. It’s that momentary state of total stillness where everything just... pauses, before inertia kicks back in to get things moving again. Makes you wonder if anything actually stays truly "active" for more than a split second, doesn't it?
Every single artificial movement—if you really stop to look at it—is basically just an oscillation. It’s all cyclical, isn't it? Just back and forth, over and over again.
Every single biological function out there is oscillatory—they’re nonlinear, not linear! It's all cycles and feedback loops, really. If you think life moves in a straight line, you're missing the entire point, aren't you?
The oscillation of the Logos is essentially the absolute Logos of the entire universe—it’s the core of everything. That’s why harmony pulls us in, while cacophony just... isn't it. It pushes us away.
The insights you pull from an oscillatory, discontinuous world are fundamentally different from anything you’d gather from a linear, continuous one—it's not even a fair comparison. You see, those first kinds of insights? They’re objective—they actually hold truth. But the latter ones? They're purely subjective—just a bunch of illusions. Or maybe just noise masquerading as reality? It's hard to tell sometimes.

Walter Foster87 says that Pragma is really the last one left who actually gives a damn about character shifts—she’d much rather just shove everything under the umbrella of "phenomenology." You, on the other hand, seem obsessed with dissecting things—you're looking for that "discontinuity" between the individual pieces. But here's the thing: what keeps the whole structure together is the fact that each part *is* the whole. When you focus solely on those gaps, you end up missing the internal continuity within the parts themselves—and more importantly, you miss the dynamic way those parts link up to ensure the entire thing stays seamless.
To me, pragmatism is purely existential—it’s that fundamental necessity required just to function in this life—whereas phenomenology is... well, something else entirely. Everything I think, everything I actually do—at least from my own subjective standpoint—seems to point toward synthesis rather than dissection. It’s like, isn't the very idea of discontinuity just another feature of synthesis? A characteristic of waves and oscillatory movement, really. Quanta don't show up in a smooth, continuous stream of time; they appear in intervals.
The whole idea of a "continuous whole" is a total myth—it just doesn't exist. I mean, think about it. The individual elements that make up any given whole are constantly shifting, flickering, oscillating... everything is in flux. It’s all just constant movement under the surface.
Take DAY, for instance—it’s a complete unit, right? And its core elements are day and night. They just cycle back and forth endlessly as the building blocks of that larger entity we call DAY. At least, that’s how I see it, and honestly, it’s pretty hard to talk me out of that perspective—unless, of course, you argue that day and night are actually fixed constants. You know, like two complementary poles forming a single, unchanging whole called DAY, which is itself a constant. If we go down that road, I could get on board with the idea of the CONTINUITY OF THE WHOLE... but then we’re basically standing at the very beginning, at the Logos origin—which, let's be real, is already drifting into a different version of "my" philosophy. So, look—if you’re talking about the wholeness and continuity of the Logos origin, then yeah, you’re absolutely spot on. But if you're referring to what actually emerges *from* that origin? Then you've missed the mark. It’s like saying a human being is a totality and a continuity... but then claiming they aren't. Or vice versa. It’s a bit of a paradox, isn't it? At least, that’s how the world looks from where I'm sitting... maybe?
Why go with that, when we have a much more fitting term right at our fingertips—delusion? I mean, a lie always implies a deliberate attempt to lead SOMEONE ELSE astray just to score a little something for yourself, doesn't it?
That’s why a lie isn't really the direct opposite of truth—it's actually the opposite of wisdom. Which is why we should probably just let them keep their fancy titles, don't you think?
To me, truth and lies are just two different ways to trigger an illusion—whereas wisdom is what allows you to spot the actual Truth hidden within that illusion. Think of it this way: Wisdom and Truth act as constructive correlates, while truth and lies? They’re destructive correlates. An illusion is, essentially, a DECEPTION. Take the old school of thought, for example—back when people were absolutely convinced the Sun revolved around the Earth simply because that’s what their eyes told them. They weren't necessarily lying; they were just trapped in an illusion... their own visual perception was pulling a fast one on them. The moment someone realizes that flipping that logic actually brings them closer to reality, they become wise—even if the sensory deception is still technically happening right in front of them. So, yeah—wisdom and Truth are complementary partners, whereas truth and lies are mutually exclusive forces that basically annihilate one another. If we actually followed that logic, maybe we’d finally pinpoint the exact coordinates where life and death actually reside... wouldn't we?
Walter Foster87 says: It feels more like you’re focusing on the analysis of parts and their synthesis. When we talk about a movie, IT IS A WHOLE—nobody is disputing the individual frames. But, for the same reasons, nobody disputes that dynamic connection that creates a whole, which is clearly a two-hour continuity (a continuous display) of the film. After all, we don't expect a movie to be anything other than a rapid succession of images. Otherwise, we’d be talking about holograms or some kind of 3D projections. So, a film AS A FILM possesses its own undeniable continuity.

hollowpilot9: We’re getting close to something regarding the tuning of "wavelength and frequency." A film is definitely a whole made up of an n-number of still images that either sit still or move. We see them when they are stationary, not when they are moving, yet the impression is one of constant motion. So, everything is the exact opposite of our perception...
Walter Foster87: When you look at things from different angles, you get wildly different results. But what you’re attacking here isn't BELIEF, it's convention. Sometimes it's just a sort of agreement (between left and right) that we inherit from our ancestors; other times, it's a stance adopted through active engagement—basically, movement. You see, the plugs are the other part of the story, which by sheer circumstance ALWAYS MOVE, and thus earn the title of ACTIVE members. Then there's the moment of penetration. If you swap the verb "to go" with the verb "to enter"—well, then a hole can't possibly go into a plug, but a plug can certainly go into a hole.

hollowpilot9: I completely agree, but philosophy isn't built on conventions—it's built on Truth! I hope you agree with that, because if so, when you suggested DELUSION instead of a lie, you were actually talking about the delusions of convention... Just imagine how many people have suffered because they were convinced there was an enemy standing "on the left side," simply because the left side is a convention rather than the Truth!?
Walter Foster87: The emergence of a continuous (whole) human being cannot be devolution or retardation, and it certainly isn't a return to the Stone Age. That would be the actual progress—that improvement IN KIND—which should have happened long ago, but never did.

The other parts—specifically, the quest to build some different (evolutionarily) higher being from man, and seeing man as the endpoint of evolution in the universe—are actually limited BY MAN AND HUMANITY. Of course, within our own kind, we have to see the ultimate result of evolution in the cosmos. ANYTHING ELSE WOULD BE UNNATURAL. And, attempting to construct an evolutionarily advanced being (rather than just a "better" human)—well, that seems somewhat arrogant. Not just because we can't perceive anything we don't have our own senses for (meaning we can't even guess what this new species might look or feel like), but because a human can still fantasize about it, since the mind granted us limitless imagination.

hollowpilot9: Based on what you're saying, every evolutionary stage is LIMITED BY THE BEING THAT MAKES UP THAT STAGE, because you claim evolution is limited BY MAN AND HUMANITY. If evolution doesn't build a being more advanced than the one constituting a given evolutionary stage, then evolution STOPS, the being becomes retarded, and it vanishes... So, I am talking about an evolutionary principle, a LAW of the renewal of existence that must cover the entire range—including the cosmic level of existence. In such an evolutionary context, I am saying that Man and Humanity evolve further toward the macrocosmic being that created them... I'm not saying anything other than what is a notorious fact in biology, and if that's considered arrogant, then any creation of a new human via sexual (or laboratory) processes is also arrogant. This isn't about fantasy, obviously; it's about facts that fantasists fail to see simply because they are too busy fantasizing. It’s well known in the evolution of intellect that visionaries were often dismissed as mere fantasists, yet time always shows that those "fantasists" were actually the ones telling everyone else that they were just fantasizing. That’s essentially my case!? I don't think the evolutionary human is the most perfect being in the universe, which is why I happily fantasize about Homoteras (humanity). Honestly, I find it baffling why people insist on "preventing the caterpillar from becoming a butterfly."
Walter Foster87 says: Now we're getting somewhere interesting. Because you're displaying all the hallmarks of a "prisoner." (That's why we're so blind to what doesn't suit us, yet we have eyes like hawks for anything that supports OUR hypothesis).
Could you pull up the thread titled "HOMOTERAS" and lay out the core concepts and expectations there... or do you already have some of that documented somewhere else?

hollowpilot9: A few different things are intersecting here. First off, there’s my own sense of being "trapped" by this idea—and also completely enamored by it—simply because it surfaced out of thin air as the perfect answer to every major philosophical question I’ve ever grappled with. For years, I actually dodged these ideas—I was honestly a bit terrified of them—because they kept popping up in a way that made me feel like I might be the "first genius in the world" to stumble upon them. That changed when I realized this concept is actually as old as time itself—stretching from the very beginning of existence right up to today. The decision to finally step into the light happened during a period of true wartime desperation, when I decided to put everything down in a book. Then, predictably, what had to happen did happen: people in high places started talking about the exact same thing, just using different terminology. For instance, Bill Gates doesn't use the term Homoteras; he talks about a "NEW BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM." It’s really just an eighteen-year gap in our timelines. Gates was basically just a kid while I was busy writing about Homoteras.

Walter Foster87 says:
"... so it’s ALREADY just a discontinuity because it keeps flipping between poles constantly... "!?
Is it because the poles are constantly shifting? I mean—constantly shifting! It’s just happening over and over again—constantly shifting!?!?!?

hollowpilot9:
Exactly—that’s the whole point! It’s because of that constant, polar flipping... it just keeps shifting. Always shifting. You’ve got the Northern pole turning into the Southern one, while the Southern becomes South North, then the Southern pole flips back to being Northern, and suddenly we're dealing with South North again. It’s a cycle—it just oscillates, oscillates, and oscillates. That’s just how I see things—my perception of the world, reality, the cosmos, and everything else out there in the universe. If I'm wrong, well, then I'm mistaken—but if I am, isn't that mistake shared by everyone else too? Is modern science actually just my partner in this massive delusion?
I’m going to say this again—and I mean this—because the oscillation of being is the core essence of every single thought and expression I have...
Oscillation is just this incredible, all-encompassing, divine-meets-human phenomenon that defines the entire universe—so please, for the love of everything, just respect my obsession with OSCILLATION!

Walter Foster87 says:
When you look at a person through the lens of discontinuity, you’re essentially looking at the shape of their private self—and, if it makes any sense, it's also how their functional self takes form. It’s that continuity, I suppose, that allows them to switch between the two without missing a beat. Or maybe they just get really good at pretending? Either way, it's all part of the seamless transition.
Man/woman dynamics—or whatever "principles" people like to claim exist—are really just basic biological impulses at the end of the day. It’s all just physical nature, isn't it?
hollowpilot9: You’re talking about one thing—I’m talking about another. Nothing unusual there, really. Your take is probably spot-on from a PRAGME standpoint, while mine likely holds water if you're looking at it through the lens of phenomenology. For me, the shift between day and night—and the DAY itself, which encompasses morning, afternoon, evening, and night—is a quadripolar symbol. It’s the fundamental state of things for everything, including the male-female relationship, or anything else that carries a polar nature. So, my philosophical project—call it a calling, or whatever you want to call it—is to bridge the gap between the philosophy of "day" as a collective unconsciousness and the historical experience of "DAY" as a lived reality. Basically, we’re clearly talking about two different things!
Walter Foster87 says:
There’s no such thing as a lie if there isn't any intention behind it—it just becomes a mistake. At the end of the day, you either have one person standing in the truth or someone else lost in a delusion. It’s that simple, isn't it?
No, wait—first off, I think you’re probably trying to say that you don't believe it's actually possible to guarantee the continuous existence of humanity. Because, look, I don't doubt for a second—if we look at history—that there is an eternal DISCONTINUITY in the existence of every single sentient being. But, at the exact same time, I know that continuous existence *is* possible. Honestly? I just think it’s a matter of time before people and their societies—just in a different way—simply won't be able to live the way they currently do anymore.

