A Philosophical Dialogue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hollowpilot9 said:.... we're already talking about the correct interpretation of phenomena and subjective experiences—but above all, this is about PHILOSOPHY, which ... seeks Truth and only Truth, ...
Well, sure, things are obviously relative, but they’re also obviously Absolute.
...

Absolute ...!? Aside from the Absolute, everything else is both one thing AND another, and both IS and ISN'T, ... and you kind of get that when we say how EVERYTHING is (ABSOLUTELY) - RELATIVE.

hollowpilot9 said:.... An Absolute yes, and that is precisely the "point" that philosophy should be interested in. It's the junction point of the "hillside and valley" of a wave, appearing QUANTUMly at specific time intervals. It's the point of the origin of the wave's hillside and valley, but it's also the point of inversion! .

Maybe you mean the form!? That’s what requires you to look at the whole as a whole, and the parts as parts, rather than attributing the characteristics of the parts to the whole (like those who BELIEVE an atom is divisible, forgetting that an atom is already defined as the smallest particle of MATTER, and even ELEMENTARY MATTER).

hollowpilot9 said:.... Just as we have this phenomenon in the physics of Waves and frequencies, we see the exact same phenomenon in biology through the occurrence of copulation (union) of female and male at certain time intervals; therefore, it is a quantum non-linear, rather than linear, phenomenon. Personally, I think studying these phenomena leads to very interesting observations and insights that inevitably lead toward the UNIVERSAL—that is, the realization that the LOGOS OF THAT POINT OF UNION AND INVERSION IS UNIVERSAL.

Quantum, linear, non-linear ... — the essence of the phenomenon lies in the harmony of the parts whose community makes up the whole, i.e., precisely that kind of movement characterized by oscillation, featuring both amplitudes, intensity, length, and INVERSION.
Actually, that inversion IS NOT DISCONTINUITY, because it's precisely what allows for the immanent (CHARACTERISTIC) opposition that maintains the WHOLE.
In humans, we're talking about a NON-CHARACTERISTIC type of "opposition" that doesn't maintain their shape, but instead—constantly anew—forces them to "lick everything that is—as a non-human—dead..."

hollowpilot9 said:.... In all of this, from a human existential standpoint, it's very important to know that the wave-oscillatory phenomenon inherently includes the possibility of construction and destruction, which is generally synonymous with good from the "Bible" until now.

The possibility of construction and destruction can't possibly be synonymous with good! Because that possibility hides the potential for constructing evil, or a lesser good, just as it hides the possibility of destroying good or a lesser evil ... So, that claim is "true" (arithmetically speaking) only 3:1 (that 1 only occurs when the creation of good replaces or completes the removal of a lesser good or greater evil) and is completely devoid of any value, since you can pack anything into it and use it to justify anything.

hollowpilot9 said:Not many people realize that the Absolute strongest force in the entire universe is actually destructive wave interference—it’s powerful enough to shatter or demolish just about anything! It reminds me a bit of how Calasica used to smash glasses just by hitting those super high "C" notes... it's pretty wild when you think about it!

It feels like they’re somehow trying to convince us of something else entirely. Or—to put it another way—no matter how much they claim that force is the "Absolute strongest," it seems like that Mind has managed to tangle it up somehow—so now, even that supreme power is just... well, kind of a mess.

hollowpilot9 said:Look, within the context of our conversation—and especially regarding your views, which seem much more focused on the practical side of political and social humanism—it feels incredibly important to focus on TUNING THE MIND TO WAVE AND OSCILLATORY PATTERNS. I mean, doing that opens up totally different ways to interpret everything happening in the world's social and political landscape! It really creates these entirely new possibilities for redefining what life means and how we actually live it.

