Continued: Walter Foster87 says: Man is an inventor by nature. It’s a built-in trait for the species, and for every single individual within it. But, for him to actually manifest that essence, he has to manifest INVENTION—starting with the proto-invention. To get there, he has to OVERTHROW THE STRONGER PARTY AND THE HIERARCHY OF FORCE, replacing it with INTERPERSONAL PROPERTY RELATIONS. ... So, his nature shows up less in the inventions themselves—how they are materialized, produced, and reproduced—and more in the relationships surrounding them. Yet, in that same arena, we also see his—well, let's call it collective or legal—DEFICIENCY, that inherent lack. hollowpilot9: No comment! I’m in total agreement with you, essentially just adding the final layer to the concept of creationism. This final layer isn't merely some mechanical artifact; it is LIFE itself, the environment in which Man resides. Being the creator of this life-instance is the whole point of biology, and in that sense, it's the purpose behind the macroevolution of Man and humanity. Walter Foster87 says: I don't think the equilibrium theory holds water. Sure, it might apply somewhat to those "two angry men" scenarios, but generally speaking—neither humans nor society ever does anything WITHOUT A REASON. Even drastic things, like war, aren't done without some degree of necessity or inevitability. That’s why people don't go to war when—in sufficient measure—they have already created an abundance of resources. Similarly, they fight whenever they can't find a PURPOSE for their accumulated wealth. Maybe some smarter class of private owners will figure out how to destroy surpluses. But wouldn't it be idiotic for everyone to start tearing down their own house—which they worked so hard to build—just for the sake of peace!? That’s why we need enemies and hatred; it makes everything LOOK more logical. hollowpilot9: Equilibrium isn't just a theory; it is REALITY! Take a child's swing, for example, but I know that if any thing or phenomenon isn't in balance, it collapses, breaks down, or vanishes... So, I suggest introducing two new concepts into philosophy (and science): the concept of the polarity-joined (equilibrium) and the polarity-divided (disequilibrium). If we do this easily enough, we can recognize times of polarity-division (polarization) and phenomena of polarity-joining (depolarization). My view is that the polarity-divided belongs mostly to science, while the polarity-joined belongs to philosophy—which is the domain of future philosophy, even though they are one and the same! As for the reason for war, we’ve already discussed it, and I’m not entirely convinced that war is just a way to level out the number of players in a human community!!?? Walter Foster87 says: Of course, that's just a nice "idea," because, as we've seen, things can always be settled with machetes. hollowpilot9: A world without weapons isn't possible—metaphorically speaking—because of the existence of retroviruses and viruses. They are always WARRIORS!!!! Walter Foster87 says: Exactly. But it shouldn't be naked conversation anymore; it should be a conversation where arguments are judged against principles. Principles that allow us to correct ourselves in case of error, whether it's one person or a larger group.
The way we protect ourselves from the delusions of Reason—the method has always, to varying degrees of development, involved these or those principles...
hollowpilot9: Exactly as you say, but then one must make a distinction between dialectic as DIALOGUE, and dialectic as LAW, which many have attempted to establish...??? Dialectic as LAW is a very dangerous toy for the mentally incompetent...!!
Walter Foster87 says:
It was declared scientific simply because there wasn't a better-formed method available. It had its six principles, and since two of those principles interact, they constitute a LAW. So, it included a series of laws as well. hollowpilot9: The question is: who declared dialectic a Law and why? Is Greek dialectic something fundamentally different from the dialectic that proclaims the global power of the proletariat and global communism via LAW...???... or something else altogether?...........
I want to add this: As I've emphasized before, I'm interested in the evolutionary aspects of Man and humanity, specifically with a very concrete question: Are we capable of determining at which evolutionary stage Man and humanity currently stand? Are we at the very beginning, or if not, how far along are we on the total possible evolutionary scale? According to traditional views, Man is a creature of Earth, not the cosmos, but evolution shows that man is a creature of the universe. What, then, is the role of Man in the universe? So, here’s the big one—the question we actually need to tackle: What is our actual relationship with nature? Are we just mindless agents of destruction, tearing everything down, or are we more like... I don't know, transmutators? Like we're turning raw nature into some other kind of (cosmic?) reality? In my book, these aren't just side notes—they are top-tier philosophical questions that go straight to the core of everything.
Walter Foster87 says: An insect colony can be pretty fascinating with how they organize themselves and all that. But—can a HUMAN (as a creative being) actually strive for a society like that? You know, where the whole community acts as one single unit, and the individual is basically just some kind of cell? Honestly, more than just any "socialism," such a society would essentially mark the end of man as we know him—the end of our species. Just look at animals, for instance. They arguably have a far more perfect system than we do. They intuitively, or maybe just instinctively, know exactly what to do at every given moment. They aren't tripped up by their own fundamental nature. Their intellect has synced their value systems so tightly that compared to them, we act like confused toddlers. hollowpilot9: Of course not! I only used insects as an example of a LOWER level of social organization. A higher level would be, say, the social structure of dolphins, wolves, or seagulls. In my book, I described, for example, the high degree of "social consciousness" seen in seagulls when hundreds of them gather to pay "funeral honors" to a fallen member. I see a SIMILARITY there to the ceremonies of highly intelligent humans. In this context, the SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF CELLS IS THE MAXIMUM LEVEL of organization that can serve as a MODEL for human social organization—not having human organization dictated by whatever random political hacks or the "educated" elite are doing to serve a specific interest rather than the interest of the human—the citizen. So, based on what I know, I’m talking about a fantastic organization made of billions upon billions of individual units—cells—that constitute the human organism.
Walter Foster87 says: Well, could it be that—maybe through the evolution of our technology—we are moving toward a type of societal organization where we truly experience the fullness of our freedom? To the point where we might even bring politicians and bureaucrats under our control (under the Constitution)...!? hollowpilot9: My take is that this path is inevitable; it’s practically determined by the complexity of the very organization being imposed, driven on one side by the population curve (the number of units in the set) and on the other by the exponential growth of technology. Ultimately, we're looking at a bionic organization of human society!!
Walter Foster87 says: Sure, I get the nuance (broadening the definition beyond biological sex), but I can't get behind the idea of passing down our legacy to "idiots." Specifically, the fighting, the wars, the conquests, and the destruction—those seem like tasks belonging to an EXCESS POPULATION THAT SOCIETY MUST AND/OR CAN "ABORT." The phenomenon of "masculinity" is well explained by luxury—take Germany during World War II, for example, whose women (after the war) made sure to compensate for the loss of roughly 60 million men within the very next generation. When you look at the relationship between the foot soldiers and the generals, you don't really see a male-female principle; you see the principle of cannon fodder versus "gods." And, regarding philosophy itself: both men and women belong to the human race, and a human being CANNOT kill another human being. Once the human species truly reaches the fullness of its existence, those "tough guys"—the butchers and the killers—will simply vanish from the face of the earth.
hollowpilot9: That theory about "excess members of society" sounds familiar; I have a friend who's a psychiatrist who interprets things the same way, claiming that wars are a natural regulation of overpopulation. I find that theory highly questionable, though. Because the phenomenon of WAR—specifically WAR where one member kills a namesake (a monkey killing a monkey or a human killing a human)—is found dominantly in the male half of life and in HUMANS? It seems to me that killing another isn't the mode for regulating numbers; the mode is KILLING TO BE FIRST or killing to STAY ALIVE (killing for food). In any case, the phenomenon of WAR in human civilization isn't some simple thing that can be explained away by a neat little proverb like the ones you or I might toss around. Let me give you an example: the EVOLUTION OF KILLING MACHINES (various types of weaponry) actually carries a STRONG MOTIVATION of intelligence behind its creation, so that these modified tools could also serve PEACEFUL PURPOSES, benefiting humanity. Take massive aircraft like a Boeing, for instance—they never would have been developed if it weren't for the military aerospace industry in the US. I agree with the historical distinction between women and men, and frankly, it's an inverse identity, but I'm trying to talk about POLAR DIFFERENCES and the role those differences play in existence—specifically in the existence of humans. You can find certain phenomena out there that tell a very different story than the ones we're used to hearing.
Walter Foster87 says: So, the "Tool Making" animal—before there was money, they had to invent hunting tools, essentially materializing the INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS required to produce, hold onto, and pass down such inventions... it’s the exact same critique leveled at Marx’s view of war, that whole "Saint Bruno’s beatings" thing. Honestly, this obsession with the raw savagery of early humans is just a distraction from the much more magnificent thing that was Born with them—or rather, entered reality alongside them. As for "consumption" or "sexuality"—those belong to that side of our nature that serves as a necessary foundation, sure, but they aren't our fundamental essence.
hollowpilot9: That’s one way to look at it, I guess, but before you get to that materialization of interpersonal relationships, you have to deal with what we call HUNGER. Along with love, you have sex and FORCE driving much of what we call the "materialization of interpersonal relationships." We're talking about all sorts of gadgets and gizmos, including the automobile—yet philosophers and philosophy haven't really given us an answer as to what's actually going on here. What does it mean when 11,000 citizens in a city like Chicago die, or a million people globally in car accidents—numbers that are starting to approach wartime casualties? Is that also just a mode of natural population regulation, or is there something else at play? And if "consumption" and "sexuality" are just the foundational layers of our nature but not our essence, then please, tell me: what do you think actually constitutes our essence? If our essence happens to be creation alongside "consumption" and "sex," and the basis of creation is mind—intelligence—then we are approaching, whether we like it or not, the attributes of the CREATOR. That’s one of the core innovative theses when you ask the modern question: Where are we headed?
Walter Foster87 says: We aren't disputing that, nor are we disputing that the steppe riders were such terrifying sedentary opponents that their legacy is credited with the emergence of the "centaur" myth. But, if history is supposed to be life's teacher, then we really ought to answer the question: where did those raw, dynamic peoples end up, and how?
hollowpilot9: You might have noticed by now that I tend to believe we're constantly seeing the same phenomena being extrapolated and mapped across four cardinal levels. From that perspective, "raw and dynamic peoples"—let's say under the label "Attila the Hun"—have simply transformed into the "raw and dynamic nation" of highly motorized military and civilian units capable of conquering massive territories in incredibly short windows of time. Basically, this polar matrix of the static versus the dynamic holds true today just as it did hundreds or thousands of years ago; you just have to recognize the phenomenon when it transforms into a different guise. It's like the old Chinese Yin-Yang model—it speaks to the universality of these dynamic and static forces.
Walter Foster87 says:
I don't see an issue with an armed populace (like Americans), but what you're saying complicates the idea of an unarmed citizenry moving around between armed police, soldiers, "special" agencies, and privileged individuals.
hollowpilot9: Well, maybe I am "stretching the rope" a bit close to the breaking point there, but you can't philosophically explain the phenomenon of global militarization—from the beginning of time until now—as merely a method for conquering territory or enslaving other nations. It feels to me like there has to be something ELSE involved; something that, according to certain macroevolutionary concepts, ends up as a macro-defense or macro-attack mechanism serving the same function as it does in microevolution. Global hunger is already a reality today, and in the future, it will become a global certainty.
( continued ) We're looking at fragmented things—so a half-human is just one thing, whereas a whole human is something else entirely, much like how the sacred is one thing and the profane is another. That’s the part I just can't wrap my head around—it fails that basic criterion of self-actualization that, if you follow the logic, should be a defining trait of a WHOLE human being. Honestly, the only way I can imagine such a person is by giving them attributes of God—you know, the qualities of a CREATOR. My point is that this kind of person is actually forming right before our eyes, yet we either miss it or simply refuse to see it. The true habitat of a whole human is within the act of creation itself—creating things, life, existence. Any other definition feels thin and incomplete to me. Your last sentence touches on something—"A person would be a person to another as a WHOLE (or functional, or natural) PERSON, only if the system of natural property rights recognized, accepted, and affirmed the fourth natural property right of man"—but I'm still missing that creative, generative essence of the WHOLE HUMAN. Formally speaking, you'd expect to find this somewhere in the Hegelian "unity of opposites," but since he wasn't really talking about the unity of polarities and complementarity, the Hegelian tradition is fundamentally incapable of defining a whole human being. We have to make a move and break out of this trap of linearity and opposition!
Walter Foster87: There it is again—another massive, completely empty word. What is peace, if not a STATE OF PREPARING FOR A NEW WAR!? On that note, let's circle back to that whole idea of the whole human. Because, frankly, anyone who greets me with a platitude like "I won't take what isn't mine" is a liar. The tragic part is that most people saying it don't even realize how bitterly and bloodily they are lying.
hollowpilot9: Without further ado—peace is just as hollow an idea as a null set is an empty set, as long as PEACE is defined merely as the state before and after a war. Another thing: if PEACE is defined as a STATE OF EQUILIBRIUM between two warriors armed "to the teeth," then in that specific context, it becomes a FULL WORD—because peace will last exactly as long as that equilibrium holds. The moment that balance shifts, war is inevitable. The only alternative to that state of affairs is a world without weapons, which is obviously a utopia. What’s realistic is maintaining a balance of "opposing charges," and true PEACE only arrives when those "opposing" charges begin to complement and depolarize one another.