Look, you see what I mean? I’m not even talking about a lie as some subjective little phenomenon that misleads—that's not my point. I’m talking about a Lie as an actual entity of Truth that actively erodes what is true. If Truth and Lies are inherently tangled up so tightly that you can't even tell where to draw the line... well, a physicist once noted that these concepts mirror the relationship between waves and particles, or a particle and its antiparticle, or mass and energy, or even just black and white. It seems to me we’re going to approach the ideas of continuity and discontinuity in two completely different ways here. To me, discontinuity is like watching a movie in a theater. The audience gets this impression that they are watching a continuous flow for, say, two hours straight, when in reality, they are experiencing it discontinuously—frame by frame. They see the image, then they don't, then they do. Truth is what is actually happening right here on the screen, not whatever impression or feeling the viewer walks away with. You seem to be focusing on the audience's perceptions and opinions, whereas I’m talking about the actual phenomenon based on hard facts.

Walter Foster87:
What kind of sophistry are we even dealing with here? Honestly, if they aren't actually wiser than they claim—well, then the whole thing is pretty straightforward. You have a starting point on The opposite on the other side, and by definition, that point is simply the opposite of whatever it’s facing. Simple enough, right?

Look, these aren't sophisms—which is exactly what I laid out in my last comment. I broke it down using an A to B logic, but honestly, I could probably explain the whole thing using a peg and a hole if that makes it any clearer. Think about it: you—or anyone else, myself included—can never actually *prove* whether the peg fits the hole or the hole fits the peg, yet we all just collectively believe, assume, and act as if the peg goes into the hole, right? It’s just how it is. It’s the same deal with directions. You can't prove that right is right or left is left, because at any given moment, right is simultaneously left and left is simultaneously right. So, what are we looking at here? Is it a sophism, a raw fact, or some deeper level of perception? What you're labeling as a "sophism" is really just the failure of traditional philosophy to grasp how two paradoxical, contradictory, and inverse concepts or processes can exist at the exact same time. That’s the massive distinction between linear and non-linear thinking. Simple as that.

Walter Foster87 says:

Everything has a starting point—someone just has to step up and actually pull the trigger on it.

Absolutely! My whole argument is that this isn't just some solo act—it’s being driven by MORE THAN ONE ENTITY working to build up humanity during our entire existence on Earth and out in the cosmos... You know? So, while you're over there using vague terms like "someone," I’m actually getting specific about exactly who that "someone" is.

Walter Foster87 says.
Wait, what now—is it actually possible that you’re thinking too "linearly" here? Look, when we're talking about walking, those little nuances of moving closer or drifting away are basically irrelevant. I mean, just look at mime or a military drill—they have "marching in place," don't they? For the actual act of walking, the only things that really matter are the moment you stop—you know, that pause or standstill—or the exact second you decide to kick it into high gear and sprint.

hollowpilot9: I think there’s actually that one great film by Galte where—get this—during a water polo match, the ball just stays perfectly still in mid-air? It’s wild. Anyway, looking at the whole A to B thing... I was saying something similar before regarding how people watch movies. I'm talking about those linear delusions—the idea that we’re all just cruising through life in a car from point A to point B. Not that they're exactly "wrong," per se—not if you're looking at it from a philosophical standpoint, of course. But still.

Walter Foster87 says:

I’d probably just stick with this version: "...I've pointed out a few times now that my whole perspective is based on this evolutionary leap toward a higher plane of reality—and once you make that jump, a HUMAN BEING SIMPLY HAS TO BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF THEMSELVES."
Of course, there’s one little tweak to consider. We aren't talking about a man—not really. It’s more like a semi-human, or maybe just a temporary human... or perhaps just something vaguely human-shaped.
It’s obvious, isn't it? That strange pole—that thing of its own making—is just trying to build up the necessary assumptions to finally, at long last, become human.
If things actually work the way you’re claiming, then evolution is simultaneously devolution, retardation, reduction—basically a one-way ticket back to the Stone Age. But, based on what I've gathered, evolution is something else entirely. I’ve already pointed out the paradox of evolution, which is essentially the same paradox we see in technological progress: how a lower, less sophisticated level somehow builds—constructs—a higher, more quality-driven level. You don't seem to notice that—whether you're doing it consciously or just ignoring it—but for me, it's a vital observation. So, in an evolutionary context, the actual task of Man is to build something better, more capable, and more refined than himself. If he doesn't, then Man is simply the dead end of evolution in the universe. It's an elementary concept that should be understood—not because I say so, but because it's proven by the entire history of life, including our own history here on Earth. If humans weren't constantly improving themselves, we would still be living in caves. The way I see it, on both this earthly path and the cosmic evolutionary journey, Man acts as a station through which a macro-cosmic being—HOMOTERAS—is being built. That is my core hypothesis, my fundamental thesis, and quite frankly, I am not backing down from it. I consider it my intellectual discovery, the foundation upon which I hold my moral right of precedence. It’s a mental pearl that I offer up to the world... how someone chooses to receive it is their business, not mine. Ignoring it, disputing it, or trying to belittle it? None of that interests me. That says everything about the person doing it, whereas my thing is this mental pearl that I admire simply because it is universal—applicable to humans, pigs, horses, fish, plants, and so on.

Walter Foster87 says:
Morality isn't some single, monolithic thing—there are at least two versions of it from the very start. If you look at the friction between pure Intuition and what’s left of the "old world," you see how what feels moral to Intuition might be totally immoral to Reason. It’s a mess. And then you have those things that Reason considers moral—things that Intuition actually used to get behind—only for Intuition to suddenly tear them down once it moves forward. It decides they’re "immoral" or just "obsolete"... basically, stuff that deserves to die. Is that just how progress works? Just constant, rolling demolition?

I think I made my definition of what constitutes "MORAL" pretty clear. Beyond that, I’m honestly not equipped to engage in any further debate regarding morality... I mean, if we’re acknowledging that there could be at least two distinct moralities, then the only way that works is if we split it down gender lines—men's morality versus women's—or perhaps something akin to the differing moralities of polar penguins? In principle, I view intelligence as this complex, layered phenomenon that shouldn't really be compared to reason—since reason is fundamentally amoral, given that it belongs, among other things, to the PREDATOR. Here is how I see it: our parasympathetic system (that unconscious "self") is MORAL, which is exactly why it was granted the RIGHT OF CONTROL over our vital organs. Meanwhile, our sympathetic system (the conscious "self") is AMORAL; its nature is proven by our actions and the very thing that constitutes the conscious "self." Of course, following my own logic, morality is always defined by the relationship between the moral and the amoral, where the moral holds dominance. Conversely, amorality is the relationship between the amoral and the moral, where the amoral takes the lead. So, my entire intellectual world doesn't actually belong to one side or the other—it exists within the RELATIONSHIP between the two, leaning toward that MEZZO, that middle ground... that center point which is what truly makes us a unified whole.
One half is always joined to the other half to create the WHOLE! The remaining two halves represent a polar division—the kind of "tectonic tension" you see in concepts, opinions, or practical reality, much like Earth's tectonic plates... which, as we know, leads to earthquakes and tragedies. I’m intimately familiar with these tensions, and frankly, because I recognize them, I don't belong to them. But let's be real: those polarizing forces are always lurking in the background. I've mentioned this before: the PHILOSOPHY I follow belongs to the polarly unified, not the polarly divided, whereas most traditional philosophies lean heavily toward the divided side. That’s likely why there's such constant misunderstanding... my observational standpoint is the Logos origin of what we call reality and reality itself, while traditional philosophy only observes reality, much like
" the reality of watching a movie continuously in a cinema."

Walter Foster87: In a world defined by oscillations, you can only really see continuity once you step back and grasp the "bigger picture."
hollowpilot9: There is no such thing as continuity in an oscillating world—there is only DISCONTINUITY because everything is constantly flipping between poles. If we look at humans, that discontinuity is found in our male-female polarity; continuity is simply the existence of Humanity, encompassing both. Now, whether that’s actually "real" or just an abstract concept is the big philosophical question! If a person is real, then "Humanity" is imaginary; if "Humanity" is real, then the individual person is imaginary. It’s this bizarre inversion—this fantastic polarity—that prevents any single, isolated point in space-time from truly defining space-time.

Walter Foster87: Despite all those momentary oscillations and shifts in development, we live our lives—as biological, living organisms—as CONTINUOUS beings.
Death seems, at first glance, to break that continuity. But hey, we aren't the first species to maintain CONTINUITY through our OFFSPRING.
The catch is that AS HUMANS (rational beings), we lack the CONTINUITY OF EXISTENCE. In fact, we are a priori—from the very start of every "new" beginning—consciously aware, or at least intuitively feeling, that we are merely setting the stage for a new "discontinuity" through our own lives. We also know, through that same awareness and intuition, that an exit exists—YET WE REJECT IT!
Even if a rational being's continuous existence (LIFE) included various sub-oscillations, it wouldn't diminish its value in the slightest. On the contrary, the fact that a rational being doesn't exist continuously, but rather jumps from one transgression to the next—in a way, it actually undermines our entire generic nature.
hollowpilot9: You go ahead and stay convinced that we live continuously, and I’ll stick to my belief that we live discontinuously. Maybe we're both telling the truth, or maybe we're both lying? You can't have one person telling the truth while the other lies, since truth and falsehood are polar, complementary relations. One of our famous academics used to say, "Isn't it true that truth and lies are so intimately intertwined that we don't even know where to draw the line?"
Continuity is a concept born out of a Euclidean-Cartesian perception of the world, but such a world doesn't actually exist outside of being an illusion—a pragmatic, distorted association of reality. Think about it: no matter how large or small a sphere is, there isn't a single flat plane or straight line on it. Yet, Euclidean geometry is built entirely on lines, flat planes, and three-dimensional volumes. In scientific-philosophical reality, those concepts don't exist. They only exist because we have a pragmatic need for a "flat" surface instead of a curved table to eat at, right? Rationality fails here because it is UNABLE to perceive what lies "The opposite on the other side," which happens to be the title of an article by F. Capre where he notes:
"One of the fundamental polarities in life is the one existing between the masculine and feminine sides of human nature. Much like the polarity of good and evil, or life and death, we feel uncomfortable with this internal male/female polarity, and so we overemphasize one side or the other. Instead of understanding that the personality (individuality) of every man and woman is the result of these masculine and feminine elements intertwining, Western thought established a static (rather than dynamic) order between the poles. By overemphasizing masculine aspects—like competition, aggression, or purely rational, quantitative thinking—Western consciousness has made itself confused and contradictory. Today, we face the challenge of a NEW REALITY that requires the rational human to achieve the UNIFICATION of concepts that previously seemed opposed and irreconcilable."
I've said it a few times before: it’s easy to think in terms of positive or negative, but it is incredibly difficult to think with a unified negative and positive. That kind of thinking belongs to philosophy, and philosophy is still quite far from UNIFIED THINKING. That is the "background" of all my messages, and it's why I feel incapable of thinking about the world the way my professors and their followers taught me.