Even though we see plenty of artistry out there in nature—which is beautiful, don't get me wrong—human creativity just feels... different? It’s got this unique spark. I guess you could say its potential provides this incredible dynamism, but it also comes with this massive, overwhelming scale. We're talking about a huge pool of latent talent where it might take one in ten, one in a hundred thousand, or even one in a million people to actually trigger that specific brilliance. But honestly—even if only 6,000 or 7,000 people out of that million ever step up—that is still such an incredibly impressive number!
Beyond just all that movement and energy, there’s this kind of path being carved out—it’s almost like a tension between two different sides. On one hand, you have the needs that stem from our basic, natural characteristics as living beings, and on the other, you have the simultaneous existence of the mind. It’s a pretty interesting balance, I guess!
Finally, there's that one truth we all eventually face—that when you really look at our relationship with the world, we don't actually have much to do with the universe itself. It’s really just about how we deal with other people. Whether that person is a rational human being, or someone completely irrational, or... well, let's just say someone who isn't exactly playing by the rules—it's all the same. I guess that's why we try so hard to protect ourselves using things like fairness, the legal system, the government, culture, and (as many would argue) faith, and so on. It's all just ways to navigate the messiness of others!
Of course, we’ve got work to do when it comes to nature, too! At the end of the day, nature serves as our starting point—it's the setting for everything—but the actual heart of any philosophical inquiry or scientific study—the real meat of the matter—stays firmly rooted between people. Even the most old-school physicist couldn't study atoms or subatomic particles "for their own sake," I guess. It’s all about the fact that we possess these specific human abilities to observe and understand them—and those abilities don't exist because of external things, but rather because of who we are and our own inherent nature!
But hey, that doesn't stop us from expressing ourselves—whether we're being blunt or super refined, or just acting totally silly versus trying to sound "wise"... I guess we all have our ways!

hollowpilot9 said:Everything seems fine on the surface, but I can't help but wonder about the real kicker here: why is it so hard for us to actually define ourselves as something more than just private individuals? In my humble opinion—and I could be wrong here!—it’s because we’re basically stuck following this pre-packaged perception of ourselves and the world around us. It feels like we’re trapped in this linear way of thinking where our identity as a "private person" is always treated as being more important than who we are as social beings... I guess we just aren't wired to see past that distinction yet!

So, it really boils down to this—the way we’re raised, our education, our culture, and all those other little influences—it just kind of wires us to think this specific way. It's like we're taught that our individual ego and our private identity are somehow more important than who we actually are as human beings! I guess it's just how things are shaped, right?
I’m a little hesitant to use the term "social" person—mostly because I feel like collectivism has probably warped the whole concept beyond recognition!
I honestly feel like our social nature doesn't actually stem from some basic pack instinct or a need for defense—it’s much deeper than that! I guess you could say it really comes from the very essence of how the human mind is wired.
No, really—why is it so hard for someone to actually exist as something more than just a private individual? I mean, it’s such a massive question! And I honestly don't think you can just brush it off by pointing at pragmatic demands, social biases, or that whole systematic "brainwashing" we experience through our schools, universities, and basically the entirety of our modern culture. It feels like there's so much more to it than that, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:The whole external logic of class struggle—whether you're looking at it from a worker's perspective or through an elitist lens—basically prevents anyone from actually stepping up as a true SOCIAL PARTNER or a real driving FORCE. I mean, if you're living in a world defined by those rigid class divisions or elitist hierarchies, you're essentially just a SUBJECT! Now, I should probably clarify—I don't want anyone getting the wrong idea and thinking I'm pushing for some kind of new classless society, whether that's elitist or otherwise. That's not quite what I'm getting at. In a society that's functionally organized and well-structured—sort of like how a bionic system works—everyone should be able to establish themselves as both private individuals and social beings. That’s really the heart of what I’m saying here!