Walter Foster87: You can actually find the dialectical method among the ancients too. Even more so with Kant. But Hegel was the one who more or less... formalized it. Similarly, Schopenhauerian eristic dialectics isn't anything more than a dual-purpose method: whoever masters it can use it effectively for "unloyal" attacks against the truth (someone else), because it's essentially an abuse of dialectics intended to destroy or dismantle an opponent and their positions. At the same time, it can be used for PROTECTION AGAINST it—that is, against eristic dialectics and dialectical maneuvering.
hollowpilot9: With the ancients, it wasn't a METHOD; it was DIALOGUE. And a method can only exist if dialogue itself is treated as a method, which is something I could always get behind. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the dialectical method as it's labeled "scientific"—meaning it supposedly contains the criterion of LAW. Turning the "dialectical method" into a Law is a massive blunder of philosophy, because a dialectical Law has never been found, nor does it exist, except in the minds of dialecticians like Engels, Marx, and others like them. I completely agree that dialectics is always associated with some sort of DUALITY, which I also think is a major error in traditional philosophy. Duality is simply a TERRIBLE DELUSION, because duality is inherent to the thing itself—just as every human is inherently dual, or every force is inherently dual. Talking about the idealistic Hegelian dialectical method versus the realistic Marxian method is complete nonsense today because the whole thing has inverted. Hegel's method—at least at his level of cognition—has become realistic, while Marx's has become idealistic. Discussing it as it used to be is just pointless!!
Walter Foster87: Come on now—lay it on me. Show me this "scientific" anti-dialectical method. And while you're at it, I'm curious about your POLAR method.
Regarding what I can say about philosophical method—well, without it, you aren't actually researching truth; you're just spinning your wheels in a labyrinth of pseudo-intellectual nonsense
That’s why it matters more than anything else we discuss here.
Take the flaws in the Hegelian method, for instance—I had to patch those up using the principle of the Absolute and the principle of teleology. I wouldn't go so far as to say the Hegelian method is dead (since I didn't discard any of it, just supplemented it), nor do I consider Hegel the father of the dialectical method (one should look to Kant, or perhaps Aristotle). To me, it all feels increasingly like a continuous process of hunting for and constructing a method. Which means, naturally, that every successive version is better than the last,
hollowpilot9: A scientific anti-dialectical method is anchored in the wave-quantum physics and biology of the world. There is no "duality" here to serve as the foundational assumption or condition for any traditional dialectical concept. In such an anti-dialectical world, every point has its anti-point, where every point consists of a point and an anti-point, and every anti-point is composed of an anti-point and a point. In physics and biology, these are catalytic four-pole "points" and cycles. Specifically, anti-dialectical entities are the four "holy molecules," AGCT. For example, a traditional dialectician would swear up and down that the Earth has two dialectical poles—North and South—whereas an anti-dialectician would argue the Earth has two North poles and two South poles. So, for a traditional dialectician to stop being a dialectician, they have to realize that the northernmost point is actually at the South Pole, and the southernmost is at the North Pole, rather than claiming the northernmost point is in the North and the southernmost is in the South. As for the polar method, it is contained precisely in what I just wrote! Polarity implies wave frequency and spiral movement, not a linear direction or moving along a straight line. From this perspective, it's significant for philosophy that no single object or "point" can be separated from another object— " points." Of course, that is a Hogamian principle of thought. Fundamentally, any philosophical concept can be expressed philosophically, scientifically, religiously, and artistically—not just in one way, as many traditionalists seem to believe. Your last sentence—"To me, it all feels increasingly like a continuous process of hunting for and constructing a method. Which means, naturally, that every successive version is better than the last"—states exactly what needs to be done. The Hegelian method served its purpose during Hegel's era, but we are looking for a NEW one for our own time. If there isn't a better one, then Hegel remains a philosophical genius (!)—though that is quite hard to believe once you realize that "THE SAME CAN BE JOINED WITH THE SAME," which was considered impossible back in his day!
Walter Foster87: The question isn't entirely clear. Unlike guards, a prisoner doesn't perform socially useful labor or earn a paycheck while serving time. But—if you're asking about the purpose of that relationship (in terms of benefit to society)—then we hit the real problem: do we kill or imprison offenders? If we refuse to kill them, then that "dual prisoner" relationship becomes something we've affirmed simply for the sake of humanity, or whatever.
hollowpilot9: Perhaps the question is vague. I used the example of the prisoner and the guard merely to illustrate a stable symbiosis of the "negative and positive," something psychology has known for ages. However, my question is aimed at the phenomenon of the NEGATIVE and, within that phenomenological context, toward philosophy. What does philosophy know about the negative? What does it know about the interaction between the negative and the positive? And finally, philosophy ought to answer why formal legal laws are caused by the emergence of the negative. A law appears whenever something negative emerges, specifically to prevent that negativity. This negativity concerns the wrongdoer, yet the consequences must be consumed by the "positive" person. It’s embedded in all sorts of prohibitions. For instance: polite, cultured, decent people automatically fall in line. The wrongdoer ignores this, causes chaos, and the official finds a solution: they use ropes to cordoned off a space for "order," where people must stand one behind the other like "sheep," and then write on it: "EVERYONE MUST STAND IN LINE." While this is true, it is purely symbolic of everything else. Personally, I'm not convinced that a "cleaner" always does GOOD; very often, they do more harm than the existing evil by multiplying or spreading it. The glaring proof of this is Prohibition. Walter Foster87: If you actually sit down and re-read your own critique, you’ll probably see why I find it so strange—this idea of rejecting a greater good just because it happens to be bundled up with a bit of today's nonsense. Do we actually want progress, or what?
hollowpilot9: Look, we want better, sure—but not through some bureaucratic version of "good" that carries the seeds of its own destruction simply because it's hierarchical and one-dimensional. You know as well as I do that there are always people out there drawing up blueprints and dictating how everyone else should live their lives. The most dangerous ones are the types who try to prescribe what you should think, what you should eat, how you should sleep, how you should raise your kids... and they don't care about the consequences. Philosophers usually either stay quiet or they join the ranks of the "Life Dictators." Honestly, things went south when those German philosophers decided to weaponize dialectics to force things along faster, as if being "über" on an individual level wasn't enough—they just had to exert that control over society too, right?
Walter Foster87: The issue with this method is that you have to be careful about what you’re extrapolating—are you pulling from the physical side or the mental side of human nature? Or do you just fall into the trap of cherry-picking a "world" here and there depending on what's convenient? In most fundamental doctrines, people tend to substitute a part for the whole, but honestly, even extrapolating from the whole wouldn't be much more than just providing a mere form or a skeleton. hollowpilot9: There isn't actually a problem with extrapolation if the person doing it actually KNOWS what they are extrapolating and what they are applying it to. If we're talking about the physical versus the mental, then yeah, you probably run the risk of falling into that old trap of separating the two. For me, the physical and the mental are essentially identical—the physical is immanent to the mental, and vice versa—so the only real question is simply: what kind of relationship are we looking at? Ideally, it's a 1:1 ratio. As soon as one side starts to dominate, you get polarization where one outweighs the other, which leads to what we call SICKNESS in the broadest sense of the word.
Walter Foster87: Even if we don't question whether intelligence exists in nature—trying to find a model in a community of cells is probably not much different from the systems used as models for insect colonies. In both scenarios, the problem is multifaceted. Insects don't act like individuals; it's their collective—like a beehive or an anthill—that acts. A social community of cells is an even lower level of connectivity. The real problem with humans and society is that any analogy to animals acting as individuals, or society acting like animal packs, is fundamentally misplaced.
hollowpilot9: I see things quite differently! A cellular community is actually the ideal social arrangement, featuring FUNCTIONAL inter-cellular relationships, a functional division of labor, roles, jurisdictions, rights, and obligations. It operates on absolute priority, partnership, and cooperation. When you look at insect communities, like bees or termites, you see a massive similarity to cellular organization, whereas humans are still just struggling to achieve what insects already possess and understand. We're talking about the intelligence of life itself, not just human intelligence. Humans are only just beginning to exhibit this intelligence, which I call the LOGOS OF LIFE. It's been established for a long time that termites and bees behave as ONE DIFFUSE ORGANISM, much like how the cells in your own body show and maintain an EXTREMELY COMPLEX internal and external self-organizing structure. But the bottom line is that through the evolution of technology, humans are moving toward this bio-organic organization independently of their conscious thoughts, rather than towards some rigid structure invented and imposed by a group of politicians or bureaucrats.
Walter Foster87: All in all, we're talking about the Hegelian principle of the unity of opposites. Honestly, nothing seems clearer than the principle of *dia* used by the Pythagoreans. One divides into two, a relationship arises between those two (the third element), and the One exists AGAIN IN A SUFFICIENT MANNER. Or, alternatively, you have the Aristotelian All—which either emerges from PROTIMBI or dissolves into it...
hollowpilot9: No, Hegel had absolutely no clue about the polar phenomena of the world. His "unity of opposites" is one of the great blunders of philosophy, which was, of course, proven by his follower—that acrobat Mrax. If Hegel had written "unity of complementarity" or "unity of polarity" instead of "unity of opposites," his philosophy might have actually been useful or understandable to people. As it stands, it's just another one of those ( failed ) philosophies, as I believe Jaspers would put it.
Walter Foster87: Regarding this "masculine" principle—I can wrap my head around the need for a theory to standardize and simplify things, but in this specific case, it feels a bit repulsive. And not just for "anti-sexist" reasons—but also, as you mentioned, because of that correlation where "Mind rules, while strength provides the muscle." So, if the masculine principle is tied to force or power, then the mind must belong to the "feminine" principle. Therefore, if we judge based on what POWER ACTUALLY DOES, we are actually judging the mind that directs that power... Anyway, let's leave it at that—unless someone actually tries to extrapolate these "masculine" and "feminine" principles onto human society.
hollowpilot9: I don't know, maybe you're right, but I'm talking about the phenomenon of the MASCULINE POLE—which is a much broader concept than just biological sex. For the biological male pole, the hallmarks are fighting, wars, conquests, and destruction. Of course, my mind wanders to all sorts of possible and impossible battlefields, especially that mess from World War I on the French frontlines, where millions of people threw their lives away in mindless charges while the GENERALS and their entourages sipped French cognac and played the part of heroes "under the covers" with "the ladies." Naturally, I also think of military parades where people, lined up like crystallized blocks in perfect rectangles, MARCH toward death. Any philosophy that can't explain this masculine phenomenon—analogously to the feminine—is a weak philosophy!
It sounds a bit off—almost as if you're suggesting human intelligence isn't fundamentally driven by our other needs, specifically those purely "social" ones... you know, culture? If we’re being honest, a lot has shifted since the very beginning—you can see it just by looking at the numbers. We have more hunters among us now, and even more "hunters among hunters" who seem driven by this constant, almost primal need to devour whatever they catch. But instead of getting bogged down in some grand theory about the phenomenology of beginnings, maybe we should let our own tendencies and what we've actually achieved tell the story of who we are? Or is that too simple?
hollowpilot9: It might sound a bit harsh—maybe even a little cynical—but it’s an absolute FACT, and one that SABATINI handles quite effectively in chapter "Tool Making, Hunting and War." Hunting is basically the cornerstone of being human—it’s what really set us apart, and honestly, we wouldn't have gotten far without the invention of actual weaponry. Even chimps get in on the action; they hunt in little groups of maybe ten, going after smaller stuff like baby monkeys or antelopes by just... well, bashing them to death. It’s pretty brutal. But there's a massive difference between flailing around and the uniquely human ability to use tools to take down big game quickly and efficiently. I mean, look at the Neolithic era—we’re talking about people who actually managed to take down mastodons. That’s the biggest land mammal to ever walk the earth, which makes it an incredibly gutsy and dangerous move. You can see the scale of that struggle in the exhibits over at the Smithsonian—it wasn't just brute force, either. It required this insane level of strategic planning, teamwork, and technological know-how. How else do you explain it?
When I use the term "devouring," I’m really just pointing out that there’s one specific template for the survival instinct—and it isn't the only one. There’s a second one, of course, which stems from polarity—specifically sexuality. Philosophers tend to shy away from actually tackling these drives, which is a shame, honestly. Shouldn't their whole job be answering the big stuff? Like, why does the bigger fish eat the smaller one... and more importantly, who's left to eat the biggest one?
Sedentary and nomadic peoples—they both present this massive collection of principles that defined who they were, or rather, the very things that drove them to evolve from one state to the next. It’s all connected, isn't it? One way or another, those core drivers are what push them forward. Sedentary societies tend to get by with way less land than the nomads do. It’s almost a given—when you’ve got nomadic groups relying on intensive production and constantly overworking their grazing lands, it’s basically baked into their way of life, especially since they lean so heavily into livestock as a near-monoculture. On the flip side, sedentary folks don't just develop more complex divisions of labor; they build out entire social structures, cultures, and actual wealth. Which means, if you think about it, they usually end up being pretty lucrative targets for the nomads.