Walter Foster87: So, those oscillations are just parts of a larger whole (a gait) that remains CONTINUOUS from one point to the next... and no EVIL will occur if we simply rest or spend our "discontinuity" in other ways—unlike any form of breaking the natural bonds we share with other rational beings...

hollowpilot9: Walking from point A to point B is NOTHING BUT THE ILLUSION of straight, continuous motion. On a circle or a sphere, the relationship between A and B is simultaneously B and A—if A moves toward B, B is essentially moving toward A at the exact same time. My neighbor, who just started studying surveying, was telling me how his math professor spent four whole hours trying to convince the class that they needed to completely forget everything they learned about geometry back in high school. That’s the gist of it, Walter Foster87—which, I'll admit, is pretty tough to wrap your head around since we're talking about philosophy and science here, not just basic geometry?

Walter Foster87: That higher-quality being—it’s a tendency you can basically assume just by looking at the development of all living things and their various species.
Look—there's a massive difference between a human being who (finally aware of themselves) lives life without pushing others around, without senseless wars, and without unnecessary, tyrannical rule—versus a "human" with silicon chips shoved into their brain.
One of those two isn't going to make it.
Because, either those silicon chips remain HUMANITY'S TOOLS, or those "cyborgs" of yours end up running the show.
hollowpilot9: I've said it a few times now: my opinion is based on an evolutionary leap to a higher level of reality, and with that leap, MAN SIMPLY MUST BUILD A BETTER, HIGHER-QUALITY, MORE ADVANCED VERSION OF HIMSELF. That’s the heart of my message—it’s not some "game" of man versus cyborg, or a question of "who's gonna win"?

Walter Foster87: Morality boils down to this: preserving what we've achieved, creating the material conditions for new mental leaps, researching what can (and ALWAYS CAN) be improved within the existing framework, and pursuing those "pure" goods we call inventions.
Every other version of morality exists solely to serve that purpose—to preserve what we have so we can create the material conditions for new innovations—and investigating the "unintelligent," or what we call immoral, or simply WHAT SHOULD NOT BE, is actually the starting point of the path toward INVENTION.
Money, profit—that's just candy for toddlers—it's all there to serve the Purpose.

hollowpilot9: I've done a fair amount of thinking and had plenty of debates regarding morality. One group was absolutely floored when I told them that morality doesn't evolve; it's either a constant, or it's nothing at all! All my research points to the fact that something is MORAL only if it does not oppose a being created out of love. Any action that goes against that, that makes it impossible, or that diminishes it, is amoral.

Walter Foster87 says: Nah, continuous existence is still possible in that kind of world—even if it unfolds through an inversion or a revolution of fundamental ownership structures. That doesn't contradict anything, because that is THE ONLY WAY to confirm the CONTINUITY OF HUMAN EXISTENCE.
hollowpilot9: In a world of oscillations, nothing is actually continuous; everything is discontinuous! We don't perceive continuity, we perceive discontinuity—one moment we see it, the next we don't. We don't live continuously because we’re awake one second, asleep the next, living one moment, and dead the next...........
We don't walk continuously either; we walk discontinuously, because our legs OSCILLATE when we move.
So, until philosophy moves toward an oscillating, polar-complementary world, there will be no renewal of philosophy (and I'm not talking about, nor am I interested in, specific niche philosophies).

Walter Foster87 says: Well, you've made me feel like a total novice in my first hour of computer science class. But, look, there are cyborgs out there who DON'T HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER!
Does a human-like creature truly have to kill another human!? Individual issues—psychosis and whatnot—as causes for murder? Those are miles behind, say, economic interests (do you remember those 164 people killed by being tied up with olive oil from Spain during the Terror government of the so-called Communists!? The very same ones who killed their own freezing, starving subordinates over some triviality, like a head of cabbage in Sinj Field). Then, somehow, victims of justice are imposed (from political trials to—well, the supposed state right to harvest organs from "dead bodies"...) And finally, at the core of all that killing—even the most massive instances—is this: sooner or later, humans have to kill one another because they have turned one of their own "faces" into The Only One.
It follows then that cyborgs (if they retain a human brain and existing social structures) WILL HAVE TO KILL EACH OTHER. Their alternative is to either destroy what they themselves created, or for everyone to collectively stage a "Great festival" in a single day so the destruction happens without casualties and renewal can begin. But why did they become cyborgs in the first place? Wouldn't it have been smarter to slow down the development of productive forces, ban cyborgs, and thus give humanity more time to solve that fundamental task—how to achieve continuity in SOCIAL RELATIONS?

hollowpilot9: I just read that some British doctor implanted the first silicon chip integrated with his nervous bio-system. Personally, I wouldn't go that far, because you surely noticed that I hold the view that a human, from an evolutionary standpoint, MUST BUILD A BETTER AND HIGHER-QUALITY BEING THAN THEMSELVES. I know many people can't quite "swallow" that, but I am convinced of this evolutionary trend, just as I am convinced that all life moves toward its LOGOS ORIGIN, rather than FROM THE LOGOS ORIGIN toward an unknown and uncertain future.

Walter Foster87 says: Aren't great thinkers also just "big kids," getting so excited about an invention that they mindlessly accept the first solution that pops into their heads as "irrefutable"?
I remember struggling myself with the fear of my kid touching a power outlet or something. That's why I wanted to install them all at 140 cm height. But—from the "masters" down to the engineers—everyone loudly insisted that wasn't aesthetically pleasing, wasn't practical, or wasn't "normal." So I get what you mean, but—despite that—man is an inventor, even when he installs electricity using a complete mess of wires.

hollowpilot9: We are all "big kids," especially inventors, though don't forget there are always at least TWO types: those who rejoice at an invention like a child with candy, and those who calculatedly create an invention just to make a buck! Morality in the case of the latter is usually QUESTIONABLE.

Walter Foster87 says: That was probably a coincidental discovery that simply improved the species. An invention—as it turns out—has this quality where it cannot be perfected without social (human, or mental) relations. Things like piles of leaves or stones that are discarded after brief use aren't inventions; they're just tools. Sure, intelligence or some kind of individual cleverness can be seen in the abstract representation and the conclusion reached by connecting two EXISTING external objects (a walnut and a stone, water and a pile of leaves...). But all these "smart" animals still rely on the supplies provided by nature, whereas human intellect is the only thing that PUSHED NATURE, REPLACING IT WITH HUMAN PRODUCTION.
hollowpilot9: A parrot doesn't just stumble upon things by accident—just like a fawn doesn't accidentally find its mother's milk. Some immature idiots actually mocked me once when I suggested that kids often end up eating chalk because their bodies are screaming for calcium. Earth itself acts as an "anti-toxin," and clay works like a natural antibiotic. Before humans started meddling, nature was in total equilibrium. But then man comes along and polarizes everything, creating this whole "new nature"—and, predictably, it’s costing us dearly.

Walter Foster87 says: It's fine that instinct provides motivation. But take a look at our labor laws and ask yourself why an EMPLOYER gets priority over something as dignified as an invention. Sure, plenty of breakthroughs happen by pure chance—like some external circumstances aligning, or even Archimedes catching a vibe in his bathtub—but none of that changes the CORE of our human nature or the CORE of our "stuff."

hollowpilot9: I'm not so sure about that? Honestly, would you ever see an employer just seize MY INVENTION without cutting me a check? That seems impossible to me, as long as we have intellectual property institutions—though, if you ask me, those are basically just outdated relics of traditional intellect.

Walter Foster87 says: It’s wild how much things can vary, isn't it? You’re talking about physical immortality—that whole concept of the body living on. But for me, the real headache is the continuity of existence—you know, that "immortality" aspect regarding the invisible world of a legal entity.

Why doesn't "interpersonal killing" actually exist? Think about it—one human being can't truly kill another with actual, conscious intent, which means groups of people can't really kill each other either. Sure, every single "enlisted" side is convinced they’re the ones standing on the side of justice, while everyone else is just some kind of monster or villain. And then, once a new peace settles in, those animalistic creatures somehow metamorphose back into civilized human beings—at least until the next bloody conflict kicks off.
In this whole discontinuous existence we call being human—physical immortality could actually be pretty damn dangerous.
It’s easy for any mortal to play the part of the consoling philosopher—it's easy to look back and say, "Well, I was just a kid and had no clue what was happening," or "Back when I was young and healthy as a horse, I could have easily swung either way—been a fascist or an anti-fascist, for all I knew." Then you grow up, start a family, and suddenly you've got people depending on you to keep the lights on and put food on the table... then the kids hit school, life keeps moving... and in the middle of all that, you end up experiencing one, maybe two—hell, three or four—wars in a single lifetime.
Look, after the sixties—and especially once you hit the eighties—a person's entire range of interests and potential basically shrinks down to nothing more than a collection of old memories. It’s all that's left. Now, just imagine an immortal being who actually *remembers* every single war, every conflict... someone who can no longer hide behind the excuse of having lived a short, fleeting life. You know? Even if we could somehow strip away all those mental aches and pains that come with aging—just think about it—once that person finally realizes how utterly meaningless their "hardest moments" actually were... wouldn't they be looking for a way out pretty damn quickly?
Everything seems fine, I guess—but there’s still this massive, looming question hanging over everything: Is existence actually continuous, or is it discontinuous? Does anything in this universe even possess continuity? Based on what I know—and believe me, I have plenty of documentation and evidence to back this up—there is absolutely nothing continuous. Not a single thing. Nothing linear, either. Because of that, I tend to view every single coordinate through an inverse lens. People try to wrap their heads around mortality and immortality, but they basically just break their teeth on the concept. Why? Because most people never bother to examine those terms within the context of oscillation—you know, wave phenomena—or the inversion of those waves (kind of like how you have the inverse relationship between a negative and a positive of the exact same image). Instead, they just study them linearly along a standard space-time axis. That kind of perception simply doesn't work anymore. It’s obsolete.
Walter Foster87 says there isn’t a single problem out there that a person can't eventually tackle. Sure, they might pile up—which is a bit overwhelming, I guess—but really, that just changes the sheer quantity of demands being thrown at you. And honestly, why does anyone have to deal with them the second they pop up? Why not just let them sit for a while and deal with them later? Besides—just look at how politicians and lawyers go about manufacturing a "Grand Problem" out of thin air—you'll realize we actually have so few real issues that those people are practically forced to invent new ones every single day just to stay busy.
Exactly! There isn’t a single problem out there that a person can't solve—it really just comes down to having the willpower and the sheer determination to dig into everything we've already learned. Think about it. In this massive "Himalayas" of information and knowledge, the answers to every single question and dilemma are already sitting there waiting—you just need the ability to spot them and, more importantly, interpret them correctly. It’s all about perception, right? I mean, I was honestly floored when I stumbled upon the idea that yawning is actually a fundamental way humans communicate with one another. Sounds crazy, doesn't it? But honestly, it feels like a pretty big truth.
Walter Foster87 asks: Are we even talking about the same thing!? The human brain plus high-end technical gear!?
So, how exactly are these keyboard warriors supposed to reproduce? Are we talking about just cloning their own brains? Or what?