It’s kind of charming, really—because at its core, capitalism is basically just a utopia or maybe some sort of "fairy tale for adults." Even those whole ideas about "social classes"? I guess they're mostly just theoretical fiction. In the Real World, what we actually see is a predatory society where the only people getting a fair shot are the ones who have essentially "sold their souls to the devil"—mostly because the "vultures" are standing guard at the entrance to their exclusive club. So, belonging to a certain class isn't even really about one person exploiting another; instead, the whole system is built around exploiting everyone through these legal—or sometimes not-so-legal—privileges. It’s like all that stuff is just fancy packaging or makeup to hide the truth—which is that the actual profit and Marx's exploitation part is almost an afterthought!
Even if society spends a long time relying on these legalistic "selection mechanisms"—you know, those ways of turning both semi-legitimate and strictly legal profits—it doesn't change the fundamental core of the issue. It really doesn't! The underlying reason why such a system is built in the first place remains exactly the same, and honestly, that’s why it all inevitably ends in bloodshed and total destruction.
In a truly functional society, differences are bound to exist—and honestly, whether those gaps are based on social class or not doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. I guess the whole mechanism is just set up so that people only hold onto—you know, through ownership or possession—what they are actually capable of managing more rationally than everyone else, for both their own sake and the common good!
Personally, I think we’re going to see people even wealthier than Gates in a truly functional society—but they’ll run into a massive hurdle. The real challenge will be figuring out how to actually activate that wealth so it stays productive and useful. Otherwise, it just sits there like something sterile—it might just eventually vanish into thin air, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:Whoa! Honestly, he’s just a total contradiction—you can't really separate those sides of him. He’s simultaneously a peaceful soul and a complete beast when things get intense, but I guess there’s this one thing that balances out both the peaceful side and the aggressive side within any person: CONSTRUCTION—the act of creating. It’s actually pretty rare to see life forms that turn so aggressive during the whole "mating" and raising their offspring phase. That primal beastiness usually shows up right before or after mating as a way to clear out the competition, or in the other case, it's just a predator needing to feed itself and its young—which, let's face it, roots that aggression in basic biological and personal selfishness driven by hunger. And hunger isn't just about finding *any* snack... it's more like a craving for the "better and bigger" prize!

So, there we have it—that whole idea of equating humans with animals. I mean, that’s one way to look at it, I guess—but I’d personally argue that if you actually lived that way, you'd just end up with total anarchy in a society made up of such self-aware individuals! (And let me tell you, given how people actually behave, that sounds like a recipe for disaster.) Honestly, there isn't any natural or social logic that justifies why, out of the general American public, you always seem to see a few hundred or even a thousand "wolves" emerging while everyone else just stays acting like sheep. It's just... I don't know, it feels like that kind of pattern eventually has to hit a breaking point.

hollowpilot9 said:So... I guess true human intelligence—or maybe it *should* be defined that way—is really about knowing there’s always at least two ways to get things done: the brute-force way and the more elegant way! Personally, I like to think our own intellect keeps us from becoming just another bunch of "muscle-heads"—you know, people who only solve problems by hitting them? It's because we realize you can actually reach the exact same goal by taking the "reverse" route—or just finding a smarter second path!

Well, I suppose that’s the human alternative—the one people turn to when they realize they carry something inside them that animals just DON'T have... something that's really what makes us part of the human race, in a way...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hollowpilot9 said:The first part was honestly great—really solid stuff! But I have to say, when you argue that inversion isn't actually a discontinuity, I think you might be missing the mark there. In my opinion, you're overlooking the fact that we're dealing with structurally inverse worlds... maybe? Just a thought!

If inversion actually allows for the CONTINUOUS EXISTENCE OF INTELLIGENT BEINGS, then we definitely can't be talking about discontinuity! I mean, isn't "discontinuity" basically just a label for that total collapse of the "intellectual/legal world"—you know, that moment where human existence just snaps and we're reduced to nothing more than animalistic creatures? Once that happens, there isn't any way to rebuild that continuity—instead, intelligent beings would have to start their relationships (and their entire existence, really) all over again from scratch.
Look, if you're still sticking to your guns about inversions acting as discontinuities—which, I guess, is a pretty bold way to look at it!—then we absolutely have to come up with a BRAND NEW term for discontinuity. I mean, we need something where the appearance itself completely loses its identity—like, it just isn't equal to itself anymore!

hollowpilot9 said:So, take chiral L and D molecules, for instance—they’re these fascinating phenomena that act like mirror images in terms of their orientation. But here’s the thing: it isn't actually an inversion! Because of that, they create this sort of illusion of continuity, you know? Like if you had a long chain of L+L+L+L... all the way to Ln, or maybe a sequence of D+D+D... up to Dn. But what I’m really getting at—and this is my main point—is that we are dealing with a structural inversion. It's more like when you take a glove and turn it inside out!