Look, you’re still just describing the current state of play here, whereas I’m trying to talk about the actual phenomenon—you know, the distinction between stationary and dynamic social entities. In my view, a settled society or a farmer represents the stationary entity, while the nomad on horseback is the dynamic one. And that dynamic entity? It possesses FORCE—ENERGY—and, naturally, the capacity for destruction. These phenomena (nations, if you will) undergo transformations over time; they derive from their origins. We’ve moved past the "wild man" with a sword on a horse and replaced him with a pilot in an F-22 gripping a smart bomb. Philosophers and philosophy itself haven't quite cracked the code yet: why do wars happen? Why does global militarism exist? It’s obvious to anyone that, historically, it means looting, killing, and total devastation—both human and structural—but is that really the only NEGATIVE role militarism plays? Could there be some other function to it? Honestly, the blueprint is already laid out; we don't need to build it from scratch. You only have to turn on the TV to see the chaos caused by assault rifles, or consider the fact that almost every adult on Earth is essentially armed in some capacity. Just look at Americans. It feels like we’re actually looking at something else entirely here—something I’d tentatively label as "PREPARING FOR FAMINE." ( FEASTING ) "WHICH ONE IS COMING NEXT?"
Let’s take this step by step. Is it fair to say—or even just clear enough to grasp—that a person only exists for a fleeting moment, and even then, only in some half-baked, incomplete capacity? It’s been around for a while now—this idea that human societies eventually hit this state of "discontinuity" in their social bonds. Or, if you want to put it in plain English, people just stop connecting. We start seeing a total breakdown in how we relate to one another. Is it inevitable? Maybe. It feels like we're constantly drifting toward that point where the social fabric just... snaps. So, in that sense, a person only truly exists within that middle ground—that brief, fleeting interval between things. Is there anything else? Not really. So, things are finally starting to patch themselves back together—we're essentially resetting everything right back to square one. Back to the very beginning. A person’s half-baked existence—if you can even call it that—is really only visible through all those wasted opportunities we let slip right through our fingers. Look, man is man to another man—not just in this physical realm we’re all stuck in, but in that other dimension too, the one no other species seems capable of sensing. We can't exactly see this essence, obviously, but we know deep down that the house isn't our private property—it's more like we have a right to sit on that public park bench... it's a genuine little slice of heaven on Earth, really.
hollowpilot9: I see where you're coming from with your explanation—you're looking at this through the lens of social dynamics. Since those relationships are inherently disjointed, as you put it, then it follows that the concept of a "whole" human being is equally fragmented in this context. It’s almost like we’re constantly oscillating between being some sort of half-measure version of ourselves and reaching for that idea of wholeness. Whenever I run into these kinds of arguments, my mind immediately jumps to certain dualities—sacred vs. profane, mortal vs. immortal, the finite vs. the infinite, and so on. Traditionally, though, all these pairings are treated as entirely separate entities
Walter Foster87: It’s pretty straightforward for me. We only truly EXIST today in one specific way: we exist exclusively as PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS. As such, our existence as LEGAL ENTITIES is structured by THREE PRINCIPLES. But—even those three principles stem from the ideas of Uma and the affirmation of the human being as an intellectual entity. That’s why (given the cause and purpose of man as a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL) there is an undeniable NEGLECTED POSSIBILITY—the kind of "cornerstone the builders ignored..."—which involves a SECOND WAY FOR HUMANS TO EXIST, a completely different structure that also rests on three principles. However, since both structures serve as means to affirm the intellectual being, they ought to coexist in CONTINUITY. And that, well, that requires a social organization where the individual is, a priori, affirmed ("planted") upon FOUR PRINCIPLES. For a WHOLE PERSON, this also means eliminating the unconditional affirmation of just one of the two human "personalities," thereby establishing the INTEGRITY OF HUMAN RELATIONS and ending their "DISCONTINUITIES." hollowpilot9: I have to admit, I DON'T GET THIS—just like I haven't understood a single philosophical explanation regarding the WHOLE PERSON so far. My inclination leans toward the idea that wholeness belongs only to that which is CAPABLE of renewing itself, to that which can CREATE things—especially something capable of creating and renewing a being identical to itself. So, I think a WHOLE PERSON is someone who creates a human being on both a biological micro-level and a macro-level. Some call it a STATE OF LOVE, while I call it a STATE OF THE UNION between polarities or polar people. Others call it a state of PEACE!
Walter Foster87: You can present things in all sorts of ways. But when things are this generalized, they don't really bind anyone, and honestly, everyone has the right to imagine whatever they want under the concept of love, and by extension, that specific type of whole person. The whole person I'm talking about is CONCRETE. Their entire struggle revolves around EXCHANGE. Because, just as creatures in nature must exchange matter with it, humans must do the same. But for humans, that exchange is mediated through the PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN PEOPLE. Production is what has tightly gripped the PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL. Meanwhile, exchange remains a PRINCIPLE THAT A HUMAN CAN NEITHER DENY, NOR ABANDON, NOR LET STAND IN THEIR WAY! Therefore, a whole person will never (for moral reasons) say to another: This (or that, regarding external things) IS NOT FOR SALE! They might, however, name an outrageously high price, and that's about it. Because that is the only way to avoid being "temporarily" human—during those gaps between two "discontinuities"—and instead live their entire life within a human identity and dignity.
hollowpilot9: Sure, everyone has the right to imagine whatever they want regarding the concept of love, but in this context, I'm not imagining anything at all; I am merely speaking of FACT. In my previous response, it was made clear that THIS IS THE ACT OF CREATION, not imagination. One of my theses is that the West hasn't solved the essential philosophical questions (we agreed on that part) precisely because Western philosophy lacks a philosophy of love. The first such philosophy was written by my little sister, titled—as you know—THE PHILOSOPHY OF ORIGIN. Even now, American and global philosophers have no clue about this philosophy, even though they were CREATED through it. A bit strange, isn't it?
Walter Foster87: On the contrary. A person must use certain means to defend themselves against the delusions their own Reason leads them toward. Without a philosophical method of investigation, philosophers would wander aimlessly without direction. Without a philosophical method of presentation, their achievements would struggle to survive "the iron fist of tyrants..."
hollowpilot9: I’m not familiar with this "method" you're talking about, but I am certainly aware that philosophers wander aimlessly all the time. Was the so-called dialectical method one of those massive blunders? What’s the other one? My method is the POLAR METHOD, which, as I mentioned, science and philosophy barely recognize, even though it is known to the entire universe and all life on Earth! Again, a little strange, wouldn't you say?
Walter Foster87: No, I’m not aware of any total collapse of the dialectical method in philosophy. Sure, I know the flaws in Hegel’s version—the one Marx hijacked—and honestly, most of that stuff can already be traced back to Kant. But—why should dialectics be boxed in by just those six principles? And are they even sufficient criteria to protect us from falling into error?
Then again—since we're on the subject—I hope you aren't referring to that superficial "dying gasp" of the dialectical method, which Dr. Miller so conveniently replaced with some sort of "PRO ET CONTRA" approach. It’s like... well, it’s all talk. Engaging with opposing positions remains the foundation, but in Miller's case, it's completely unprincipled—totally unmoored.
hollowpilot9: Hegel was the one who introduced the dialectical method to philosophy (not to be confused with a simple dialogue between two people), claiming it as his own scientific and philosophical framework, "Dialectical Materialism." That whole "method" has been irreversibly undermined by the scientific anti-dialecticism emerging from modern quantum physics. In philosophy today, dialectics is only mentioned when an author is firmly convinced that the world and its phenomena consist of dualities that "dialectize"—and from my perspective, looking at the Source, such "dialectical philosophies" are massive delusions! I mean, according to these "dialectical theories," does the action of a hardcore adult film take place dialectically???! Or that a caterpillar turns into a rose, or an ugly orchid becomes beautiful???!
Walter Foster87: Well, a positive principle would only be possible if justice were a given—that is, if people didn't have to manufacture it indirectly through laws and state coercion. As it stands, the only thing they can actually achieve in terms of affirming justice is preventing unjust acts from happening. As for the "rules vs. rules" dilemma—there’s another ancient one to consider: "People need laws, otherwise they’d live like wild animals!" But you don't need a mountain of laws. In fact, the very nature of law dictates that no rule should be established unless it can truly apply to every single member of the community.
A limiter like that—baked right into the Constitution—would prevent the legislature from passing regulations intended solely to trip us up in the race of life.
hollowpilot9: My question was actually aimed in the other direction, assuming that the negative determines our actual reality. It’s like asking, "If someone is in prison, who is the prisoner? Is it the guard, the thief, or both?" My point is simple: Why are laws drafted based on negative occurrences rather than positive ones? Isn't that a significant philosophical question?
Walter Foster87: Well, once you see it that way, you understand exactly why we need a Constitution, and why such a document shouldn't be drafted or passed by any of the highest governing bodies—and certainly not by Congress. Once the Constitution is set, it won't matter how much bureaucrats and politicians try to scheme and brainstorm...
hollowpilot9: I agree that the Constitution is supreme, but what about enforcement? If the bureaucrats are the ones writing the enforcement protocols, how can we maintain the integrity of the Constitution through them when social reality shifts daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly? I've said this before: by the time Congress passes a law, it’s often obsolete the very day it's enacted. Everything changes in the meantime. So, what are we even doing here? Who is actually running the show? What will "tomorrow" even look like if the rate of change is this exponential?
Walter Foster87: There’s a certain parallel between an individual and their own internal structure—much like how a society and its institutions function—in that both systems eventually swallow up and flatten out basic human nature. You don't really need to dig for biological or cellular analogies here, unless you look at it this way: a structured order aligns with our rational side, so hitting that sweet spot would basically be the optimized foundation for the progress of the Mind.
Analogies aren't just metaphors—they’re actual tools for research methodology. They really start to bear fruit when an investigator actually knows how to spot them and extrapolate from the micro-scale to the macro-scale, and vice versa. It’s a particularly fertile way to work in creative engineering—take, for instance, how a bumblebee might serve as a symbol for an aircraft factory somewhere in the States. I’ve written quite extensively before about extrapolating human sensory phenomena—where the act of analogizing sight through the lens of microscopes and telescopes becomes this deeply philosophical exercise. Well, the same logic applies when you try to extrapolate the organization of a cell up to a macro level. Once a researcher truly understands cellular organization, they start to see the absolute mess that current "democratic" social structures are—structures that have been forced upon us by a strictly linear way of perceiving human relationships. Even Hofdater, in his book GEB, demonstrates how universal and sweeping this kind of analogizing is—linking the logic of DNA molecular structures to protein arrangements, or even to the compositions of Bach or the paintings of Escher. In my view, any humanist researcher, scientist, or philosopher will eventually reach a point where they have to begin the work of reconstructing human society based on the model of the station society.
Walter Foster87: Every single principle a person holds—regardless of gender, really—is ultimately dictated by their method. And if you look closely at that method, it all boils down to one thing: justice. Or at least, it should. Honestly, you hit the nail on the head—there aren't many people who actually view themselves through a supernatural lens. Sure, they "know" they inhabit that world—they’ll cite their rights and demand protection from the federal government just like anyone else—but to them, it all feels so incredibly... normal. It’s mundane, everyday, almost physical in its familiarity. They’d probably just burst out laughing if you tried to tell them otherwise. A person just CANNOT kill someone with pure intent—it’s fundamentally impossible.
It’s that specific crowd—the ones who manufacture "public opinion" just to make sure whatever theories they like best get a green light—that makes all those stories about predators and feeders actually seem believable. Nah, that’s just a classic case of rebelling against one's own nature—and I don't mean that lightly. Because at the end of the day, a person is meant to be a creator, a builder... you know, someone who actually makes things. They aren't some mindless scavenger or a predator just looking for the next quick grab. Why fight against what you're wired to do? Look, he’s got a physical side to his nature too—which means in the realm of the tangible, he *can* pull off just about anything, whereas in the legalistic, supernatural world of rules? He’s totally hamstrung. And honestly, it works both ways. So, he’s technically capable of pulling off a robbery—maybe even something as extreme as armed robbery. But that brings up a bit of a philosophical question, doesn't it? Does doing something like that actually prove his humanity, or did he just "kill" it—you know, effectively severing his connection to it entirely? The existence of human nature—that fundamental blueprint shared by every single one of us—is pretty much beyond debate. It’s the bedrock, really; the very thing that serves as the origin for all our actual human rights and laws, as opposed to those raw, animalistic instincts we try so hard to ignore. Honestly, if you look at it logically, a cold-blooded killer isn't even operating on a human level anymore—they're just a human-shaped animal. Is there really any other way to see it? Look, just because we decide to reintegrate him into the system—you know, giving him back those basic rights and treating him like a person again—it doesn't mean his actions somehow vanish. That whole bit about us reclaiming our collective humanity by acknowledging him? It’s fine, really. But that doesn't erase what he did, nor does it wipe away the fallout from his choices. Does a second chance actually undo the damage? Not exactly. Or maybe we should flip the script entirely—what if we actually were just predators? If our nature and everything we do weren't driven by something much higher... wouldn't we just be as pathetic and oblivious as some wild animal out in the woods?