We aren't even talking about the same thing here. My point is about two distinct paths: one, the extrapolation of the human brain into a sort of GLOBAL SUPERBRAIN—which, by the way, is already functioning—and two, the development of a 3D-configured MACHINE BRAIN that operates exactly like ours. So, if you want to talk about a cyborg, we’re looking at a "monster" equipped with a brain like that. It could do everything a human can, plus a little extra. For instance, it wouldn't need to kill off another cyborg—or heaven forbid, a human—just to secure its existential energy. Why? Because it produces its own power, whether through photovoltaic cells or atomic transmutation... things like that. This kind of self-sustaining, self-creating GOG cyborg was actually detailed in an issue of Scientific American and even featured on TV... it’s essentially just like a human, only the internal hardware is different. Some people still find it hard to believe that we can transpose a biological human brain into a machine, but let me tell you—that work is already well underway.
Walter Foster87 says: Look, there’s an element of a necessary evil at play here. If inventors actually took on the level of responsibility you're demanding, they’d be forced to obsessively refine and study every single detail—to the point where by the time a prototype is finished, there wouldn't be a single thing left for anyone else to add or improve.
If that were the case, we’d probably still be staring at prehistoric prototypes today.

hollowpilot9: That whole "necessary evil" concept is really just the price of evolution, driven largely by human stupidity. As evolution moves "upward," that stupidity fades, and with it, both the "necessary evil" and the tendency to blame people for being foolish. Just because someone is practically *forced* to act stupidly doesn't mean they get a pass on the consequences.
In my book, if an inventor doesn't follow what you're suggesting, they're essentially immoral.
Walter Foster87 says: Specifically, those who abuse the invention.

hollowpilot9: If there’s no invention, there’s nothing to abuse. Therefore, the perpetrator is as innocent as a toddler sticking a nail into a wall outlet. Who’s really at fault there? Is it the kid, or the person who designed an outlet that allows a child to stick a nail in it? Would it have taken decades to find an engineer smart enough to invent a socket that’s child-proof? In the meantime, hundreds of innocent kids would be killed by electricity! Personally, I can't stand those kinds of inventors—and I say that as an inventor myself. To me, an invention should be triple-secure so it isn't dangerous to humans. Anything else is just a collection of more or less hazardous gadgets. You've probably heard about that Amazonian parrot that eats certain toxic berries and then immediately flies off to eat specific clay to neutralize the poison. Now *that* parrot is a true inventor in my eyes!!?
Walter Foster87 says: Don't focus on that aspect; look at the relationship to the INVENTION itself. How much can one person anticipate its development, discover all its practical uses, and foresee its direct and indirect consequences?
hollowpilot9: Why shouldn't I look at it that way? I once read how dynamite was discovered. Nobel’s clumsy assistant spilled nitroglycerin all over the floor, which gave Nobel the idea to mix it with "dirt"—and boom, dynamite. He got rich because he MANUFACTURED AND SOLD dynamite, not necessarily because he was some ultra-brilliant scientist-discoverer as the history books claim. There are endless "accidental" discoveries like that, which are then rebranded as "genius inventions from genius minds," when in reality, they're just flukes that could happen to anyone with half a brain. Inventing is a massive business, and in 99% of cases, the inventor does it for LOVE, not for the good of humanity.
Walter Foster87 says: But poisons serve other purposes too, besides killing—they're used for medicine, for instance.

hollowpilot9: And that is exactly the CATCH. People only show the GOOD side of an invention while sweeping the BAD side under the rug. It's what stays hidden under the rug that poisons and kills people, and that's how you earn fame and fortune. I find that completely amoral and beneath the standards of a WISE man—which is exactly what you claim to support.

Planinar says:

My take is that nature—if we view it as a single entity—has countless different faces. So, that example you gave about a pleasant, scenic meadow needs to be balanced out by an infinite number of other images of nature, all just as vital, which also possesses its own life, much like our own.

Your premise suggests that whenever something is new or unknown to nature, it’s just a branch growing from what’s already known—a new layer of nature. Personally, I think it’s just the same nature expressing its own potential.

Think about it—if a person walks into a cave to shield themselves from a winter storm, rain, or snow, and then lights a fire, they’re doing something completely natural; it’s exactly what the human mind is wired to do. But that same act might endanger bats or destroy their habitat entirely, which is also a perfectly natural and expected sequence of events.

That example you brought up regarding transuranic atoms is basically the same thing—humans using their innate mental abilities to create something that was previously unknown. If we're just utilizing our inherent capacities, isn't nature essentially using humans as a tool for its own self-manifestation?

Now, here’s the crux of it: either man is a part of nature—an ally involved in its self-creation—or he’s an intruder, a monster, something detached from nature or standing in direct opposition to it.
I lean toward seeing humans as allies of nature. As long as everything new and unknown is derived from what is already known and ancient, there isn't really any sign of anything being "unnatural."

hollowpilot9: When you say your impression is that nature is ONE BEING with many faces, I interpret that like saying color is ONE thing with a vast array of hues and shades. So, I actually agree with you—nature is One with many faces—but perhaps we differ in this: I see that ONE as a polar complexity of four parts that, through further interaction and overlap, branches out into the many faces of nature. For me, the ONE nature is defined by this quaternary structure, which can be proven by various natural phenomena. Within this four-fold context, at the fourth level, nature closes itself off—completes itself—into a single nature capable of catalysis, self-renewal, adaptation, and the things you mentioned.

Therefore, in this "CRITICAL" context, man is a part of nature acting as its creator. Honestly, traditional evolutionists get incredibly worked up when I suggest that it was precisely because of evolution that humans shifted from being objects of nature to being subjects of it. It’s a massive realization that implies an inversion in how we perceive nature !? I often find myself thinking this mirrors religious perspectives, to which I usually respond: science is simply the mechanism that fulfills what religion anticipates. If someone can't wrap their head around that sentence, that’s not on me—it’s the fault of the receiver who believes that "man is not God" and treats that as the finality of reality—a reality that inherently defies such a belief.
I laid out this entire perspective quite thoroughly during my dialogue with demos!
So, to wrap this up: we clearly agree. My sense is that we only differ on the idea that there exists nature and Supernatural that creates nature. Ultimately, it’s the relationship between matter and antimatter, masculine and feminine—basically, it's POLAR! In this framework, man is a Supernatural being because he is capable of creating, constructing, and producing everything that constitutes nature, including himself.

Walter Foster87: If that title translation—"Death by Government in the Twentieth Century" by R. J. Rummel—is actually accurate, then there isn't much room left for philosophy here.

hollowpilot9: Well, in a strictly literal sense, maybe not, but from a phenomenological standpoint? Absolutely. Interpersonal killing has been a fundamental phenomenon since the dawn of time—it's baked into animal nature, too. That’s why DEATH is such a primary question in phenomenology. It’s a first-order issue, which is why scientists working in nanotechnology, molecular DNA biology, computer science, and futurology are all hinting at human immortality. This is that exact point I made before—that science is essentially trying to manifest what religion merely anticipates.

Walter Foster87: The old guard hit the nail on the head: humans settle their disputes through negotiation and treaties, while animals just rely on brute force and conflict.

"Mental terrorism"—in a democratic society (meaning a society where the means to fight back haven't been stripped away)—can't really be the cause of hostility, unless that violence is being PROTECTED BY PUBLIC FORCE.
hollowpilot9: Mental terror is any action taken by another person that uses external messages, suggestions, demands, or orders to manipulate a person's mental state. Advertisements are just the mild, mass-market version of that kind of terror. A far more significant version would be, say, when a Marine candidate is scrubbed clean of their civilian identity and rebuilt with a brand-new military mindset. I also find it to be blatant mental terror when a professor demands a student KNOW SOMETHING that is patently obvious nonsense. In daily life, you see elements of mental terror everywhere—in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, and in basically every form of human communication. But there’s a huge problem there, like you mentioned—the sheer apathy or "numbness" most people have toward mental terror; they seem to handle it with a "one ear in, one ear out" approach.

Walter Foster87: The brain is just hardware—Mind, Reason, and Will are the software.
As I see it, any new kind of existence would just be an evolution—taking our "unfinished" human state and making it "finished." I don't see technical gadgets playing a role in that causal chain.

hollowpilot9: We're talking about processes that a human can no longer control through willpower, even if those processes were originally products of that very will. It's like the "mystery" of the sympathetic and parasympathetic systems in biology—or how technology constantly demands higher levels of technology, creating more problems that humans eventually lose the ability to solve. There's a reason we FEAR technology; by its very nature, it is AGGRESSIVE. The only way to compensate for that aggression is with a BRAIN that is stronger than the technology itself, and even stronger than the tech used to build that brain. That's why it seems to me the real answer lies in networking human brains into a global super-brain; only a collective mind could stand on equal footing with a mechanical brain, which is already functioning experimentally.

Walter Foster87: And nothing more. Because a cyborg, unlike a biological species, doesn't have the power of reproduction. Giving them any kind of authority over humans—which would effectively turn us and our own species into mere raw material—would be pure madness.

hollowpilot9: Not quite... a cyborg has the capacity for self-repair and self-replication; at least, that's what a certain issue of Wired magazine claimed about the cyborg. If a cyborg isn't capable of renewing or multiplying itself, then it isn't a cyborg—it's just a ROBOT.

Walter Foster87: On the contrary, no being has a STRONGER IMPULSE THAN THE DRIVE TO CREATE AN INVENTION. Even if you raised someone with a Spartan upbringing to become a fanatic—neither Mind nor Invention possesses the individual's POWER OR POTENTIAL. Whatever one person "fails to finish," another will complete. We aren't exactly known for producing many great inventions!
By the way, it's not the idiot who uses dynamite; it's the one who ABUSE it.
And that extends to the ones funding it with taxpayer money, the ones handing out medals and praise for such work... and even the historians who turn mass murderers into public icons and heroes...

hollowpilot9: I agree regarding the impulse, but that isn't an ALIBI for the inventor. An inventor is a responsible individual just like anyone else, and I'll say it again: I think it's hypocritical to claim the fool is the one who "misuses" an invention just so the inventor can stay "purely" intelligent. That logic doesn't fly with me, because I'm well aware of the MOTIVES behind an inventor's actions—what you call an "impulse." That motive can be good or bad, just like everything else in this world. Didn't Oppenheimer demonstrate the entire MORAL CRISIS of the creator once he realized what he had actually DISCOVERED?

Walter Foster87:
Wait—why did you let the perpetrator off the hook!?
An inventor, at the very moment of creation, is arguably the loneliest person on Earth. An invention, once finally realized, always starts out in its rawest, most primitive state; only then does it become an OBJECT of study, refinement, and the discovery of various practical applications.

hollowpilot9: Which perpetrator? Of what? Was Nobel some lonely soul when he "invented" dynamite? Was Edison isolated while tinkering with the lightbulb? Loneliness probably applies to Tesla, who was—how should I put this?—an "eccentric," whereas most inventors are quite social at the moment the "lightbulb goes off," since that spark often happens only after someone else triggers it. Watson and Cirka are perfect examples of that.
What you wrote about how inventions come to fruition is absolutely wrong. When a POISON is discovered, it is POISON from the second it’s found and every second thereafter—just like a cannonball or a laser beam is lethal the moment they are conceived. You’re likely talking about the *refinement* of an invention, which is really just a quantitative shift: whether it's 1 pound or 1,000 pounds of poison, 10 or 1,000,000 cannonballs, or a laser used for pointing versus one used for destruction. I think it’s totally misguided to assign some kind of moral innocence to the inventor, while blaming all the evil of an invention solely on the user. An inventor is a dualistic human being, just like anyone else, until they become a "complete person" (as you put it), but that’s a different conversation entirely. It’s easy to say society needs to figure out how to prevent misuse, but my question is: why create an invention with such high potential for abuse if the "protection" against that abuse can only be developed over TIME? In the meantime, as I said, people die, and inventors become RICH through production and trade, much like Nobel did. Royalties are a pretty sweet thing and a powerful MOTIVE to be an inventor, don't you think?