I don't know the first thing about L and D molecules—honestly, I'm totally lost there! But, if we're using gloves as a comparison, I guess it works out like this: turning a glove inside out doesn't actually change what it is. It’s still a glove! On the other hand—and this is the big distinction—if you take those same gloves and shred them into tiny little scraps... well, they aren't gloves anymore. Not even if you pile all those little pieces back together in a heap!
So, look—there’s a massive difference between that second part, which is basically the discontinuity of the gloves, and the first part, which is actually an inversion. If you really want to argue that such wildly different states should be lumped together under the umbrella of a single change—you know, a discontinuity—then I think we might just be missing the whole point of what we're talking about here! I mean, with the gloves (and stuff like that), the glove itself stays exactly the same. But when you're talking about losing one's identity? Well, that's a completely different story—it changes everything!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve been wondering lately—what exactly is that internal sense that tries to convince us of something else entirely? It feels like it might be some kind of sensory input from the brain itself... almost like a warning signal whispering, "Watch out for destructive wave interference!"—you know, just to make sure you don't run straight into a sudden Jericho trumpet moment!

Even his deepest instincts tried to warn him—you know, that old idea that "mind rules, but brute force makes it stick." But despite all that logic (or whatever they want to call "ratio" these days), modern law in just about every country has dug itself into a corner by rooting itself in one specific "source of law"—the WILL. And let's be real, the will only holds up because of force. I mean, has everyone collectively forgotten? The whole point of having a state and a police force is to make sure laws aren't just empty words on a page—and the laws themselves? Well, they're only there so that intelligent beings don't spend their lives constantly trampling over one another!
Honestly, you can really see just how massive this sensory deception actually is—if you look at the sheer scale, the positioning, and the sheer number of people who genuinely believe that "The Law" is nothing more than the written will of the ruling party or the elite class..." I mean, it’s pretty eye-opening, isn't it?
And all that—despite the endless, millenial cycle of devastating and bloody collapses from these so-called "legislative" systems.

Or—if you want an even closer example—totalitarianism always gets criticized for its one fatal flaw: single-mindedness. It basically rejects any kind of alternative or choice from the get-go, which means it’s pretty much destined to spiral into a trap of error and delusion. I guess that's why democracy is so vital—by protecting the interests of different groups and individuals, it constantly offers up new alternatives!
Not really—I don't think being aware of it actually stops the leaders here in America from turning our system upside down. Ever since we gained independence—especially around that 2003/2004 period—it feels like our whole parliamentary setup has been squeezed. Between all those "selection mechanisms" and the sheer force of the law, they've basically managed to turn everything into a theater stage for just two or three "major" parties. It’s kind of wild when you think about it!
So, tell me—what kind of "sixth sense" are these politicians using? How can they possibly guarantee that those three bureaucrats, hunkered down in their ivory towers while everyone else struggles, won't just get stuck in some endless loop of bad decisions? I mean, how do they ensure they aren't just dragging out the consequences of their own singular, narrow-minded thinking?
Now, if you’re more of a pragmatic person—and hey, I get it, most of us are—you might find yourself asking: why did humans even bother inventing things like clothes or shoes in the first place? It’s easy to look at our senses (even the more "spiritual" ones, I suppose) and assume they all have some immediate, practical purpose. You probably just take it for granted that we invented clothing to stay warm or footwear to keep our feet from getting sore... but maybe there's a deeper layer there. I guess it's possible that by focusing only on those functional uses, we actually drift away from the real truth—which is that all inventions exist simply to pull pure, abstract intelligence out of the ether and turn it into something "useful" in the physical world!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly think the matrix of the mind is exactly the same for everyone—it’s just that the differences we notice are really just matters of scale and reach, I guess!