By the way, regarding that "Tool making animal!" comment—it’s really just a tribute to the Rational Creature and its single most significant decision: the capacity to actually get things done. Look, even monkeys can craft actual—you know, real human-grade—tools. Heck, they can do even more than that; they can practically perform human labor. But there’s always a catch—they still need someone standing right over their shoulder to supervise everything. If we just leave them to their own devices—honestly, if we just step back and let them do whatever they want—they’ll drop all those little pretenses pretty quickly. They'll abandon those fancy roles and go right back to being... well, what they actually are. Just regular monkeys.
So—here’s the thing—people don't actually build tools just for the sake of owning them, right? They’re essentially just aids—means to an end—to get some actual work done. And if you think about it, the end products themselves, much like the tools used to make them, aren't really born from pure labor or even raw Reason... they’re products of the Mind. Or at least, that's how I see it.
The concept of biological sex is arguably the single greatest blind spot in human intelligence. Seriously—neither modern science nor philosophy seems to have any clue why sex exists or what its actual purpose is in our existence. It’s almost like there's this massive, simulated performance happening among the most powerful forces in nature whenever the Earth undergoes a shift in polarity. We all know that polarity is a universal phenomenon—it’s baked into biology, physics, and chemistry—so if that’s common knowledge, wouldn't it be about time someone actually addressed the role of the masculine and feminine in our incredibly politically polarized world? My take? The sexes are the very essence of existence itself. Because they represent such fundamental truths, philosophy tends to dodge the subject entirely—it's an unresolved assumption that people just... move past. If you look at the aspect of polarity in every tiny fragment of reality, you see that within the masculine pole, there is a habitat for destruction and death—simply because that pole is tied to energy, to raw force. The masculine side inherently leans toward transformation, toward movement, toward an energy that inevitably drives it toward a fourth state of being. With the feminine pole, everything works in reverse. But—and this is a big but—we have to remember that humans are essentially bisexual beings, not mono-gendered creatures as misguided traditions would have us believe. If you ignore that, it becomes far too easy to flip the logic on its head and reach the exact opposite conclusion.
Walter Foster87: Even if you argue that 10% of the male population can somehow rebuild a nation "as if everyone were present"—it doesn't matter. War and killing aren't some exclusive male privilege anymore—more and more militaries worldwide are opening up to the "weaker sex." hollowpilot9: Not really, though. In any militaristic structure, the "weaker sex" serves a supporting role, just like they do in civilian life. They’re the bureaucrats, the medics, or the logistics experts—while the "knights" remain the knights, out there with bloody noses or cracked skulls. Honestly, trying to argue that war and killing belong solely to men is pretty futile. History—both past and present—shows that's how it works. Sure, you might see the occasional female suicide bomber or a female pilot—like those caricatures of a "Secretary of Defense" we sometimes see—but that doesn't change the thesis that men are predominantly the combatants, the warriors, the destroyers, and the killers. And while that sounds harsh, philosophically speaking, you shouldn't take it as an insult!
Walter Foster87: War is essentially just a form of social abortion—getting rid of excess. Looting? That’s just a little consolation prize for the small-minded participants in the process. Sometimes, it even masquerades as a sort of "national tradition." But—how many actual people truly participate in a war, versus those who are merely "human-shaped"? It’s a state of being that can’t be reached unless certain—well, let's call them necessary and inevitable—relationships are established en masse first. You can't validate a person as a human without them. So, you need at least an entire social group to descend into war—to throw themselves into the status of mere human-like animals. hollowpilot9: I’m repeating myself here, but I’m talking about a phenomenon. And the phenomenon is this: human intelligence is driven by the urge to consume—to hunt. That drive, in turn, induces the intelligence required to create and manufacture tools for destruction and killing. That's why there’s such a massive divide between sedentary and nomadic peoples, between the psychology of farmers and herders, and naturally, between their social structures. It’s all quite simple, really—if you don't look at it through a philosophical lens too hard.
( continued ) Walter Foster87: On the contrary—a man working a shift or performing duties on a nuclear submarine isn't exactly a FREE MAN. No matter how much we ramble about it, during the actual labor process, a HUMAN IS MERELY A PHYSICAL BEING to whom that "invisible" side of nature (meaning rights)—is ONLY ever withheld. That leads to the question: why does he remain unfree and "on the wrong side of the line"? Because this "simplification down to a monkey's finger"—it serves no other purpose than to liberate a person from having to deal with the humiliating inevitability of organized labor.
hollowpilot9: My question was actually—why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? But you’ve twisted that into some negative association with a "submarine," which honestly has nothing to do with what I asked. When I say "by negative criteria," I am primarily referring to the fact that the laws of society only come into existence through the emergence of something negative, or in a (failed) attempt to prevent that negativity from surfacing (despite all the "don't kill" preaching, while actual violence just keeps rising). These PROHIBITIONS aimed at thieves and criminals end up consuming honest people instead. For instance, I'm not as certain as you are that civil liberty carries more weight than military liberty on the nose of a fighter jet?? You know the old saying, "rules, rules... they'll bend my spine," yet RULES are invented by people like that (militant) bureaucrat who served as the starting point for Perkins' Law! Instead of having that one (militant) bureaucrat, whose scope is objectively limited by his military rank, we have thousands of spatially unrestricted bureaucrats who do nothing but dream up ways to restrict someone else's freedom just to justify their own existence. A classic example is when a government official approves the standards and ingredients for a chef's menu!!? Social and public filters are, among other things, those negatives used to tailor a man's pants to state measurements, even if there's a thirty-centimeter difference in height. Consequently, citizens always end up looking like caricatures compared to the very factor meant to "fight" against negativity—when in reality, they are creating it!! So, I’m talking about that specific brand of unfreedom born within so-called civil laws; instead of order, they cause anarchy and lawlessness—not because someone chooses to be an anarchist, but because the hyperproduction of laws based on the negative makes it impossible for a citizen to actually exist, let alone function. An honest person becomes a lawbreaker, and in that "violation," the bureaucrat or the > who dreamed up the law triumphs. In a truly functional society, this kind of nonsense simply couldn't happen, because such a society wouldn't have these negatives, or if it did, they would be minor. By "simplification down to a monkey's finger," I meant the phenomenon where managing the most complex human creation ends up at the level of a "monkey's finger." Specifically, I mean the fact that by pressing a BUTTON, we turn on a TV, yet we can also trigger planetary annihilation just as easily as we trigger the "annihilation" of dozens or hundreds of innocent souls. Our resident genius will argue that it isn't the "BUTTON" at fault, but rather the finger of a stupid man; meanwhile, I’d say: the BUTTON was invented by a smart man for a stupid man, so that he might kill himself and another (smart) man. That is the social paradox I'm trying to get at!
( continued ) Somewhere in here lies " blessed foolishness"—a charming new little concept, something fresh that I’m hearing from you, and honestly, it appeals to me at first glance. Without this " blessed foolishness," it feels like there's no way to rebuild ethics or morality, which currently exist as nothing more than empty buzzwords used by charlatans. It’s only when an intellectual—take one of our highly esteemed gentlemen, for instance—says he isn't sure who is outsmarting whom, whether the virus is outsmarting the human or vice versa, that we find the true, original essence of this " blessed foolishness." It’s the very thing so-called intellectuals are terrified of, lest they accidentally appear as dim-witted as viruses... which, frankly, are quite clever. They almost seem smarter than humans because, so far, they always manage to "outmaneuver" us through recombination whenever they return to their home in the East. So, are we talking about the "intelligence" of a virus battling the "intelligence" of a human, where the human just hasn't grasped this particular brand of logic yet? What happens when people start thinking like a "foolish" bee, a termite, an octopus, or a frog? That's why your " blessed foolishness" resonates with me; this specific situation perfectly illustrates what I mean by it. Imagine a movement of Bach's music played this way: first, the whole piece from start to finish as the first movement; then, from end to beginning as the second; then, from the midpoint forward and from the midpoint backward as the third; and finally, the fourth movement as a reverse of the third. A listener experiencing this musical acrobatics wouldn't even notice the trickery; it would seem like one continuous, seamless movement. But at the end of each section, imagine a sudden "THUD" sound, leaving the listener wondering, "What was that 'THUD'?" and what it signifies. I answered that question instinctively, with a sense of wonder: how could I possibly know? The logic I used to answer belongs precisely to that " blessed foolishness" I've described: the "THUD" is the summary, the concentrated essence of the entire complex musical movement. If you were to stretch that "THUD" back out, you'd hear Bach's music again. My take is that everything in existence is essentially structured this way: on one side, there is what we call "music"—that which exists and which we perceive as INTELLIGENCE; on the other side, there is the "THUD"—what we dismiss as foolishness, though it is actually the exact same thing, just perceived at a different level of reading existence itself. In nature, a perfect example is the relationship between a seed and its plant. The seed is the "THUD," and the plant is the musical movement. You say: "The master is not a MAN, but property! Slave owners defined that relationship precisely. It is the relationship of master-to-man and the enslavement of a man-like animal." I was genuinely stunned to realize that a SLAVE can actually be a MASTER. I was taught that a "slave" on a Southern cotton plantation was the same as property in ancient Greece during the era of Pericles. What a lie, stretched to infinite proportions! There existed the slave-master—like a banker or a police officer in Pericles' time—and there existed the slave-animal on the cotton plantations; whereas today, we have the self-made slave, someone who is effectively enslaved to a Mercedes or a yacht worth, say, $400,000.
Walter Foster87: Such universalities and comprehensiveness cannot exist until Liberty and Equality are established—not just in some small state, but across the entire World.
hollowpilot9: Absolutely! That is the point, that is what we are working toward, and that is what we ought to be working toward, rather than just babbling about it like everyone else does.
Walter Foster87: Look at it this way. An INTELLECTUAL BEING EXISTS. And because it exists, it harvests the fruits offered by the Mind. It only stopped "picking bananas from the tree" (meaning, work didn't create man!). One doesn't have to invent something to be an inventor (to belong to that species). However, one must validate oneself through a WAY OF LIFE that is worthy of an INTELLECTUAL BEING. Therefore, the identification you are looking for is GIVEN BY EXISTENCE ITSELF. The problem, however, is that it IS NOT FULLY REALIZED! We live for a while in that state, then we struggle through life, then suddenly we cease to exist (due to "discontinuity," war, etc.), and then we become again, rebuilding everything and starting over—lord, how much we differ from little Job.
hollowpilot9: Fair enough, but my comment was about the INTELLECTUAL being a being of intellect that ONLY thinks and does absolutely nothing! A wonderful example would be those four Nobel Prize-winning writers—they were on TV a few years back; I think one was Argentine, one Canadian, maybe one Dutch, and the fourth was perhaps Swedish. They received their prizes because they wrote incredibly critical pieces about the conformism of intellectuals who sat by windows watching the "swastika" drift by without even bothering to "spit" on it. I am talking about those kinds of intellects—those who are perpetually surprised and constantly marveling at events they failed to see even when it was happening right under their noses. That is the other side of the "intellectual medal"; it is actually the "tragedy of intellect," much like the "Birth of Tragedy" in music, rather than something occurring in the "mind of a tyrant." A tyrant merely executes what his music commands, whereas an intellectual fails to do even what REASON dictates!
Walter Foster87: Aside from the whole militaristic angle—which, let’s be honest, leaves zero doubt about the intent—a SUPER BRAIN isn't built by billions or trillions of people; it's manufactured by a handful of "gatekeepers" and controllers. Basically, Aristotle calls out that vague gap in Plato's logic—you know, how he failed to really connect the needs of the state to the BEST possible way to actually meet them—and pushes back against the idea that "everything can be measured in dollars."
hollowpilot9: I think we’re talking past each other here. When I talk about a true SUPER BRAIN, I’m talking about an ACTIVE NEW REALITY—a tangible, present phenomenon—not just some massive pile of disconnected, negative minds. There's a massive distinction there. A Super Brain would be a universal knowledge SERVICE available to everyone. It’s something even Emegvali hinted at years ago—the guy they used to dismiss as a "buffoon" but now treat like some kind of dark genius. Walter Foster87: See, the issue is that the criterion lies within the method itself, acting as a PRINCIPLE OF JUSTICE in law. Well, if a method is just a generalization that distances itself from every individual object in order to encompass everything (or as much as possible), then the criterion for EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS (including the method itself) must be an even higher degree of abstraction—essentially distancing itself from the method too.
hollowpilot9: I’ve spent plenty of time with scientists who worship the scientific method "like a golden calf." Even quoting other experts hasn't helped; most don't view the scientific method as an idol, but rather agree with me that a method is only as good as the problems it's trying to solve. There is no such thing as a universal scientific method! But honestly, it’s all a bit futile, because if you strip away the method, you strip away the form and the institution along with it, and then everything else falls apart. If science can't claim one singular, unified method, then philosophy certainly can't—and shouldn't, if philosophy is meant to be an INVESTIGATION into the whole. As you likely know, the DIALECTICAL METHOD in philosophy completely collapsed because the questions and answers used by "old Greek philosophers" were flipped and reinterpreted as an absolute law governing the relationship between things and phenomena in nature and society, which is, frankly, nonsensical and impossible. Trying to translate the concept of opposition into the concept of complementarity seems harder than trying to swap a man for a woman or vice versa, but that shift from opposition to complementarity is inevitable in both philosophy and science!