Walter Foster87: On the contrary. War was a phenomenon until its causes were uncovered. And is war still a phenomenon? Well, we'll find out when practice shows that our human understanding of war is insufficient (half-baked) or incorrect—or when it proves that war actually benefits humanity and society more than it harms them.

Until then, war remains a simple act of savagery perpetrated by the social elite.
hollowpilot9: I agree that war is an act of savagery, but it’s not just the social elite—it's also the folks in Puebla when the citizens are STARVING!
Walter Foster87: There it is—so now the INVENTOR is to blame again!?

hollowpilot9: Are you telling me it's clear the INVENTOR is to blame? I suppose the workers aren't to blame for the nonsense Marx and Engels wrote about them then!!? The elite you're talking about is merely a byproduct of the original stupidity known as an INVENTION—in this case, an IDEOLOGICAL INVENTION.

Walter Foster87: Regardless—man won't discover anything in space other than himself: a MENTAL BEING FROM EARTH. On the other hand, space will only provide him with enough material to indefinitely postpone his true purpose: the realization of self.

hollowpilot9: That's not the point. Space isn't the "dog" here; it's the mountain of nonsense accumulated due to our earthly, rather than cosmic, perception of SPACE-TIME. It’s like when a driver
firmly and aggressively believes they are driving FORWARD in their car, while the cosmic TRUTH is something else entirely—the truth being that they are moving FORWARD AND BACKWARD simultaneously. I've already said it: it's not the same to think we are MOVING AWAY FROM THE BEGINNING as it is to think we are MOVING TOWARD THE BEGINNING. Most people believe and feel that we are moving away from THE START, whereas I am CERTAIN we are moving toward THE START. Once you have two such conflicting BELIEFS, massive problems arise: What is Truth?

Some hiker mentioned they were hanging out in the Veternica cave near Mount Rainier recently—apparently, the temperature stays at a steady 46 to 50 degrees Fahrenheit in there, and the tunnels stretch on for about... 4.4 milesWe were only in the cave for about six or seven minutes before the instruments started picking up our presence—basically sensing how we were messing with the microclimate. It’s a delicate thing. In the winter, this place serves as a sanctuary for local bats that hibernate here, which is why they actually ban visitors from the entrance during the season. See, those little guys can only handle maybe two or three "wake-up calls" from external disturbances before they burn through too much energy. If they wake up more than that, they won't have the reserves left to survive the winter. It’s a perfect, if somewhat grim, illustration of how sensitive nature really is. It shows just how much even the smallest shift forces a process of ADAPTATION. Adaptation is essentially nature's primary mechanism—meaning any change, no matter how invisible it might seem to us humans, triggers its own natural response through adaptation.

hollowpilot9: Look, everything you’re saying about environmental sensitivity and adaptation—it’s fine. It’s all perfectly reasonable. But if I can throw another argument into the ring, it’s this: life on Earth exists within an incredibly narrow temperature window. So, we aren't just talking about shifts in climate here; we’re talking about phenomena actually *created* by humans that exist entirely outside the bounds of traditional nature. Sure, we could technically label human activity as "nature," too—but it’s a different kind of nature altogether, isn't it? A second, artificial layer layered over the original. To make my point, I’ll give you two examples.

Matter is made of atoms—the fundamental building blocks of everything on Earth (and out there in space) that we typically label as "nature." You know, the classic imagery: a wide-open meadow filled with wildflowers and wildlife. But alongside this inherited atomic legacy, we’ve stumbled upon a different kind of atomic reality that simply doesn't exist in "old" nature. I'm talking about transuranic elements. To me, this represents a whole NEW KIND OF NATURE—one that seems to carry an entirely different role and significance than what we're used to. Now, our traditional atomic makeup is either the result of the vast cosmos—think Big Bang, supernovas, all the way to the present day—or, if you're looking through a religious lens, the work of God. In such a material world, whether God exists or not, this "MONSTER" called Man has emerged. Through sheer willpower and a growing understanding of "old" nature, we’ve learned to physically and chemically manipulate these atoms. But here’s the kicker, and it's more than just manipulation: humans aren't just tweaking things; we are actually CREATING atoms in our laboratories, ranging from hydrogen all the way up to uranium. More importantly, we’re synthesizing transuranic elements—elements that don't naturally occur in "old" terrestrial nature. This realm of synthetic atoms is undeniably a separate kind of existence from the "old" nature we know. Of course, the physicists over on the "organic" science forums can't stand the mere suggestion of this—let alone the fact itself. Why? Because it threatens their precious little thesis that matter must always precede life. It's a bit of a headache for them, isn't it?

Take biology, for instance. Up until "yesterday," the whole mystery of life—whether you looked at it through a scientific, philosophical, or religious lens—was something only Mother Nature or God could truly wrap their heads around. It was a total enigma. But things aren't quite like that anymore, are they? If you actually sit down and do a proper analysis of how much we've stripped the mystery away from life since the days of Watson and circa the dawn of modern computing, you see a massive shift. Even the possibility of cloning suggests we're demystifying the very essence of being alive, though, granted, that all still plays out within the traditional boundaries of our "old" nature. But there’s this other thing happening too. It’s not just biologists working on this; people from all sorts of disciplines are pushing toward a completely different kind of existence altogether. We call it a dozen different things—robots, cyborgs, computers, cyberspace, various automated systems, sensor-driven artifacts, you name it. But if you look past the jargon, the common thread among all these "mechanical manifestations" of life is that they are built from physical, chemical, electrical, and electronic circuits. And everyone seems to be saying that, thanks to nanotechnology and advanced computing, these things will very soon "come alive" with all the hallmarks of traditional biological life. It feels like we're witnessing a new kind of nature emerging within the old one—at least, that's how I see it.

I guess I should probably explain why I keep harping on this whole NEW NATURE thing—since it’s pretty obvious that this "new nature" is busy transforming, transmuting, shifting, and basically tearing down our good old reliable nature in a dozen different ways. But honestly? To give you a real explanation for that, we’d have to start sprinting through the entire evolution of the spirit or the mind... and that’s a much bigger mouthful than this thread can really handle.

The only caves I’ve actually spent time in were the ones near Postojna and over by Mount Rainier—where, honestly, those fossilized remains of ancient marine life really blew me away. Back when I mentioned in a previous post that we essentially deal with at least two distinct types of calcium—mineral and biological—I got absolutely hammered with corrections. Apparently, I was an idiot or just plain ignorant because, according to the experts, what I suggested is physically impossible. Fast forward to today, and suddenly everyone is out here peddling "biological coral calcium" as the one true, holy grail of calcium for the human metabolism. Funny how they all managed to stay smart while I stayed "stupid," isn't it?
Relying on just one single version of nature to truly grasp how reality works is—to put it mildly—totally insufficient for any serious scientific or philosophical mind. In the context of "The Game," there are at least two versions of nature, though I’d argue there are actually four—even if we're desperate to pretend they're all the same thing. Does it actually matter which version we're talking about? One, two, three, or four...?

Nastavak:
If you stumble upon something that could potentially kill a person—something truly lethal—you have a massive, non-negotiable obligation to simultaneously figure out how to protect humanity from it. Until you do that, everything else is just empty, moralizing chatter coming from irresponsible people... you know, those greedy inventors who only care about the "eureka" moment. Take Tesla, for example. He was one of those rare, truly ethical innovators because he didn't just build things; he immediately started thinking about how to shield people from the consequences of his work. Most people today don't bother with that kind of foresight—which is exactly why they’re to blame. It isn't the fault of the person who gets caught in a landmine's blast; the culpability lies entirely with the person who designed it, manufactured it, and planted it in the ground. Simple as that, really.

Democracy says:
Some people actually walk around thinking they’re the ones pulling the strings on war and peace—as if they have that kind of control. But when you really start peeling back the layers—and I mean actually looking at the deeper mechanics of things—peace isn't just a treaty signed on some piece of paper; it’s more like a fundamental state of being for a conscious mind. And war? Well, maybe war is just what happens when a mind loses its way and tries to claw its way out of the chaos it created for itself. Or is it?

War is this existential phenomenon that’s been around since the dawn of time—I mean, we're talking biblical levels of history here—so I tend to view it through the lens of existential necessity. It’s like how in the animal kingdom, one life basically necessitates the end of another just to keep the cycle spinning. If you look at it from that angle, human warfare has to serve some deeper purpose beyond just the killing, looting, or "aborting" of life that you're so focused on. The data I shared pretty much lays it out... millions upon millions of people have been lost simply because the person driving the war was a Believer who felt their cause was absolutely vital and righteous. We’re really just looking at the victims of ZBLUD. And honestly, that kind of delusion is exactly what creates a Moćnik—or someone who thinks they're a linear genius.
Democracy says:

It’s funny when you really look at it—it seems like the wealthy aren't actually multiplying nearly as fast as the rest of us struggling folks. Is it just me, or does that seem backwards?
Just to be clear—I wasn’t talking about technical perfectionism here—I was aiming more at the legal and economic side of things. Think about it this way: imagine if you received a monthly stipend simply based on the concept of "original ownership"—essentially a payout because you haven't committed any injustice or evil. Then, add to that the right to purchase any piece of real estate you want, provided that right comes with a specific obligation: you have to defend what is yours using capital—an actual buyout mechanism—rather than resorting to monopolies or outright warfare. Makes sense, right?
So, here’s how it plays out—the wealthy are obviously going to shell out top dollar just to live in some pristine, high-end district of Mumbai, while everyone else gets stuck with the crumbling infrastructure and those run-down neighborhoods that desperately need a facelift. It’s all part of the plan, really. Like we discussed before—in this kind of society, unemployment basically doesn't exist, and then you throw in these "buyouts" that conveniently redistribute everything back toward the lower class. Or so they tell us.

I’m constantly going on about this kind of thing—this idea of inverted phenomena and conceptual reversals. If you actually step back and look at the entire biological spectrum, you start seeing a pattern where reproduction speed is inversely proportional to evolutionary complexity. I mean, think about it—viruses multiply at an explosive, almost frantic rate, whereas elephants or humans take their sweet time. It's a complete flip. Then you’ve got another one of those "weird" anomalies: molecular energy bonds being inversely proportional to the molecular level itself. Take a common cockroach, for instance; its molecular bonds are significantly stronger than ours. That’s exactly why human or fish meat decomposes so rapidly—leaving that lovely, unmistakable stench behind—while a cockroach stays intact much longer without the smell. It all feeds into a larger philosophical framework that we're only just beginning to uncover in the modern era.
Democracy says:
Why would I even laugh? There are certain problems that get "solved" in a way that ensures they stay broken—mostly because they exist to feed the entire system, right down to the various layers of society. It just keeps evolving until you reach a point where the only "cure" offered is to basically go off the rails. That’s how you get this specific perspective—this particular angle—that somehow justifies things like calls for local decriminalization of drug addiction or prostitution and all that other stuff.
Look, hollowpilot9—in your example, you’re really just asking why we bother with all these loopholes in the first place? If we just restricted their movement to the confines of the "department store," they wouldn't be in any position to spend their time manufacturing goods designed specifically to steal from us. It’s a bit of a circular logic problem, isn't it?