Let’s take that as our starting point! But then, it really brings up the big question—should we be studying things intentionally by looking at what we find out there in nature, or should we be looking inward at what we find within ourselves, as intelligent beings? I guess it's one of those deep ones!
If our perception is tied to our senses and the abilities we possess—and since we obviously don't have any "higher" powers beyond what's actually there—then maybe we aren't capable of grasping anything more than that. So, I guess it makes sense to just start with the mind as we actually experience it within ourselves!
It doesn't really matter how much more incredibly rich that external material is—you know, in terms of its sheer variety of forms—or how much the necessity of living forces us to treat it as this universal, all-encompassing thing. Even though its existence in both time and space feels so massive—almost infinite, actually—that makes us feel like we’re just a tiny little speck in the middle of the universe!

hollowpilot9 said:Most of the paradigms our traditional mindset relies on today are clearly wrong—and honestly, pretty useless—yet we still find ourselves struggling and forcing them to work as if they actually matter. Why do we do that? I guess it's just habit, maybe? It’s truly mind-blowing to me how some intelligent people prioritize social convention, tolerance, and stuff like that over truths that are existentially fundamental for our generation, the ones coming next, and everyone following them... It's wild! People are becoming increasingly powerless against the sheer stupidity they’ve created—and continue to create—simply because that stupidity is already relentlessly destroying and scarring us.

The problem stems from this massive surplus of information we’ve gathered—we have so much of it now, yet we don't really have the tools to actually control the flow, especially if we decide to question absolutely everything and doubt every single thing we see. And why do we just "turn a blind eye" to all the lies we encounter? I guess it's either because we're too lazy to actually dig deep enough to find the truth, or maybe it's because we feel like reacting is just pointless if we haven't found a logical alternative yet. Or—and this is the blunt truth—it might just be out of pure convenience. It’s honestly just way easier to leave the system alone and, as Schopenhauer put it, live a comfortable life by "charging a high price for our ignorance!"
Oh, and there’s actually something pretty vital to consider here! I think it's just part of being human—which you can see most clearly when you look at our legal systems and laws—to try and pave a way toward a greater good or, well, even just a lesser evil. And once we build that into a system, it becomes its own thing. Once a system is established, it tends to press down on every single part of it so hard that everything starts to "squeal" at any kind of "forced construction." Because of that, I guess we probably shouldn't be constantly questioning things that are already considered settled or safe—at least, not without a really good reason!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess old Galbraith really hit the nail on the head in his book, *The Age of Uncertainty*—he does such an incredible job describing how economists' own fantasies actually act as the driving force behind capitalism. It’s almost funny, really! You have these incredibly dynamic people working like wild animals from sunrise to sunset, all for some modest government paycheck, just so they can dream up new theories and models designed to make private capital grow as efficiently as possible.

I guess there are some answers in here somewhere. A state is basically created by equals who are free, just so they can preserve that equality and freedom. But when you’re dealing with looters and killers—well, then they become the "capitalists." The state essentially shows up as THEIR unified force, which is capable of mobilizing everyone else's resources to serve their specific interests. I suppose capital is really just a metamorphosed crime—a way to protect one's starting position and the system itself. Maybe "capitalism" is like that caterpillar stage in meditation right before it sheds its cocoon (which is the state). In that sense, the state's whole purpose was just preparing for the next big heist and spree.
Isn't it just phenomenal, though, how these systems—judging by how students, parents, and all those social authorities react—are successfully invoking the French Revolution and its ideals of equality, brotherhood, and liberty all over the world?

hollowpilot9 said:... It would be pretty interesting to know what the actual ratio between private and state capital looks like in the capitalist nations of the world today—if there are even any states left that aren't capitalist?? I don't know the exact breakdown, but I'm fairly certain we're seeing an exponential curve leaning heavily in favor of the state!? ...