Walter Foster87: ( I’m shortening your posts and just citing them as markers, since I can easily read the whole thing in your original message ). You can find the answer in "systematic upbringing"—where the old rulers "teach" the youth—which is basically what 90% of the material shoved down students' throats in American elementary and high schools is; it’s nothing more than mental drilling. You can also find it in that inevitable, necessary post-developmental refinement of the mind, which simply CANNOT happen without the physical talents of a biological being—and among those, includes raw FORCE.
hollowpilot9: You’re describing things based on how they were and how they still are in many parts of the US, but as I’ve mentioned a few times, I deal with the RESEARCH of phenomena. In that kind of investigative context, I always ask an analogous question, something like this: What kind of social (or governmental) arrangement exists within my own organism? Are there cells or groups of cells acting as tyrants? What kind of rule GOVERNS the cellular universe of billions of cells? Since I have a pretty solid grasp of organic cellular structure and how a cell itself is organized, I don't find any tyrant cells anywhere—not even an organ that acts like a state, "oppressing" other organs or cells! I don't even see it in the brain, which might seem to be "above" everything, seemingly "ruling" over the other organs and cells, when in reality it is a synthetic PARTNER that SERVES and MANAGES through the principle of partnership—of cooperation—through the principle of biological feedback, a principle of absolute fairness for all billions of cells... regardless of who they belong to or what organ they serve. There is harmony here—functional organization and, above all, LOGOS, which philosophers should study if they want to finally grasp the tragedy of autocratic, authoritarian, tyrannical, and even "democratic" rule. Personally, it truly baffles me how the human organism, which possesses such a fantastically organized internal social structure, produces disorder, chaos, injustice, and tyranny in its external life...? I carry a fairly strong conviction that the internal and external human organizations must eventually align; there are already plenty of signs that this is happening. From that perspective, traditional theories and practices become—and remain—nothing more than a collection of nonsense that humans have done and continue to do.
Walter Foster87: That’s the illusion. You see, the private structure of the spirit (that is, the legal person) is such that it inevitably develops closure—namely, exclusion (or egoism)—and equally, it hunts for prey that must be seized, looted, or stripped of its owner... It produces effects that GIVE THE ADVANTAGE TO THE "MASCULINE" PRINCIPLE. . hollowpilot9: So you think cowardice, deception, the "mad mob"—murderers, looters... STRUGGLE, FIGHTS, WAR, TYRANNY? ... —that doesn't require a masculine principle, but rather a dose of animalistic instinct? In my view, the argumentation you're presenting SKIPS the genesis of intelligence, which, according to many modern perspectives, arises due to the NECESSITY of the male being the one who secures sustenance as a HUNTER and predator. The evolution of predation (greed, gluttony, robbery, looting, murder, and destruction) is very elegantly and convincingly described by Renata Sabbatinija in the chapter " Tool Making, Hunting and War " where she notes, among other things: " Hunting is the foremost human activity and it was made possible only by the invention of hunting weapons. Hunting exists and is instinctive among chimpanzees, which hunt for small prey, such as baby monkeys and antelopes, in bands as large as 10 individuals. They kill by flailing, thrashing and beating. However, using tools for rapidly and effectively killing large preys and in a large number, is uniquely human ". Within the scope of humanoids, " hunting, war and killing " has always belonged to the male half of humanity. In wars fought until recently, looting was a legitimate pursuit, and the origin was the march to seize from others what had already been gathered—say, for the winter. It was easier to attack a neighboring TRIBE or state and take what was already CAUGHT than to go out and actually hunt. Furthermore, it's a fact that the apparatus for destruction and killing is invented, created, and utilized by men, not women. Of course, there are instances on the female side of the coin, but I'm talking about the dominant trend, which certainly and factually belongs to men. Historically, the man has been the ruler and the tyrant, and that nature persists today, with the only thing changing being the TOOL. Tyranny isn't primarily about PHYSICAL FORCE anymore; today, it's more MENTAL—like the mental tyranny that precedes HISTORICAL DECISIONS, leading up to the tyranny of the decision itself. We listen every single day to some " WISE MAN " speaking in IMPERATIVES, implying that if we don't act exactly as HE thinks, the world, the country, the nation will perish!? So, now that you’re bringing up the WHOLE PERSON—that favorite little concept of so many philosophers—I have to say, despite my very best efforts, I just can't wrap my head around what people actually *mean* by it. Those Marxist theses about the whole person don't really hold water, mostly because that WHOLE person is always tucked away inside a CLASS—you know, the working class, the laborer with the hammer and sickle, who, as we see in this era of disappearing identities, is being turned into either a robot or some mid-level bureaucrat. And I mean this, whether it's some enlightened intellectual trying to calibrate Plato, Hegel, or a modern Nobel laureate—it’s still not hitting the mark. So, what even *is* a WHOLE PERSON? The old concepts and those dusty definitions just don't cut it anymore.
One somewhat acceptable answer I come across is finding it in the identity of the feminine within the masculine when a new human is being CREATED. Some folks claim it's LOVE! By that logic, a person full of love would be a WHOLE PERSON, but let's be honest, that's just an abstraction, not reality. Personally, I think a unified state is the prerequisite for a whole person in a biological, social, and phenomenological sense. To put that into plain English regarding our actual social reality, it would mean a person who renounces their own personality, their ego, their vanity, and ultimately their own life—which, at that point, is already a UTOPIA or perhaps the definition of a HERO who is detached from this world for the sake of the world. Philosophers really ought to define this "whole person" concept more clearly, given how skillfully it's been used in the past for all sorts of "intellectual" and material manipulations.
Walter Foster87: hollowpilot9: forget the PHYSICAL REALM. Look at yourself through what you might call legal relationships—you know, the physical, the UNTOUCHABLE, the INDIVISIBLE, the SUPERNATURAL REALM—and take it, for the sake of understanding the problem, FOR THE HEAVENLY REALM. Because animals are either equal or unequal in the physical realm; our bodies and talents exist there, where true equality simply doesn't exist.
hollowpilot9: I "forgot the physical realm" a long time ago. People who only know me on the surface tend to say I live in outer space rather than on Earth, having no clue that I am simultaneously a practical guy, a grounded person, an innovator, a builder, a designer, a creator (I'm actually reconstructing a boat right now), and so on. But I suppose the issue is that I perceive and experience the "spiritual realm" differently than the usual stereotypes. For instance, I view the "spiritual realm" as a constant, active collaboration with the "spirits of the past" interacting with the "spirits of the present." You said... "The POWER/RIGHT contained exclusively in the EQUAL RIGHT/POWER of an individual to exert EQUAL PUBLIC FORCE against any other individual/subject—you'll have to 'chew on' that. Only then can we discuss whether such a system is actually possible." I agree, though it seems the difference is that you see "equal public force" as the coercion of another subject, whereas I see this force as a NECESSITY of a certain evolutionary stage that exists beyond the will or decision of the subject—something coming from that "mysterious" sphere of the subconscious. In my view, we only truly realize that a tyrant—whether they go by the name of some Caesar, Emperor, King, or a democratically elected President—is merely a phenomenon of a lower-level developmental imperative. Figures like Attila, Genghis Khan, Caligula, Henry, Louis, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam simply had to emerge at certain times as phenomena, regardless of whatever individual name they carried. Today, these tyrants just wear different faces and different clothes; we find them in bureaucratic oligarchies, management hierarchies, power structures, meritocracies, and so on. Regarding the questions you're asking, like: Why don't we notice them in our current civilization? Why isn't there a separation between legislative and constituent power, and why does the system persist where the Constitution is drafted and adopted by the highest legislative body through some "democratic" achievement?—well, those are practically "biblical" questions (ranging from Original Sin to the "narrow gate"). The problem with our era is that there are so few people left who could justify themselves through "blessed foolishness." My answer? It's because we've become incredibly SMART at interpreting the microworld, yet remain utterly STUPID when it comes to interpreting the MACROWORLD we are creating ourselves. It used to be the other way around! Humans were smart because they understood macro-phenomena, and foolish because they didn't understand micro-phenomena. That's where the "rabbit is in the bush," and until we peek into that "bush," we are destined to wander, because in my opinion, we have already moved past subjectivity—or the philosophical cauldron—out of the subject-object relation and into a state of identity, where the subject has become the object and the object has become the subject. The proof lies in creativity that transcends the creativity provided by our given or inherited nature. That is my "absolute" argument for why old theories must be replaced by new ones. Perhaps I'm wrong, but as someone who studies the incredibly complex things humans have made, I am increasingly convinced that these "things" are far more complex than any known natural thing, or anything created by God.
Walter Foster87: There’s this rather sharp Schopenhauer's critique sitting right there: "We tend to forget that the Greeks and Romans were born into Freedom, whereas we—including him, Hegel, and the Marxist—are only just emerging from the darkness of the Middle Ages." That specific sense of freedom he’s talking about probably afforded those philosophers much more breathing room, which in turn allowed them to cultivate actual visions for the future. But here's the catch—they also managed to create an overwhelming amount of intellectual wealth at the same time. So now, we’re stuck with a bit of a dilemma, isn't it? We can either ignore it all and keep repeating the same mistakes they made (or their predecessors did), or we can drown in all that material until the day we die.
hollowpilot9: If you look at Greece during the era of Pericles, then the FREEDOM being discussed was present right there in the streets—among the locals, the servers, the everyday people—on a one-to-one basis. It was dismantled by foolish people who convinced themselves they were smarter than God and everyone else, and in doing so, they steadily eroded that liberty until we were left with the version of "freedom" forced upon us by politicians, thieves, and criminals. Philosophers really ought to address this: Why is human freedom defined by negative criteria? Why does society value someone who knows a tiny bit about a niche specialization over someone with broad, macro-level understanding? These questions lead us to ask: Why do our most complex artifacts—like a nuclear submarine, a supersonic jet, or a manned rocket—always end up being reduced to some kind of "monkey finger" simplification? To me, those are the real philosophical questions of our time, rather than obsessing over what the geniuses of the 15th, 16th, 17th, or 18th centuries were thinking.
Walter Foster87: It might be worth separating the two. I mean, this goes way deeper than that—higher forms of cognition can also exist within those relationships of idealism (that realm of ideas) which, quite beautifully, both inspires you and traps you.
I agree that we're looking at something much deeper here—something far more complex because there are actually multiple layers of perception involved. I only used that specific example because it touches on the idea of "lower" versus "higher" cognition, which is a bit of a slippery slope since nobody ever really defines what they mean by those terms. You end up just wandering aimlessly between two vague concepts unless you manage to grasp the space in between—that middle ground, or rather, the unified whole. And that’s exactly where the deeper issue you're pointing out resides. I have to go back to my tired old argument—pardon my repetitive "story"—that traditional scientific and philosophical thought is built on duality, binary structures, and linearity. It’s all very one-dimensional. But this newer way of thinking? It’s rooted in quaternary and tetrahedral structures, much like what the ancients understood. We're talking about non-linearity—a perspective that actually aligns with how we perceive the world through wave mechanics, quantum physics, and biology.
Walter Foster87: Sure, you could look at it that way—but when we’re talking about how the Government actually functions, the problem looks more like this: Can those who are actually capable—those truly righteous ones—actually build a government that directs all that sacrifice and effort toward a more productive life and a functional social system? Or do they just lack that specific kind of ability? It makes you wonder if they’re simply doomed to spend eternity dragging along those useless parasites and broken souls—the ones fueled by both their "planned" and unplanned wars, alongside all those legal and illegal heists... Is there an actual way out, or is it just a cycle? So, where do we actually stand right now in this messy, cluttered society? Honestly, even a purely rational person wouldn't be satisfied. When you look at the relationship between Good and evil—something Reason should be able to navigate quite easily—the issue of how intellectual beings are being suppressed becomes even more glaring. It’s even harder to ignore when you factor in all those murky, mysterious elements of the Mind—you know, the inevitable mediation, the unavoidable friction, and the resulting abuse of power that always seems to creep in during that process. It's a bit of a mess, isn't it?
Everything you said makes sense—I'm not disputing that—but since my head is mostly stuck in the clouds of phenomenology rather than dealing with actual, concrete events, I keep circling back to that question you dropped in your last post. Why is it that rulers (or honestly, people in general) have been such consistent tyrants throughout history, and still are today? Is it just some ego trip for those in power—a sort of human glitch—is it an automatic byproduct of how power itself functions, or is tyranny just an inevitable phase in the early stages of any developing society? The evolution of society? Look, I don't have a definitive answer for you—I’m not exactly claiming to be a walking encyclopedia here—but lately, I can't shake the feeling that we're looking at a phenomenon driven almost entirely by a single polarity: the masculine. If you want evidence for that perspective, you'll find plenty if you look at both humans and the animal kingdom—it’s everywhere, really. But then the inevitable question pops up: Is it actually possible to seize someone else's territory, their property, or their wealth without fighting, brawling, war, or outright tyranny? Can you just... walk in and take it? It seems to me that the only way it happens is on some higher plane of reality—that is, when a tyrant adopts a sort of "winner-takes-all" psychology, where they ensure they always come out ahead, even at the expense of the person they're taking from. Just food for thought. It’s a messy, complicated business—really "stuck" and heavy—because when you actually dive into research, you run headfirst into the phenomena of force, polarization, hunger, and sex. You see, tyranny and the seeds of autocracy are lurking inside all four of those things, making it incredibly difficult to pin down where the actual source or cause begins. I could probably lay out a whole theory on being anti-tyrant, but honestly? You can't get anywhere without a solid grasp of what's neutral—or what some might call the center, the true gravity point of any given phenomenon.