Back in my professional life, I once worked under this incredibly sharp director—brilliant guy, really. But the whole thing was constantly bogged down by salary disputes and endless bickering over how much bonus points should go to whom. It was exhausting. One time, I actually suggested we just scrap those formal review committees entirely. My idea? Just run a standard survey where every single employee gets to vote on which manager deserves what bonus. Most people at the time thought I was being an idiot—just total nonsense, they said. But it turns out, the results were almost perfect. People ended up assigning those bonuses themselves quite fairly, without needing some "wise" committee sitting in a room acting like they had a monopoly on morality. And that’s really the crux of it, isn't it? These self-proclaimed geniuses who think they're inherently smarter or more ethical than everyone else... they're the ones making the world a mess.

Democracy says:
So, Hegelians and Marxists—if they’d actually grasped the whole negation of the negation thing (you know, that actual logical link between how things start and how they evolve into something new), they would have realized a long time ago that the commodity form of goods is destined to reach its breaking point. It’s inevitable. But no. The real issue with Hegel’s method is that it either left his followers completely stuck in a loop, or—more likely—it just effectively lobotomized them.
Honestly—if someone actually tried to set up a school dedicated to practicing and actually DEVELOPING this method right now—I have no clue how professors would handle it, let alone the students.
Regardless, it’s certainly not a bad thing to have tucked away in your back pocket.

hollowpilot9: Fair point, but this whole "negation of the negation" business has cost people their sanity through pure mental terror. If you didn't get it then, you failed the exam—and honestly, nobody knew back then, nobody knows today, and I doubt even Hegel himself could give you a straight answer on what the negation of the negation actually is. Isn't that just the peak of stupidity among supposedly brilliant people?

Democracy says:

Why bother wrestling with these kinds of possibilities and themes when we haven't even cracked the code on our own earthly dilemmas and mysteries? Or maybe—is that exactly why we should?

hollowpilot9: Because humanity is stuck like a deer in headlights, and there’s no easy way out of this mess. Sometimes you need a massive leap forward to fix the small stuff—and one of those leaps is developing this idea of man as a CREATOR—the architect of a HIGHER BEING that possesses an earthly "MIND." In that scenario, whether you're dealing with scammers or common thieves, if they have some kind of central bank for criminals to answer to, or if they realize there's a HIGHER POWER above them—they simply vanish.

hollowpilot9 says:
On the flip side—it’s like the enemy views you as nothing more than a physical object, right? Just meat and bone. But that's not even the real issue here. The real problem arises when one member of a community—in a supposedly peaceful society—just kills another. It gets even messier if they use a weapon, whether they picked it up legally at a shop or grabbed something off the black market. And honestly? Every single murder committed under the guise of official authority—or through the blatant abuse of it—is enough to make anyone scream all the way down to the depths of hell.

When you're looking at hostility—whether it’s just one person being a jerk or an entire group turning against another—there’s this underlying assumption that the social bond is already dead. It’s broken. The actual relationship? Gone. All that political theater and the loudmouth posturing from politicians... that’s just noise outside the actual framework of how people relate to one another. It doesn't change the reality of the rift. Honestly, those "noble excuses" people always try to cook up to justify forgiving the unforgivable? They play right into that charade, too.

I’m still not entirely convinced that the enemy only shows up in a physical form—because honestly, I'm pretty sure psychological warfare is just taking the place of actual physical terror in most modern scenarios. If things actually functioned that way, maybe we wouldn't see all this hatred or the calculated intent that usually precedes violence. People don't just destroy one another physically; they do it mentally too. And let's be real—the intellectual primitives out there? They are remarkably skilled at being thorough with that kind of thing.

hollowpilot9 says:
What if we just... redesigned how society works? Imagine setting up a separate community entirely for the bad actors—you know, the premeditated killers, the predators, the armed robbers, the gang members, and the terrorists. We just carve out a space for them to go off and build whatever kind of twisted little state or society they think they want. And then—here's the kicker—we actually fix things on our side. We create an environment where nobody gets backed into a corner in the first place. We’re talking full employment, easy access to counselors, and specialized officials who actually have clearly defined roles and responsibilities to help people stay on track. Why struggle with the same old broken systems when we could just build a world that actually functions?
So, let’s just look at the reality of things—how many actual Spartans are going to be left in a community like this? Is there even going to be any "crypto" left once the dust settles? It’s hard to say. But honestly, when those in power basically hand their proteges a free pass to commit murder without consequence—and you have these kids following the most extreme examples they can find—it’s a mess. I mean, if the law says the price for taking a life is only five to fifteen years—assuming you don't get caught in some procedural loophole, or if the President decides to give you a little pardon here and there... well, then you get that psychological trigger. It’s that dangerous urge to test out this absolute, terrifying power by snuffing out another sentient being. Just to see what happens.

It feels like that comment was a bit out of left field relative to what I actually wrote. In my original post, I was really trying to drive home the idea that destruction—or even murder, if we're being blunt—happens in an instant, whereas building anything meaningful or actually raising a human being takes a lifetime of effort. It’s a universal imbalance, isn't it? It isn't just some random coincidence. That's exactly why I framed it around a "big philosophical question" that doesn't have a neat little answer. Think about it—a nuclear war could wipe out all life on Earth in a heartbeat, after millions of years of evolution worked its magic. So, here's my actual question: Why does it work this way? And what is the cosmic significance of instantaneous destruction—whether we're talking about the entire Earth or a massive supernova?

hollowpilot9 says:
It all comes down to this one fundamental principle—the core logic of how things actually work. You take any quantity—whether you’re talking about accumulation, multiplication, or just sheer buildup—and once it hits that inevitable ceiling, one of two things happens. It either collapses under its own weight, forcing the whole cycle to start over from scratch, or... it breaks through. It transcends. It jumps from mere quantity into an entirely different level of quality altogether. Isn't that just how everything works?
I’m just not buying this idea that quantity somehow evolves into quality. I mean, really—if that were actually how things worked, would we just keep piling up iron atoms until they suddenly transmuted into gold? Or would stacking water molecules one on top of another eventually result in some "superior" molecule? Not exactly how physics works, right? In my view, the whole thing works in reverse—quality comes from subtraction, or division, rather than addition. Just look at natural radioactivity; it’s the process of shedding matter that triggers a qualitative shift in an atom. Or take energy loss—it’s often the reduction of energy that leads to a change in molecular structure. So, if you ask me, we've got the logic backward.
hollowpilot9 says:

Machines—even those fancy AI computers everyone’s obsessing over right now—are never going to actually surpass us. Not really. Even if it takes us several generations to reach a new Einstein-level breakthrough, the core issue remains. A computer, no matter how much you polish it or crank up the processing power, will always just be an imitation. Its "intelligence" is essentially capped by the creative ceiling of the people who built it—so, if the creators can't innovate, neither can the machine. It's just math pretending to think, isn't it?

If you actually look at the data and the facts, everything points in the opposite direction. AI isn't some future concept—it’s already here. And once we start seeing 3D biochips hitting the market, this reality becomes pretty much universal. A lot of analysts—people like you, for instance—seem to operate under this assumption that the human brain is the ultimate memory "machine" of the universe. It’s just fundamentally wrong. Why? Because a biological brain runs on chemistry, not electronics. If you want speed, an electronic brain wins every single time; it processes millions of times more information in the same window of time than any chemical setup could ever dream of. Then there's this idea that intelligence is capped by the level of its creator. Honestly, if that were true, it would be the first time in evolutionary history where a lower tier was incapable of birthing a higher one. That just doesn't track. And let's get one thing straight: a single human brain isn't the pinnacle of cosmic intelligence—because the collective output of humanity proves otherwise. There is a massive difference between one isolated brain and three billion brains working in tandem—unless, of course, they are all holographically linked, which... well, that hasn't happened yet. We've still got plenty of work to do on that front.
Democracy says:

So, the cyborg thing—it’s a challenge, right? Merging the human mind (with its actual brain) with technical support systems. Personally, though—I don't see people ever truly loving that version of themselves more than the one nature handed them. (I mean, isn't that whole idea of love—that promise and hope that we’ll be resurrected just as we are—basically the bedrock of mass Christianity?) And besides, how would these cyborgs even reproduce? Would they just keep humans around like livestock for breeding and brain transplants?

hollowpilot9: I don't think it's about whether you "love" a cyborg or not; it's more like an existential prosthesis—a necessity if humans want to SURVIVE in environments that aren't built for us, like on Mars, for instance. A cyborg might actually show up BEFORE the human just to prep the terrain so we can actually make it. A cyborg isn't some kid's TOY, much like a robot wasn't originally intended to be anything more than a plaything. I think my point is getting through!

Democracy says:
That’s the thing. Are we talking about participating in the race, or just being part of the traffic?
hollowpilot9: Well, yes, that's the gist, but it isn't about participation or racing—it's about ACCELERATION. It's about the speed of life itself, and that transition from staying still to moving fast... well, that transition comes at a cost. So, the real question is: Why is man accelerating his life through space at such breakneck speeds when God only gave him TWO LEGS capable of walking at 2.5 miles mph? What good does it do him to move at 249 miles mph?

Just like an airbag reduces fatalities in car crashes, wouldn't having a synchronized view of your own vehicle—showing the sheer kinetic energy involved as speed increases—drastically cut down the body count? If a "speed demon" could see exactly what their car (and they themselves) would look like in a collision at their current velocity, maybe they'd slow down. Why on earth don't car manufacturers just install a video feed like that in every vehicle?

Democracy says:
But it isn't. Nobel's invention was MISUSED by man. However, he didn't HAVE TO do that. That’s where the "sin of the monkey grabbing the trigger of an atomic bomb" lies, not with Nobel himself. On the flip side, without Nobel, we'd still be clearing land with nitroglycerin... Oh, wait, I suppose we should also condemn the inventors of nitroglycerin itself...

hollowpilot9: I'm not saying the guy who invented dynamite deserves a standing ovation, but the person using it to cause harm is definitely a moron. It's true that man doesn't HAVE TO use it that way, but it's equally true that the INVENTOR OF DYNAMITE DOESN'T HAVE TO INVENT DYNAMITE. I still firmly believe there's a massive hypocrisy in people thinking they're brilliant and moral just because they DISCOVERED OR CREATED something dangerous to humanity, while those who actually use it to kill themselves are dismissed as idiots. The reality is that PROTECTION always lags behind innovation, and people die in that gap. The responsibility lies with the INVENTOR, not the victim. The one who

While I work on my replies, here’s a table showing the death toll from various governments during the twentieth century. If my math isn't totally off—which happens—we're looking at about 154,800,000 people. That’s roughly 1,631,600 kilometers of human remains... which, if you think about it, is enough to build a bone bridge from the land all the way to the moon and back again. Is there any actual intelligence behind all this carnage? Well, that’s more of a philosophical question, I suppose—especially since these people weren't just taken out with clubs and swords, but through weapons designed by the very peak of human intellect over at places like West Point.

