A Philosophical Dialogue

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 )
In Cowboy movies!?

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

hollowpilot9 said:…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hollowpilot9 said:(CONTINUED)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART 2

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

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

hollowpilot9 said:....

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

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

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

( 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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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:
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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

George Washington:
>>>>I want to add one more thing: As I’ve emphasized quite a few times now, I am deeply fascinated by the evolutionary aspects of humanity—specifically regarding one very concrete question: Are we actually capable of determining where humans and our species currently sit on the evolutionary scale? Are we standing at the very beginning, or if we aren't, just how far along have we come... where do we roughly land on the total possible spectrum of evolution? Traditionally, people view Man as a creature of Earth rather than a creature of the cosmos, but evolution suggests that we are cosmic beings through and through. So, what exactly is our role in the universe?
And finally, there is this one crucial question: What is the true relationship between Humanity and NATURE? Is Man a DESTROYER OF NATURE, or is he a TRANSMUTATOR—someone who shifts Nature into a different (cosmic) state? In my view, these are first-order PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS!
Man is a being of Earth, a being of the Cosmos, and a being of Nature. For every single (natural) action taken by man, Nature provides a (natural) response. It follows that a destructive act by man against Nature results in a destructive act against man via Nature's reaction. Even if man were to refrain from any destructive acts entirely, Nature—in its relentless pursuit of global equilibrium—acts in ways that might appear to be in opposition to humanity...
Therefore, even when acting as a destroyer, man serves merely as a transmutator of Nature within its constant state of flux and constancy.
As for the evolutionary horizon of mankind, it follows other moving horizons upon which it depends; thus, it isn't truly possible to pinpoint exactly which rung of the ladder we occupy relative to the beginning or the end—which is why I don't consider that specific measurement to be all that vital.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Democracy says:

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

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