Walter Foster87: I’m just not buying it—this whole idea of transitioning from the realm of intellectual beings into the world of nature. They are two entirely different spheres, really—operating under completely different versions of freedom and equality. An intellectual being—well, if we’re talking about true intellect—isn't just about the capacity for pure freedom of thought. There's also this inherent drive, this fundamental need for freedom in action, simply because an intellect is an active entity. It's part of the design, right? Especially when you consider that its highest purpose is essentially the reconstruction of its own achieved intelligence. An intellectual being can never truly be dependent. It’s really that simple—it either ends up suppressed and subjugated, or it remains free. There isn't much middle ground. At last, we arrive at the equality and freedom of the thinking being—the very essence of that righteousness which serves as the foundation for our laws, the building of our institutions, and the entire purpose of the state. And then, of course, there’s that fickle lady herself—Justice. I mean, what’s the point—if people don't actually feel the sting of injustice or sense when things have gone sideways—of even being thankful for that whole surge of enthusiasm we saw back in the early '90s? It seems like this pattern repeats itself in pretty much every major conflict, too. The only real issue is that the masses rarely see things with any kind of clarity—so to them, even blatant unfairness starts looking just fine, or maybe politicians are just getting really good at dressing up injustice to make it look respectable. Equality and freedom are, historically speaking, just subconscious human cravings—things we expect to happen, things that are supposed to arrive eventually... But if we’re talking about equality and freedom as they apply to the individual, that kind of thing doesn't actually exist—nor can it—as long as interpersonal dependency remains in play. It's pretty much like how you don't have molecular freedom or molecular equality while intermolecular forces are still doing their thing. So, this individual freedom—which I think is what you're getting at—can only really be achieved once we move past that web of human dependency that we're all currently stumbling into. It’s part of an evolutionary shift, really—the kind that brings about the electrification of the US, the exponential explosion of technology, massive energy consumption, and this "breakneck" acceleration of life itself. In these circumstances, the individual becomes less and less dependent on other people because everyone else is being replaced by something universal and all-encompassing... Talking strictly about intellectual freedom—about an intellectual being who is, as you say, inherently intellectually free—isn't enough. We need to talk about existential freedom. Only when intellectual and existential freedom finally merge can we actually start talking about FREEDOM that actually means something. Your last sentence touches on exactly that, which is why I think we're approaching a point where intellectuals simply *must* become producers of ideas that are actually useful for people—ideas that allow us to live and, more importantly, stay alive! Without that, all these debates about intellect are nothing more than dreams.
Walter Foster87: And that’s not even the half of it. Just listen to how they teach Plato to kids—or how philosophers actually perceive him, for that matter. Go ahead, ask them about Plato’s Republic. Everyone starts blathering on about some supposed "state of necessity"—but honestly, I’ve yet to meet anyone (working for those types of states, anyway) who has actually cited the BEST TOOL—the very mechanism Plato lays out right on the opening pages of the Republic—to make such an understood and organized state actually function. Now, if that tool is just trading in marketplaces (you know, basic exchange), then it’s pretty obvious why I wouldn't feel any burning desire to present the idea of perfected commodity goods to all these self-proclaimed Plato enthusiasts. But—things aren't quite that simple. So, here we go again—that whole loud-mouthed trumpet blast about those gold, silver, and bronze social layers, and this supposed "communal" ownership of property... It’s honestly wild how boldly and relentlessly they shove that stuff down the throats of young people as if it were the core of Plato's Republic. As if that was the point. I mean, wasn't the man actually just talking about how to organize administration and power within a state? Just that. Why does everyone have to make it so much more complicated than it needs to be? That’s exactly it—we’re talking about the same thing, just on different levels of reality. If Plato's mind was a genius—which I don't doubt, nor do I care to test, given he was doing his thinking some 2,000 years ago—it’s still true that the collective superbrain of millions of people is something entirely distinct from just one guy's brain. Maybe he was brilliant when theorizing about the State, or perhaps he was just sketching out the outlines of that Ideal State so many other philosophers like Aquinas and Augustine obsessed over—or even the versions idealized by Hegel and the Marxists—but the fact remains: Plato's State stayed a mere utopia in a civic sense. In a military context, however, you can actually find elements of it being realized. I mean, we have to remember that Plato's utopian vision was heavily influenced by Sparta, right? So, as paradoxical and impossible as it might sound, I see certain elements of his utopia actually playing out in the "State" known as a nuclear aircraft carrier, supporting a population of roughly 5,000 crew plus maybe 500,000 people in its orbit. Within this floating, drifting little "nation," everything operates close to an ideal order. This mobile little state functions through a strict division of labor during work hours, yet shifts toward maximum principles of individual and social freedom during downtime. It seems to me those are two essential traits of any biological organism—so, my suggestion to the philosophers who simply can't live without Plato is this: go look for an analogy for his philosophical tenets within the biological and military organization of human society. That might be a way to solidify, or even revive, Platonic viewpoints, assuming they still matter to philosophy.
Walter Foster87: That criterion is really just a method, isn't it? And look—we’re living in this constantly shifting, imperfect world, so if we want a method that actually protects us from falling for delusions, it needs a benchmark of the highest order: a Perfect Being. Only then can you see how truths—no matter how steady they seem—are ultimately relative. They could be swapped out for their exact opposites, or perhaps both coexist, or maybe there's some sort of underlying unity between them... who knows? Then there’s the other vital part of any method: the purpose. Whether that purpose is rooted in nature itself, or if it's just our own human nature being projected onto the physical world—basically, the way we go about perceiving things—that principle is what separates the realm of action from the finality of the world. It's what allows us to distinguish an instrumental purpose from an ultimate one. It also teaches us that means must always be twofold. Because, honestly, when there is only one single mean, you aren't looking at a tool anymore—you're looking at an Absolute. No matter what we might fantasize about, or what we crave, or what kind of "Higher Power" we use to comfort ourselves... that's just the reality of it.
hollowpilot9: I honestly don't think the issue is the method itself—it’s more about how philosophy has drifted away from its actual subject matter. It just fragments into thousands of individual opinions, gets broken down into tiny pieces, or gets bloated beyond recognition. And let's be real, the ultimate litmus test is that most philosophers today seem incapable of actually revising traditional thought to produce something truly NEW. That's why we're essentially "drowning" in delusions, not because of the methodology used. The misconceptions regarding Platonic teachings you mentioned are just a drop in the bucket compared to the institutionalized nonsense kids are fed in American schools every single day. There is a massive, endless line of questions that desperately need a total overhaul. You have to realize that before any real panic sets in, there's usually this period of superficiality, conformism, and pure laziness. Seriously, can anyone actually convince me that it is vital for children to spend their time learning how to find a square root, or how 1 : 2 = 1/2, or how the Earth orbits the Sun? Sure, those are fundamental questions—questions of Truth—but we are still lightyears away from the Truth because we stubbornly cling to the belief that you only need TWO elements for existence. Meanwhile, someone is "whispering" in my ear that it isn't two, but four... or even a fifth synthetic element, much like what the Pythagoreans so deeply believed and practiced.
Walter Foster87: So, we’re basically circling back to that old Platonic dilemma—how exactly do you convince philosophers to actually share what they’ve figured out? It's the whole reason he dreamed up that ideal state run by thinkers. I mean, if the philosophers are calling the shots, they wouldn't have to constantly look over their shoulders worrying about being trampled by a stampede of Rams, right? Plus, it finally gives them a practical way to actually put all those deep insights to use instead of just talking about them. People say that the theory of knowledge from that Indian philosopher Socrates is actually quite similar to Kant's in certain aspects. To me, it feels most like Plato—mostly because they’re both spiritual realists who try to synthesize the core ambitions of the past. They both draw this line between two kinds of knowledge: the higher and the lower. I’m talking about that higher level of cognition—the kind that leads us toward the original Truth and an ideal good. The Ram and the sheep are really just symbols of a specific relationship and its underlying meaning. If you just look at a horned Ram or a quiet, bleating sheep, you aren't going to learn anything more than what they physically represent. It’s only when you bring them together that you solve the problem posed by Socrates and Plato—and not just their problem, but ours too: Why do humans multiply in the first place? Once you actually answer that question, "the multitude" becomes a totally NEW concept—one that has absolutely nothing to do with a collective lacking intelligence. Intelligence lives in the individual—it’s right there in the brain—but once the multitude builds its own collective brain, it becomes obvious why collectivists have to rule at that lower level of knowledge. They are a force that moves, expands, conquers, and imposes itself.
Look, it’s a sensitive subject—and honestly, it’s not exactly a coincidence that, from that higher perspective, collectivists always seem to end up seizing control. Even when they start out building something based on ideals that are fundamentally rooted in individualism—you know, things like Liberty and Equality—it just ends up going that way.
hollowpilot9: The whole thing only feels sensitive because we’re living under this illusion that collectivists actually hold the reins. You know how it goes—after every major crusade, they eventually stall out and lose everything they started with. But instead of those losers taking center stage, we get a shift toward a new qualitative level—which, if you ask me, is where things get interesting. We're looking at the highest tier: the identity of the individual merged with the mass, which is basically just a holographic, post-singular philosophical consciousness. Or something like that. The whole concept of Liberty and Equality doesn't really hold water anymore—not when everything is unfolding within an environment of absolute Liberty and Equality, much like the atmosphere inside a plasma field. The "old" timers used to just call plasma Fire. You probably know this—or at least you really ought to—but the fourth state of matter is essentially the same thing; take a single water molecule, for instance, and turn it into plasma. Plasma makes up 99.9% of the universe. A philosopher living in a nearly absolute plasmatic universe has nothing to fear—certainly not some Ram guarding his collective flock of sheep. It’s basically the relationship between a locomotive and its train cars, where the traditional definitions of Liberty and Equality become... well, highly questionable. Personally, I’m not entirely convinced where one finds more Liberty and Equality: is it tucked away in a block of ice, or in that equivalent vapor transitioning into a plasmatic state where Liberty and Equality become absolute? In that state, electrons, protons, and neutrons are completely free. But let’s not forget—neutrons are free even before they hit the plasma stage. It’s the same with people. Neutral people? They’re free. Only the polarized and the intellectually dependent are truly unfree.
Walter Foster87: You’re making some interesting points regarding Hobbes and that whole crowd—though, honestly, most of those ideas were already baked and ready to go long before he showed up. I remember being in one of those endless debates where someone basically hits you with this condescending critique: "Look, your argument is fine, but if you actually want anyone to take you seriously, you need to back it up with the heavy hitters... you know, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, and the rest!" And that’s exactly how you end up lost in a dense thicket of academic nonsense. It’s true, in a way—once you filter out all the fluff, there isn't much left. But when you look at the sheer volume of it all together, the contribution seems massive. I'm talking about the raw material itself. As for everything else... well, let's just say there's nothing truly substantial to be found. That’s why I’m not underestimating John, Mark, or Daniel... And just two words about those folks running headlong after Hobbes and all that... It looks something like this to me—most people end up reading the exact same books and studying the same philosophers. But here’s the thing: the vast majority of those readers don't actually grasp anything at all; they could recite a passage from memory and still be completely clueless. Then you have the other group—the ones who cherry-pick only the bits that happen to align with their own pre-existing philosophies (or whatever biases they're clinging to). In the end, neither group actually reaches the point. They miss the whole purpose, don't they?
hollowpilot9: This post is honestly brilliant because it’s completely self-contradictory. I’ve seen it happen so many times—these new authorities "clinging" to the old guard just to cement their own status. It seems like philosophy only survives if it constantly leans on the "THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS," which—let's be honest—is totally at odds with the whole idea of elevating Liberty and Equality among people. Then you have this weird dynamic between millions of minds and a single mind—take Platonic or Hegelian thought, for example—where those individual thinkers are always positioned "ABOVE" the masses. Within that supposed "philosophical principle of the capable versus the incapable," there’s actually just hidden terror from puffed-up authorities who only exist to serve the incapable. Isn't that just a fancy way of hiding UNFREEDOM and INEQUALITY? We act like we're fighting them, but maybe we're just fighting the formal version rather than the real thing. In my opinion, the real scam of our modern era is this principle where MAN JUDGES MAN, instead of letting facts or truth lead the way. Philosophy has drifted miles away from actual facts and truths—much like how freedom has drifted away from humanity, trapped behind bars and barriers created by man’s own—well, let's call it—blessed foolishness. Establishing a standard for truth isn't easy, and it certainly isn't simple, yet we toss around "truths" like we’re wealthy people throwing cash around a casino. If it’s true that we know so little about the past and absolutely nothing about the future—and considering the present is so massive and complex that it exceeds the scope of any individual experience—then invoking these intellectual authorities feels a bit ridiculous, doesn't it? My suggestion? Read what the old thinkers wrote, sure, but when it comes to today's questions, answer them with YOUR OWN MODERN MIND. If we can't manage that, then we basically forfeit ourselves to the category of the incapable. The contribution of the old guard is undoubtedly great, but it isn't current; it needs to be updated, and you can't do that just by recycling the THOUGHTS OF GREAT MINDS. Thinking for yourself today is nearly impossible in a world of seven billion heads—it’s too crowded, too chaotic, too much competition—so I’m putting my hope in a global brain. A sort of super-brain that is, by design and content, NEUTRAL. It’s an artificial construct made by people, but it isn't "human" in the traditional sense. Beautiful, really.