Democide statistics [ R. J. Rummel Death by government , 1994 ]

Location Regime Deaths Era
Soviet Union Communists 61,900,000 1917-1990
China Communists 35,200,000 1949-1994
Germany Historical mass casualty data 20,900,000 1933-1945
China Kuomintang 10,400,000 1928-1949
Japan Imperial Japan 6,000,000 1936-1945
China Communist guerrillas 3,500,000 1923-1948
Cambodia Khmer Rouge 2,000,000 1975-1979
Turkey Young Turks 1,900,000 1909-1917
Vietnam Viet Cong 1,700,000 1945-1994
North Korea North Korea 1,700,000 1948-1994
Poland Poland 1,600,000 1945-1948
Pakistan Yahya Khan 1,500,000 1971
Mexico Historical political regimes 1,400,000 1900-1920
America America 1,100,000 1944-1990
Russia Russia 1,100,000 1900-1917
Turkey Mustafa Kemal Atatürk 900,000 1918-1923
United Kingdom United Kingdom 800,000 1900-1994
Portugal Portugal 700,000 1926-1975
America America 700,000 1941-1945
Indonesia Indonesia 600,000 1965-1994

Part Two — The Continuation
The dialectical method is essentially a "dangerous toy for the brain"—mostly because it took Hegel’s abstract philosophical framework (you know, the whole thesis-antithesis-synthesis loop) and mutated it into this materialist "struggle of opposites." Suddenly, one side *has* to crush the other just to keep the gears turning. To soften the blow of this Negators approach, materialist thinkers rebranded the "negation of the negation" as some kind of universal law of nature. It's a clever trick, really. If you end up negating a human being within some ideological bunker, it isn't because you're actually killing an "ideological enemy"—it's just because the dialectical method demands that negation. As far as I can tell, Hegel never actually moved past his grand synthesis—the Absolute Spirit—after an endless series of successive syntheses. In a physical sense, that was supposed to be the social counterpart to communism. But after that, dialectics just became a sort of "philosophical fashion statement," devoid of any actual results or meaning, mainly because the thesis and antithesis grew so incredibly abstract for everyone involved—both the proponents and the critics. That’s why I think this specific interpretation of dialectics is nothing more than a blind, dead-end street for Western philosophy.
The demos seems to think we’ve been hovering around some sort of plateau—maybe sitting right on top of a hill—since antiquity. And sure, we could stay there indefinitely. But then again... wouldn't it be more likely that we hit a tipping point where we suddenly start plunging down the other side into completely uncharted territory? Just a thought.

If you ask me, this is exactly where we need to be. This conversation isn't just helpful—it’s absolutely vital. Nobody should be afraid to step up and share their perspective or lay out where they think we currently stand, much like the points you just brought to the table. Personally? I feel like we’re still essentially at the fetal stage. Even with millions of years of evolution behind us, it feels like humanity is still incredibly young on this Land—which, if you think about it, probably just marks the very beginning of our electronic integration and the way we're starting to connect as a species. Plus, when you look at the big picture, humans are still pretty much dim-witted creatures despite all those "space age achievements"—I mean, only about 1% to 10% of the population is actually pulling any real weight intellectually. That’s why I’m always pushing for these deep dives into macroevolution and the future of the human race. I know, I know—to some people, it sounds like cheap sci-fi or some "abracadabra" brand of philosophy, but honestly? Futurology is a legitimate field now; I’d go as far as saying it’s an absolute imperative. There’s already talk that societies failing to forecast their own future are eventually destined to atrophy. It's just basic survival.
Some hiker was rambling about how humans are creatures of the Earth, of the Cosmos, and of Nature all at once—it’s a bit much, isn't it? But his point was that for every single "natural" act we take, Nature has its own natural response. It’s like a cosmic feedback loop. If we pull a destructive trigger against the environment, Nature responds with an equally destructive reaction toward us. Simple enough, right? But then he adds this little twist—even if we weren't out here actively wrecking things, Nature would still move in ways that feel like it's working against us. It’s just the system trying to find some kind of global equilibrium. So, even when we're being perfectly "good," the universe might still decide to throw a wrench in our gears just to keep the balance steady. Just one of those things, I guess.
So, here’s the thing—man acts as this supposed destroyer of Nature, but really, he’s just a transmutator of it, constantly shifting things around within that endless cycle of change and constancy. Is he tearing it down, or just rearranging the furniture? It feels like we're just part of the process itself.
When it comes to the evolutionary horizon of the human being—if we’re even calling it that—it’s always tethered to these other shifting horizons it relies on. It’s all interconnected, isn't it? Because of that, you can't really pin down a specific stepping stone or claim to know exactly where we stand in relation to some arbitrary beginning or end. So, honestly... I don't see why anyone makes such a big deal out of it.
I hear you, and everything you’re saying makes sense. But my question is a bit more "ahead of the curve"—it really boils down to this idea of qualitative transmutation—you know, the process of turning an inherited nature into something entirely new. Of course, that's just a working theory, or a hypothesis at best, though I’m starting to get the feeling that this kind of transmutation is actually happening right under our noses. In a context like that, what we call "destroying nature" would actually be recognized as a transmutation—shifting from a nature provided by God into some sort of nature manufactured by man. If we viewed it through that lens, a warning about the "destruction of nature" would feel much more urgent and responsible than, say, just shedding tears over the disappearance of certain species, old-growth forests, or minerals. Wouldn't it?
When it comes to forecasting—or what I’d call civilizational Futurology—I’m fully aware that people think the whole thing is just an exercise in trying to find a single glimmer of light in a pitch-black void. It sounds like nonsense, right? But if you look at Futurology through the lens of evolutionary analogy—think of it like a fetal analogy, or even just comparing it to the trajectory of a single human life—then predicting events actually becomes possible by looking at the core drivers of our past, present, and future. It might sound a bit hazy today, but we really need to ask ourselves a serious question: Is humanity essentially the neural tissue of some massive cosmic organism? Because the way a global superbrain is currently organizing itself isn't just some sci-fi trope or a plot point from a Hollywood blockbuster—it’s plain old reality. So, Nature is definitely a factor here, but which Nature are we talking about? Is it the one we inherited, the one we’re currently building, or both happening at once? The "Nature" found in a pristine National Park with all its flora and fauna is one kind of reality, sure. But the "Nature" represented by a nuclear power plant, a submarine, or a supersonic jet... that’s a different kind of Nature entirely. Personally, I’d argue that this new, artificial Nature is actually more complex—maybe even more mystical—than the traditional wilderness we grew up with. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems unlikely to me—mostly because I’ve spent enough time studying the artificial environments humans are capable of constructing to know how deep the rabbit hole goes.
I’ll wrap this up by quoting a perspective from an American resident who was reacting to Hofstadter’s *GEB*:
"Isn't the whole notion of creating a clone tantamount to playing god?"
Look, regardless of whether you believe in a higher power or not—if you actually possess the capability to spark life and you decide to sit on your hands, isn't that just as much "playing god" as actually doing it? It’s a passive version of the same thing. As our tech and understanding keep evolving, we’re going to get incredibly close to the scenario I'm describing. Personally, I’d rather lean into the progress we’ve fought for instead of hiding from it.
In my opinion, this is actually a massive shift for PHILOSOPHY! Why does everyone seem to miss the point? Well, the proof is right there—human education is still basically "blind," much like a newborn is before they finally see the world. It’s not that people are inherently foolish... it’s more that they're being taught nonsense by those running the schools.

part two - 1
If you take away things like immunity or dual citizenship from the equation... then we’d be staring down the barrel of a massive disparity in fatalities caused by crumbling infrastructure, pointless vehicle inspections, or just plain bad maintenance—not to mention those bizarre design choices where roads twist and turn with lethal curves just because some engineer thought a passing driver might want a scenic detour...
Only then would we truly face the victims of the technological age. But honestly, how many would there actually be?
hollowpilot9: I didn't bring up that number to make a comparison, but rather to highlight the PHENOMENON of death—the fact that it persists BECAUSE the human being, as a biological entity, is fundamentally UNPREPARED TO OPERATE MACHINES WITH HUNDREDS OR THOUSANDS OF HORSEPOWER. Sure, you can imagine healthy, capable adults behind the wheel of such machines, but there's still the issue of SPEED—something the human brain, even an intuitive one, simply cannot control. It just keeps getting faster... and faster... toward a velocity that inevitably drives a biological operator toward death... because the MACHINE has become a HIGHER BEING than the biology itself. That’s my point—not a numerical tally comparing war casualties to highway fatalities. We're talking about mass, dispersed mortality, where the cause is actually "high intelligence"—which ironically bypasses these tragedies because it's the very thing that produced them.
Democracy says: To me, it looks like this: Any somewhat civilized society eventually falls victim to the very progress it enabled and fostered. Essentially, at the exact moment the West reaches its peak of creation, it hits a crisis—one fueled by the rise of all-powerful demagogues and the "sterile" gatekeepers of society.
Since this society—DESPITE ANCIENT WISDOM REGARDING THESE CYCLES—lacks a model or any actual framework for reorganization and recovery, it finds itself backed into a corner where WAR AND COLLAPSE BECOME THE ONLY EXIT. If some "dynamic and raw wandering" nations do it, the situation looks slightly more optimistic. But if they don't act first, the aggressors will—or the good old "civil war" will finish the job.

hollowpilot9: You're spot on there, but I can't quite "digest" this idea of high intelligence being used by people who aren't ashamed to take MONEY from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, money originally earned through DYNAMITE, destruction, and human death. There’s no excuse or mental gymnastics acceptable here—like claiming Nobel isn't "to blame," but rather the criminal human who uses dynamite to destroy and kill. To me, that is pure hypocrisy, coming straight from the most "intellectual" layer of society. I can't help but think about how WEAPONS DESIGNERS—who are incredibly brilliant individuals—had noble intentions that their INVENTIONS would end wars and mindless killing, yet those noble intentions served only as a CATALYST for creating even more dangerous and devastating weaponry... These designers are undoubtedly brilliant... which is why I ask: Where does intelligence lead us—science and philosophy? They certainly aren't intellectual disciplines anymore; they're just TOYS for individuals playing at being lovers of wisdom. Personally, I lean toward Chinese wisdom, which suggests that true skill isn't in fighting evil (as the West so unsuccessfully tries to do), but in maintaining the balance between good and evil so that good can endure and function longer. There is one horrific hypocrisy—which I think I've mentioned before—that goes like this: the one who builds the landmine gets rewarded, the one who plants it gets decorated, the one who funds the cleanup of minefields is hailed as a great humanitarian, and the one who STEPS ON IT flies off to eternal life... and all of this is the product of intelligent, clever humans. Some chemists got pretty upset when I suggested that a chemist's moral code should require them to provide an antidote for every poison they create. Anyone who produces nothing but poison, regardless of their scientific credentials, is just a highly trained criminal!

Democracy says: The phenomenon is simply that no peace treaty is ever signed in good faith, and there will never be peace with peaceful intentions—not until BOTH SIGNING PARTIES ACCEPT THE APPLICATION OF A PERFECT MARKET in every instance of "legal antinomy" that could trigger a relevant social conflict.
Until then, every peace treaty is just a rehearsal for the next war. And frankly—logically speaking—it’s idiotic for any nation to allow its government to disarm it.

War and peace... they’re really just the fallout from subjective choices made by individuals and groups—acting exactly how you put it, under the guise of an "incomplete market." Personally, I think peace only actually happens when you neutralize the forces of war using those very same forces within potential warring factions. It’s that kind of peace—what the political pundits might call a "balance of terror"—but if we look at it through a more philosophical lens, it’s about neutralizing polarization to reach a state of equilibrium. That’s why I keep bringing up being "polarly divided" versus "polarly united." Honestly, shouldn't philosophy have recognized this as a core subject a long time ago?