Walter Foster87: I mean—when an insight finally finds its footing within the thoughts of the Old Guard, that’s when it actually gains some real weight. It moves past being just a fleeting thought and becomes something substantial. It’s much different from the way those "sheep" react—you know, the ones who just toss around a cynical little "brava Kolumb" slogan like they’ve actually achieved something deep? It’s all just noise. So, I mean—in that particular gap (that bit of old wisdom which isn't actually all that hidden from the "sheep," they just pretend it is—coupled with a total refusal to actually use what they know)—there’s this genuine phenomenon happening. It’s honestly kind of a marvel, if you think about it. A real subject for wonder. Absolutely. Honestly, I felt this weird sense of relief when I realized that the Old Guard knew exactly what today’s Gen Z knows—it’s just that the tools have changed. The gap in instrumentation is massive, like looking at the cosmos. Today’s kids process everything through high-powered electron microscopes, whereas the older generation had to rely on... what? Pre-ontological experience? Raw intuition? It’s all the same stuff, just different lenses. But look, let me tell you about my encounter with a literal ram. The sheep were charming enough, I guess, but there was this one massive ram that just floored me with its sheer size and those horns. Being young, naive, and completely clueless, I started offering him these grand speeches of admiration and praise. And what does he do? He rears up on his front legs and—BOOM—slams them into the dirt. I actually thought it was a sign of approval. I kept going. He rears up again, harder this time—BOOM. Then a third time, even louder. By the fourth time, the guy was charging straight at me, and I barely managed to scramble away with my life intact. It wasn't until much later that I realized my little pep talks weren't compliments—they were threats. In his head, I probably looked like some rival ram trying to muscle in on his flock. The point is, the sheep don't give a damn about any of this. They aren't interested. It's only the horned rams that care, and that right there is the fundamental philosophical error.
Walter Foster87: Maybe we'll see the Youth Party make a move around here—and I think Illegale is trying to get something going too...
hollowpilot9🙂Well, I guess we’ll just have to wait and see if anyone actually survives this... or if we'll all be around long enough to find out.
Walter Foster87: Look, there’s one massive point here—something that probably carries even more weight than that whole "Creation in His Own Image" concept. As much as we like to pretend society is something greater than just a collection of individuals—it really isn't capable of birthing some artificial entity that holds more value or importance than the very last human being left in the community. It’s such an individualistic way of looking at things—really. We’ve been exposed to all sorts of collectivism, haven't we? Everything from the most twisted socialist-style communist models to those quasi-liberal democratic setups that claim to be different. It's all just different flavors of the same crowd mentality. Look, the clash between individualism and collectivism isn't just some random coincidence—it’s got this deep, historical continuity that didn't just pop out of nowhere. And if you look at history—not that we can find a single society where individualism actually managed to overtake collectivism, even just as a core component—it becomes pretty clear that this tension is an obvious legacy we're leaving for the future. It's almost inevitable, isn't it? Look, I won't argue with you regarding how important an upgrade is—I get that much—but I am absolutely not going to sign off on that if it comes bundled with collectivism. Not happening. hollowpilot9:
That’s just how it works. Honestly, I’ve gone to great lengths to distance myself from any kind of collectivist nonsense—I make it a point to emphasize that qualitative gap between the individual and the group. Look, if you have a pile of bricks, a brick is just a brick. Simple. In a group of people who aren't interacting—just random folks standing around—an individual remains strictly an individual. But? Once you have a group of connected, interactive people, that individual still keeps their own identity, but they pick up the properties of the group too. They gain an extra dimension. We really need to wrap our heads around this, because it's the fundamental novelty here—this idea that a human being can acquire a dimension beyond the standard, linear dimension we're all used to. I’d actually suggest we have a full-on discussion about this specific dimension. Because, let's be real: unless we "elevate" the human being to this higher level, the whole distinction between *Homo sapiens* and *Homo politicus* becomes completely meaningless.
Walter Foster87: So, I guess *Leviathan* at least serves as an ideological anchor point—a way to tie everything together. Hobbes actually had some pretty solid insights, though, so I’d imagine there's a similar thread to be found with Japanese philosophers. If you happen to know of any connections—whenever that might be—let me know. So, that Law—it’s basically rooted in some sort of foundational essence, right? Like a first cause, or God, or some kind of Absolute... which makes the whole thing feel pretty individualized, I guess. Or is it? If I were to put this in plain English—just to make sure we’re all on the same page—it basically comes down to our fundamental nature. It's that specific way we operate, where we're somehow capable of existing simultaneously in both the physical, animalistic realm and the spiritual—or, if you want to get technical about it, the legal—sphere. It's a bit of a strange duality, isn't it? To be part of both worlds at once?
That’s exactly it! Honestly, how many times have I said that talking to my cat, Mickey, and my dog, Chuck, is often more productive than having a conversation with a human being? A cat or a dog sends incredibly clear signals—a flick of the tail, a certain look, or just a specific growl—to let you know if they approve of what you're saying. Humans, on the other hand... they either give you that sneaky, silent treatment or launch into an arrogant attack. It's exhausting. I truly believe that once we stop acting like we're the sole "geniuses of the universe," we might actually move toward some level of universal—and I mean real, deep philosophical—insight. In my opinion, the Cabinet isn't exactly the place for philosophical input or high-level theorizing. Sure, I’ll cite the Leviathan, Hobbes, and plenty of others, but what about people like Ivo, Mark, Daniel, Anthony, or Mary? Do we actually have any better ideas of our own? Or are we just stuck in this cycle of mental provincialism, forever running in circles trying to catch up to Hobbes and those other Harrys...? I was actually reading something about Japan in a Sunday Times supplement about a year ago—can't quite recall the exact issue. If I stumble upon the link again, I'll shoot it over to you.
Democracy: So, here’s the real question—why were they dancing around the issue like someone trying to navigate a minefield in flip-flops? Was it some kind of deep-seated survival instinct—you know, that specific brand of wisdom born purely from being terrified of making a mistake—or was it because the Truth is just so overwhelmingly massive that it would essentially fry the average person's brain if they actually looked at it directly? Or maybe they were just sweating bullets over how the folks in Washington might react... or who knows? What else could it be?
hollowpilot9:
Everything I’ve dug up leads me back to the same conclusion—they were essentially dancing around the point because their brains were hardwired for the "holy trinity" and that standard three-dimensional way of thinking. We finally have Euclid and Euclidean geometry to our credit, which, granted, paved the way for the whole tech-heavy civilization we’re living in now. But honestly? That mindset makes it impossible to actually grasp the Truth they were chasing. In my view, the Truth only really starts to manifest—both scientifically and philosophically—once we step into the fourth dimension. This gives today's philosophers a massive opening, a real shot at uncovering something real, provided they can actually wrap their heads around it. They need to stop playing it safe and look closely at the last fifty years—specifically how many things we were "dead certain" about yesterday turned out to be complete nonsense today. It’s all about being willing to strain the brain a little, isn't it?
Democracy. Fine—I’ll give that a solid A+. But honestly, I still think those piles of trash need to be buried before we find ourselves in a situation where we're basically trying to reinvent the wheel just to stay afloat. The bigger issue here is how we force this clueless administration—if we even have to go that route—to actually secure decent libraries for the younger generations. I mean, how was someone like Hegel even able to sit down and digest the philosophy of Pythagoras? Where did he do it, and how much access did he really have? If he managed to pull that off, why don't we have that kind of accessibility TODAY—especially now, when a single daily newspaper probably contains more information than all the philosophical literature from his era combined, and since the Internet has essentially made global information exchange effortless? Why aren't we seeing that level of depth right now? Is this all just a way for some out-of-touch bureaucrats and career academics to protect their bloated, taxpayer-funded salaries? Or maybe—just maybe—it’s because there are certain things they still don't want the public getting their hands on? I haven't seen any posts from hollowpilot9 yet—is there something I missed? Or are we just sitting here in silence waiting for the first word to drop? It feels like one of those quiet afternoons in a small town where nothing happens until suddenly everything does. Anyway, I'm around. What's on everyone's mind?
Who wants to go digging? Even the old-school miners found a few nuggets of gold buried under all that waste rock. My take—and feel free to disagree—is that you really have to dig through the history of philosophy, or just human intellect in general, before you can get anywhere. But then, more importantly, you’ve got to wrap your head around what we actually know now in biology, physics, astrophysics, geology, psychology, and so on. Once you realize that some of our most cutting-edge modern findings are basically echoes of ancient insights, that’s when the real fire of philosophy finally ignites. Now, mind you, I’m talking about actual original work here—not just some lazy imitation or a desperate attempt at an apology for existing ideas. So, yeah, I’m totally with the sentiment of "if Pythagoras could pull it off, why can't we do it today?" Honestly, from my very first day on this Forum, I've been pushing for exactly this: let's start researching by actually revisiting and revising all those tired theories people still cling to like life rafts. But the resistance is just too massive... it's always easier to just parrot what someone else already said, isn't it? Much easier than thinking for yourself.
Democracy: So, here’s the practical side of things. There is just so much raw material available that if you tried to wrap yourself up in all of it, you’d end up stuck in a Sisyphus-style loop of endless philosophizing—just pushing the same thoughts up a hill forever. That’s why you have to make actual moves whenever you manage to digest a new idea—or, on the flip side, when you start getting a bit of "indigestion" from trying to swallow too much of it at once. And that’s a surefire path toward progress—really. All we’re missing now is the right venue and a solid crew to pull it off...
I don't know—maybe we should just sit back and watch how this all unfolds? It feels like everyone is rushing toward a conclusion without actually looking at the data—or even bothering to ask if the data is being interpreted correctly in the first place. Is anyone actually checking the math here? It’s almost funny, in a dark sort of way. We talk about progress, we talk about moving forward, but then we stumble over the most basic principles—almost as if we've forgotten that you can't build anything lasting without a solid foundation. Does anyone else feel that? Or am I just overthinking things again? Probably both. Anyway, let's see where this goes.
The sheer volume of available information out there creates this massive, illusory nightmare—it’s overwhelming. Take the discovery of the structure and logic behind the DNA molecule, for instance; back then, it was almost like child's play compared to what we face now. But since then, the endless stream of data has become so tangled and convoluted that people struggle to actually make sense of what they're looking at. A philosopher shouldn't be wasting time getting bogged down in those tiny, granular truths—not when they should be focusing on the overarching Truth that actually dictates how those small details function. It feels like there are so few people left who can actually perform real synthesis—you know, taking those insights and weaving them into a larger synthesis of Truth? Ideally, the internet would serve as the hub for this, perhaps with occasional real-world meetups... and as for the right group of people? Well, I suspect there are at least ten capable teams out there today just waiting to find one another. Look, if we’re actually going to pull this off—whether that means launching our own dedicated website or just building out our own private Forum—we really need to think about how we approach it. It probably makes the most sense to hand the reins over to someone younger, someone who actually speaks the language of modern web dev and knows the current landscape—you know, someone who won't stare blankly at a server migration. We could then step in to provide the backbone—which, let's be honest, would likely mean backing them up financially if things get expensive. Wouldn't that be the logical way to handle it?
Democracy: Exactly. You don't even need to invent her. It’s just built into us—this restless urge to dig, to explore, even if we're doing it purely to push the boundaries of what the mind can grasp and how it evolves. That’s why people always hide behind those tired phrases like "generations of thinkers." It’s a convenient way to mask the actual individuals who carry the weight of everything—the ones who actually make this world turn. Because at the end of the day, you can only truly be a human being when you exist as an individual. Otherwise, what are we even doing? hollowpilot9: I’m totally with you on that comment—though I’d always argue that the relationship between the individual and the collective isn't some linear progression, but rather a qualitative one. A group of individuals, once they reach a certain threshold, forms a qualitatively higher entity than any single unit within it. Think about the relationship between cells and a human being; the cell is the individual, while the human is the collection of those individuals acting as a higher qualitative level. That’s why I think primary philosophical inquiry—real philosophical work—should be asking where we are actually heading evolutionarily. Are we drifting toward a chaos of disconnected individuals, or toward a synthesis of individuals that will form an order higher than the human species itself? We touched on this back in that thread about atheism.
Democracy: Maybe, but "Hic Rhodos, hic salta!"—show us what you know! Here’s a chance for those who claim to be well-versed in Eastern thought to step up. What exactly is the state? Why are people forced to live by laws, even when those laws take the form of mere custom? And what is politics? Why do rulers put in such massive effort—and make such subservient sacrifices—just to stay in power, when ALL OF HISTORY (of every society and nation without exception) TEACHES US how futile and ultimately UNHUMAN those efforts truly are? hollowpilot9:
In any case, it would be interesting to hash out the meaning of the state from Antiquity to the modern era. As for the Eastern perspective, all I know is that the Japanese suggest their state would function essentially like a biological organism by around 2020. So, what is a state during the phase where nations integrate into a higher form of community, or what is a state during the age of globalization? Law is also a fascinating rabbit hole because humans are created and brought into being according to Law—the question is just which Law and what kind? From Pharaohs to Emperors or Kings, the ruler has always been a reflection of God on Earth; though, as I've written before, the old God wasn't nearly as merciful as the modern version suggests. Is "might makes right" actually just a legitimate instrument of evolution?
Democracy: I don't quite follow the point, unless the "Great Leviathan" is just that Eastern thread woven into Western philosophy. hollowpilot9: Joseph Needham writes in his book *Science and Civilisation in China*: "First of all, we can demonstrate that Chinese *philosophia perennis* is organic materialism. This is evident in the maxims of philosophers and scientists across all eras. Chinese thought simply never developed a mechanistic view of the world; instead, an organic understanding completely prevailed among Chinese thinkers." In direct contrast, Western thought developed a mechanistic vision of the world—which, of course, is incredibly easy to prove by looking at the evolution of our apparatuses for destroying and killing biological beings, especially humans...!?
the people says: But—and here’s the kicker—it seems the great philosophers didn't actually manage to land their core messages. So, either they never really had them (which is hard to believe when you look at the material and what they’re hinting at), or their way of explaining things just completely flopped.
hollowpilot9:
That’s really the heart of the matter when you’re debating philosophical legacy. Personally, I treat those "old" guys like required reading just to get a sense of how our predecessors thought and what they were chewing on, but I haven't given them much actual weight for a long time—mostly because they failed to answer the big philosophical questions. I remember writing something like this once: Traditional philosophies definitely contain valuable nuggets, but they’re also packed with a whole lot of garbage. Sifting through an entire philosophical legacy just to hunt for a single "gem" is a pretty inefficient way to live. It’s smarter to take the tools and the knowledge base we have today and use them to tackle both old and new questions. We could always rewrite the philosophical questions from scratch and see what a Socratic or Platonic response looks like versus yours, mine, or ours in the modern day, right? To me, repetition and apology in philosophy is just pure nonsense—as Unamuno would put it: FOG!
the people says: Anyway, back to the point. Every one of us is living proof that philosophy would exist even without the Old Guard. The real question is how much their philosophy actually shaped our culture and thought, versus how much influence came from other traditions that are tens of thousands of years older.
hollowpilot9:
I picked this Hegelian quote out of a gentleman's manuscript: "Philosophy is an investigation. It is not a product of individual creation, but the result of the work of individual investigations by generations of thinkers." I’m on board with that definition. By that logic, philosophy is primarily the investigation of truth, which means investigating the whole. My take is that these "old philosophers"—or rather, "early philosophers"—found the philosophical truth long ago, only to foolishly negate it, leading to new philosophers who find the truth again, only to foolishly negate it all over again... all the way down to the present day. Nowadays, plenty of people claim that philosophical truths no longer exist, or that traditional philosophy essentially died off with German ideology... and so on. My view? We need to rediscover this "old" or "early" lost truth and offer it up to clear away the pessimism, fatalism, and this lazy perspective we've fallen into...???
the people says: Unfortunately, I know next to nothing about Eastern philosophies. But—if they are truly that valuable, it’s strange (and a huge shame) that these ideas don't enjoy any popularity, at least in broad and vital areas like metaphysics and methodology, or even political science and economics.
hollowpilot9: I totally agree, and it is a tragedy! It seems our Westernized culture—and by extension, our philosophy—has so thoroughly blocked our minds that we view any Eastern culture or philosophy as mere mysticism. Meanwhile, our Western friends used that very "mysticism" to unlock unprecedented scientific breakthroughs regarding the microworld. Bhor didn't choose a "Socratic head" for its knightly symbol; it chose the Yin-Yang symbol, and certainly for good reason. How narrow-minded our Western bias is is best demonstrated by the fact that not a single scientist on the academic circuit has stepped up to praise Capra's book "The Tao of Physics"! Instead, the finger-pointing was directed at me simply because my interlocutors haven't the slightest clue what Capra is actually writing about or why!
I try to emphasize this quite often here, though usually without much success: there is a massive difference between a linear and a non-linear perception of the world, between an organic and a non-organic approach to research, between complementarity and exclusivity, and between three-dimensional and four-dimensional space-time. The distinction between Eastern and Western philosophy lies precisely in the fact that Eastern philosophy is grounded in the organic, while the West is non-organic. That specific fact gives the edge to Eastern philosophy, especially since humanity seems to be entering its organic era. The physical era is behind us. At least, that's how I see it.
Respect to the people! Greek philosophy is basically the bedrock of Western thought and science. It all kicks off with Thales somewhere around 585 BCE. The Milesian school really gained its footing through contact with Babylonian and Egyptian ideas—knowledge that was largely buried along with the Library of Alexandria. We’re talking about a philosophical lineage that stretches back to 4000 BCE. But then you have Indian philosophy—this massive, incredibly complex spiritual and intellectual framework—which starts with the Rigveda. Those are some of the oldest written records of the human spirit, dating all the way back to 10,000 BCE. They flow into the Upanishads, which go from 1000 to 300 BCE. So, when you look at it, Eastern philosophy predates Greece and served as a primary driver and source for much of it, especially those traditions found in Egypt. It’s worth noting that while Greek philosophy heavily shaped the European linear way of thinking, Euclidean geometry, and mechanical physics, Indian and Far Eastern philosophies have had a profound impact on modern Western wave-quantum science—specifically modern physics. Therefore, if we're looking strictly at the timeline, Far Eastern philosophy is older than the West and actually aligns more closely with modern science than Greek philosophy does. In my view, within a philosophical context, Eastern philosophy is "truer" and holds more value than Western thought—which doesn't mean Western philosophy is useless, of course!
Kosmarac says: I’m totally with you on this one, hollowpilot9. It’s not like I was denying the tech revolution or anything. But honestly—just so we’re clear—if you look at how little digital literacy there is in places like Mexico, let alone everything else... that’s what I meant when I brought up third-world countries. We’re basically just pawns being moved around by global events—which, if you think about it, is a pretty sharp way to put it. I don't have much else to say. We’re still living in this primordial, tribal state. We need to sort out our own backyard first—you know, those endless disputes with our neighbors—before we can even dream of actually participating in modern global trends. But apparently, nobody here seems to get that.
hollowpilot9: See? That’s the thing—it’s amazing how people can actually agree on something fundamental, even when it’s as vital as this! Now, given the way things are currently heading, wouldn't it be useful to figure out how smaller nations can maintain their own agency while the superpowers are busy rising? It reminds me of how Got once suggested that every nation has its own unique fugue in history—and I tend to read his message as meaning that every single tiny part of the human body has its specific purpose. In fact, isn't it true that sometimes a tiny little thing—like the pituitary gland or the adrenal gland—actually plays a more agile or crucial role than something massive like the stomach? Research in that area could be incredibly fascinating, and frankly, it’s exactly what smaller nations need right now. The internet is definitely one tool that opens those doors. The solution is out there; we just have to find it, recognize it, and shape it!
Amanda Fowler2, I wouldn't go so far as to say I’m validating the "Man of Technology"—if that's even what you mean—but rather that I'm looking at the affirmation of "Evolutionary Man," where technology acts as a primary driver of that evolution. We’re essentially doing the same thing here, but for me, "society" isn't some separate entity sitting apart from evolution and tech. In any modern society, science creates the technology that defines the very fabric of that society—it's what makes a culture what it is in the first place. What you're doing is fine, really, it's just one piece of the puzzle. My fear is that if you stick strictly to that single line of reasoning, you might miss the sheer volume of phenomena being generated by technology itself. And those changes are—as Kurzweil puts it—exponential. They're getting faster and broader every day (think of an exponential population curve). We've reached a stage where our mental capacity just can't keep pace with the scale, quality, and velocity of these shifts using old-school methods. For instance, the classic, years-long "ivory tower" approach to research—the standard academic model—is practically obsolete now. By the time someone finishes reading all the essential books and papers on a specific niche, the problem they started studying has often vanished entirely. I try to get people to grasp this, especially in places like the US, where technological shifts are constantly hitting us over the head—though we aren't really the architects of these changes, more like the targets. We’re perpetually playing catch-up, and as time moves forward, that gap widens, leaving us with consequences that most people can already see clearly enough. The massive misunderstandings in debates over theism versus atheism are actually a direct result of this! People simply don't realize—or aren't even aware of—how fast scientific and technological advancement is forcing human society to reshape itself, even adopting attributes once reserved for God. That’s exactly the direction I’m trying to point toward. Just as a friendly suggestion—do this for your own sake, for the sake of your work—try to "record" and analyze the shifts technology has forced upon us from 1900 to the present day. Look at transportation, communication phenomena, the explosion in energy consumption and shifting power sources, or even take a look at militarism and the evolution of weaponry designed for destruction. If you do that, everything will click, and your conclusions will be much more grounded. These changes are massive, and they impact human society profoundly. They are already acting as a "standalone force," regardless of whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with them. It’s paradoxical, really—this force is created by humans as an imperative of their own macro-existence. Anyway, that's about it. I wish you nothing but success in your research and in understanding these social phenomena! To me, the peak of understanding is realizing that everything is inexorably moving toward the macro-organism—Homoterus—which is, of course, a macro-functionally structured human society, organized organically and organismically.
Amanda Fowler2, this is some pretty timely info—definitely one of those key pieces that backs up my theory about Homoterus. I’ll just drop a few sentences here, but the rest is over in the time thread, so please go check out the full thing there.
Ray Kurzweil was the pioneer behind optical character recognition, the first printer to take speech-to-text input, and he developed the first CCD scanner along with the first speech synthesizer—you know, the stuff that lets machines sing and play music. All these inventions, driven by his specific intelligence and expertise, have become commercial staples all over the world. For his work, he picked up the Lemelson prize from MIT—a $500,000 award, which is basically the gold standard for innovation globally. He’s the author of "The Age of Intelligent Machines" and "The Age of Spiritual Machines," exploring the moment computers finally overtake human intellect. Here is what the man has to say regarding the evolution of intelligence.
We are stepping into a new era—what I call the Singularity. It’s a concept describing the fusion of human and machine intelligence, creating a capacity far greater than our own. This is the ultimate pivot point in the evolution of our planet and humanity. To me, it represents the moment human civilization becomes a singular entity. It’s our destiny, part of an evolutionary path where intelligence undergoes exponential growth toward what human beings are ultimately meant to be. The next level involves augmenting our intellectual power through technology. Our actual reality and our future are subject to the rule of exponential evolution. Imagine an app sending billions of nano-bits of information directly into our brains—that becomes our absolute virtual reality. If you want to exist in true reality, you have to recognize that reality as nano-information. This reality is woven from nano-data just like virtual reality; if you want to enter it, nano-signals override all other signals—including my own real opinions—replacing them with nano-signals, provided I am in a virtual environment. We are already drifting into this virtual space, more and more, alongside everyone else. In there, we’ll find everything from sexual and sensual encounters to high-stakes business negotiations, totally immersed in a complete virtual reality that captures every single one of our senses. Kurzweil goes on to say: "My fascination with the future stems from my drive to innovate. I’ve developed mathematical models for predictive evolution across various fields—computing, electronics, communications, biotechnology like genetic scanning, reverse brain phenomena, miniaturization, and the technological shifts in the paradigms we believe in. This helped me become both an interpreter and a technological creator who catches the wave at just the right moment. This interest in tech trends led me to create a project I call the Law of Accelerating Returns, because I believe this law serves as the backdrop for all future technological evolution."
Since my mathematical models held up well when predicting twentieth-century events, I consider them fairly reliable for forecasting up to 2030. I also want to highlight the fact that many futurists fail to realize that every single change carries its own acceleration. A century ago, people didn't think—or rather, they didn't believe—that the world was actually changing. Their grandfathers lived essentially the same lives they did. Today's axiom is completely different; we know, and we are convinced, that life is shifting and that technology dictates the speed of societal change. What isn't easy to grasp is that every individual change accelerates. Therefore, the knowledge we gained over the last 20 years isn't a great roadmap for the next 20. We now understand that scientific and social paradigms double every ten years.
By the way, Däniken translated this into English for Ronald Flores54 about two decades ago back when this whole thing was a massive hit.