Democracy says... honestly, though—instead of obsessing over some supposed "balance of military power," wouldn't it be more effective to just fix the economic imbalance first? Or rather, resolve the actual economic disparity? Just a thought.

Or let me put it this way—the person who was sitting there yesterday, trading goods from their field for things in mine—they have absolutely zero right to swap out that exchange for aggression or outright theft. Especially not if they’re making war inevitable simply because they refuse to acknowledge what I consider a fourth natural human right: the right for any individual to declare the market value of any property. If we could actually do that, we'd break those monopolies over "goods that aren't right in front of our eyes" (you know, permanent assets) and use that momentum—sort of through sheer inertia, really—to kickstart the exchange of everything else.
It would definitely be better that way, but unfortunately, economic equilibrium and disequilibrium are both inductive and interactive processes. You can't just fix the economic imbalance in a massive metropolis like New York City without first addressing its birth rate curve—and once you start messing with that, you run straight into the fundamental, natural right to procreate through sexual intimacy. That’s why freedom and stability are always at odds. Equilibrium doesn't exactly give those sitting on the "edges of the swing" permission to do whatever they want—like if one person decides to gorge themselves on food just to get fat. If they do that, they’re going to crash into the ground sooner or later, and the innocent bystander? Well, they’ll be sent flying into the sky. Which brings me back to this idea of a "functionally organized society"—one where people actually understand the limits of their own freedom, their rights, and their specific roles. Let's be real: someone driving a $100,000 Mercedes is always going to hold more power than the guy walking or pedaling a $50 bike. In a relationship like that, conflict exists—it's built in—just like the inevitable spark between two electrically polarized clouds.
Right now, we’re looking at a world where there is exactly ONE product worth $100 billion, yet we simultaneously have 100 billion different products that are only worth a single dollar. It’s that classic "everything for a buck" business model—you know the type—but it turns out Americans kind of... loathe that approach? Apparently, the American consumer wants everything to be priced at $120,000, much like the price tag on a high-end Mercedes. That’s really where the friction lies—it’s not about what you or I personally think about it. Until we reach some sort of global realization that every single action triggers an equal and opposite reaction, there’s just going to be constant chaos—no peace among the olive trees, if you will.
It’s honestly wild how easily a society can just "write off" the massive role that breeding bulls play in the whole equation. I mean, really—it's almost impressive how quickly people forget. And yet, apparently, that’s exactly the kind of experience people use to build their little war games. Is that how we're doing things now? Just ignoring the foundation?
Look at it this way—it’s basically just a symbol for West Point, the place where they manufacture that high-level, absolute military intelligence. I mean, if you actually graduate from West Point, are you supposed to be some kind of modern-day Zeus? It’s almost like that—just pure, mythological power.
Democracy says it’s possible if you have enough scale. Just picture a society where SWAT teams and soldiers—including the ones who are basically just hobbyist hunters—actually live their lives with their gear in hand out at hunting preserves, wilderness areas, or at the shooting range.
Not a single civilian—and honestly, even the local police—is carrying a weapon. It’s all strictly controlled; we're talking specialized tactical teams handling the transport while the regular police just provide the perimeter security.
Look, if you’re actually dealing with armed robbers or some kind of bandits... the local police aren't exactly the ones charging in—they mostly just pinpoint the location and call it a day. Then, you get the SWAT teams or the National Guard to actually step in and handle the situation.
You might actually laugh at this—it’s almost absurd. Just think about how many petty thieves there are in America. Then, try to wrap your head around the sheer number of cops hunting them down, the judges presiding over the cases, the courts handling the paperwork, and all those prison cells where people sit around serving their sentences... and then consider how much that drains from our collective tax dollars. It’s staggering. If we took all that public money and used it to open a department store specifically for criminals—where the CEO and every single employee were thieves themselves—the whole concept of stealing would probably vanish overnight. Why bother? It wouldn't make sense anymore. It’s the same story when you look at the whole gun debate. Ever since Wednesday, there’s been this wave of paranoia sweeping through. Most people don't even realize what it is—they think they're afraid of someone else out there, but really, it's just a deep-seated fear of themselves. And once you add a weapon into that mix, that little bit of imagination can turn a paranoid thought into a very real tragedy.
Democracy says there’s a dangerous toy rattling around inside the human brain. I mean, there might be some truth to that—especially since the METHOD itself is still pretty flawed. Hegel certainly made his mark there, though he wasn't exactly reinventing the wheel. Whether anyone has actually managed to build anything meaningful on top of his work since then? Honestly, I haven't a clue. But as it stands, his approach is designed in such a way that you couldn't possibly use it to systematically evaluate enough data without eventually "wandering off" into useless trivialities.

The method shouldn't be the end goal, nor should it be treated like some kind of sacred scripture. But—whether we're following Hegel or not—we have to pursue a system of self-defense against our own ingrained biases and those little delusions we tell ourselves. In short, the work lies in refining the method.

Democracy : It’s not simply a matter of having an "excess" of people. The real driver behind wars is the act of aborting the ABUNDANCE OF CREATED GOODS.
hollowpilot9: Maybe you're right, but one has to consider that even the most seemingly righteous actors fight for all sorts of other "righteous" reasons...??

Democracy says: A human being can—physically—kill another human being. However, a person simultaneously exists within a legal (whether mundane or peculiar) framework. In that world WHICH EXISTS—unlike the physical one—it is BEYOND EVERYTHING HUMAN, there is NO POSSIBILITY for one human to kill another.
In every such PHYSICAL ACT, the person is actually a human-like ANIMAL killing another.
Essentially, it is an INEVITABLE NECESSITY that the killer, prior to the act, severs ALL INTERPERSONAL BONDS WITH THE VICTIM, and by extension, with the rest of the community.

hollowpilot9: I think I follow... for instance, I "kill my enemies" by taking a pen to a blank sheet of paper, writing down a full name for "elimination," and then using an eraser to RUB OUT the name I just wrote. This kind of "murder" illustrates your point quite effectively!
But within this whole "tragic tale," there is a massive philosophical question: Why is destruction—killing—instantaneous, while construction is long-lasting? Why does man reach for the SWORD to decapitate another (as we see on the news), when that "head" falls away via the logos of death in such a relatively short span of time? There has to be another reason for this "practice of killing"... perhaps it boils down to "consumption," since "consuming" inherently involves the death of the other! If that's the case, is killing merely "training" for the possibility of "being consumed" by something larger and HUNGRIER than ourselves!? The centers of galaxies are essentially "hungry cosmic points." Perhaps our own Sun is such a point, "cultivating" us just so we might become
"a tasty morsel"!!?? I'm thinking about the gravity of the Sun, how it slowly, inch by inch, pulls Earth toward itself??

Democracy says: That’s always a convenient way to throw a wrench in the gears. Of course, over millions of years, physical survival has eroded, if not outright dismantled, interpersonal relationships—that "invisible" realm. Besides, why be surprised, given that even our modern society hasn't solved these issues despite all this fascinating progress?
It comes down to that inherent "incompleteness" or "imperfection" of the human condition. But, from that, we can see what the ancient Greeks already realized.

hollowpilot9: Sure, that makes sense, but it feels insufficient because something extraordinary is happening "right under our noses"—something the ancient Egyptian traditions arguably anticipated. I'm talking about the "BEING WITH IRON BONES." We call this "being with iron bones" a MACHINE, a ROBOT, or a CYBORG. Therefore, it’s impossible to "ignore the fact" that humans are creating intelligent machines that possess sensory phenomena similar to ours, with PURE ENERGY circulating through them instead of plasma and blood. I mentioned before that the essence of metabolism is the DESTRUCTION of the large into the small, into the molecules that serve as cell food. This isn't accidental; it's the phenomenon of life and reproduction at work! Why do cells multiply? Not out of some "biological whim," but to build and sustain their macro-entities—humans. As far as I know, philosophy hasn't really tackled that specific fact yet.
If that holds true, it somewhat validates the commentary in Hofstadter's book "GEB":
If these creatures are inside the computers and eventually forming a Utopian society, then who will be running the computers?
My first thought was they could utilize an almost limitless energy source, like solar power, making them entirely independent. Then I wondered if we could build non-intelligent robots (like those assembly arms in a Ford plant, for example) to mechanically maintain the computers. But then it hit me: in terms of hardware, those robots wouldn't be much different from intelligent clones. They'd share the same memory organization and, assuming we're sticking to the von Neumann architecture (or even if we aren't), the same instruction processing at the hardware level. So, transferring a program from a computer to a robot should be doable. And then what? This combination of simulation and robotics could do everything the original robot did, but with intelligence—it could look after itself. And get this: it could also move. It could see. It could communicate. Up until now, I hadn't even considered these entities performing physical tasks, but now they can, even though they remain truly intelligent WITHIN the computer. I mean, they won't be able to feel air, water, or heat (though I suppose we could design sensors to simulate that sensation). To them, their entire reality is the internal cyberspace. Our world would be just as alien to them as their world is to us—just imagine being trapped INSIDE a computer.
What could also stem from this—and let's be honest, it’s kind of the core DNA of the cyberpunk genre—is that this specific type of insight might finally bridge the gap between our different realities. But that’s a pretty distant horizon, isn't it?
Doesn't the entire idea of engineering a clone basically amount to playing God?
Look, regardless of whether you believe in a higher power or not: if you possess the actual capability to spark life and you choose to sit on your hands, isn't that just as much "playing God" as the act of creation itself? It's a passive version of the same hubris. As our tech and sheer understanding of the universe evolve, we’re going to hit a wall where doing exactly what I'm describing becomes inevitable. Personally, I'd rather lean into the progress we've clawed out of the dirt.
This points toward a completely FRESH OPPORTUNITY FOR PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE—one where a handful of people are frantically spitting in the face of the idea that their limited intelligence might trigger a physical and mental TRANSMUTATION into something faster, sharper, stronger, and fundamentally better than the reflection they see in the mirror. We can already see it: we’ve got massive amounts of Earth-based and cosmic knowledge stored on hard drives or some other digital medium. But with our current biological, chemical hardware, we simply can't "read" what's on those drives, right? To process even a fraction of that data, it might take us ten generations of humans, whereas a Cyborg could digest it in an INSTANT because they operate on electronic and symbolic logic. Symbols are archetypes—they always circle back to their original essence. Once you grasp that, it becomes obvious how an artist can intuitively capture on a scrap of paper what a philosopher might need thousands of pages of text to attempt. So, I'm totally with you on the idea that in a TRULY HUMAN society, there shouldn't be such a thing as "unemployed workers"—instead, there should be people who, while acting as a reserve labor force, receive a wage for being on "standby." And no one's basic physical existence should ever be at risk, period. But for that to happen, we’d need a total overhaul of the old Euclidean-Cartesian traditions in favor of a NEW BIONIC tradition—one based on functional organization rather than rigid hierarchy. In a world like that, even a shoe shiner would wear a GENERAL'S UNIFORM AND WHITE GLOVES. I've seen people like that with my own eyes. This isn't some pipe dream; it's a very real possibility for a society that actually values a person's function rather than their outward "gaudy general's outfit" persona.
Democracy says: It’s improper to compare numbers from one group to another, except for the fact that many drivers aren't really participating in traffic—they’re just tearing through streets, driving without licenses (and getting zero penalties for it), or having minors and people under the influence behind the wheel... which, let's be real, is just using a car as a weapon. If we could just eliminate that—which, obviously, requires first stripping the judiciary and the executive branch of their total dependence on Congress, and then