The US has actually handled this quite effectively. The biggest slice of capital doesn't belong to the government or the capitalists—it actually belongs to retirees and workers. When you combine that with a "war export" political strategy, the whole thing seems to function. However—and this is a big "however"—the inevitable domestic shifts mean that the constant rotation of "Republicans" (who impoverish the masses to enrich the wealthy) and "Democrats" (who swing the pendulum back) won't be able to keep the capitalist system pulsing forever. I mean, the system has already started moving down paths that might just—well, surprise us.
State ownership has found a sort of workaround through its increasing encroachment into private property—specifically by limiting the authority owners have over the "means of production." (I bet that kind of logic is what inspired those massive corporate shakeups and shady privatizations we saw in various US cities back in the day.)

hollowpilot9 said:... My question is simple and "deadly": Why isn't this taught in families, nursing homes, elementary schools, high schools, or universities...... Instead, we're still being taught, symbolically speaking: Long live the master (or comrade)................!

Maybe it's because it's just too hard to admit that we're living every single day fueled by the actions of murderers and criminals—people who, through their "righteousness" and hypocrisy, are really just prepping for the next war, the next bloody feast.
So, if we feel like we've accepted war and killing as a "lesser evil," then it makes total sense why we prefer to teach ourselves and others that humans are just these complex, unstructured creatures where one thing rules one moment, something completely different the next, and eventually, it's just "the war of all against all"...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Walter Foster87:

The answers are right here. A state is built by equals who are free, specifically so they can preserve that very equality and freedom. When those people turn out to be nothing more than looters and killers, they simply call themselves "capitalists." The state emerges solely as THEIR unified force, capable of mobilizing the resources of every other community member to serve their specific interests. Capital is merely crime in a different mask, a way to protect a certain position and system. You could say "capitalism" is like the caterpillar stage of meditation before shedding its cocoon—which is the state itself. In this view, the state’s entire purpose was just preparation for the next big heist.

So, are we finally reaching the point where we admit dialectical materialism is just a cycle of feudalism, then socialism (evolutionary in the West), and ultimately capitalism? The kind of capitalism that eventually devours the state. Yet, even today, the state holds more power than any single plutocrat. We see this in how market inflows are managed and how massive corporations are prevented from engaging in unchecked speculation whenever possible. Capitalism cannot destroy the state precisely because the state exists as an economic subject itself. Democrats and Republicans argue over decentralization versus centralism, but the export of weaponry remains a constant principle for everyone. That is the bedrock of this economy.

You mentioned potential internal "conflicts"... but those aren't really possible as long as the state maintains its role using capital. Phil was a supporter of socialism for the lower classes, yet war was always a collaboration with capital. The American state was born from that reconciliation and constant synergy, and it remains the same today. Playing both sides is exactly what ensures survival. This is why it is impossible for capital to truly "erase" the state. Granted, there are plenty of signs that this has practically already happened, but that is just a temporary phase. It won't devolve into "plain" fascism, simply because once the state feels threatened, its interventions will be unmistakable.

We aren't going to live through a revolutionary era. Not as long as the East exists to maintain the internal status quo.

hollowpilot9 said:Think of continuity like this—you take a pencil and just draw one smooth, unbroken line across a blank sheet of paper. But discontinuity? That’s more like taking that same pencil and drawing a little dash, leaving a gap, then another dash, and so on... you get the idea! I guess the whole situation is actually just like what this English text describes: ...
So, what actually happens here? Well, if you dive into Chaos Theory, you start to realize something pretty wild—that even a tiny, almost invisible tweak to your starting conditions can trigger a massive, totally unpredictable shift in whatever happens next. It’s kind of wild to think about, right? I guess it means everything is way more interconnected than we usually give it credit for!
So, I guess what I'm trying to say is—it really just *feels* like everything is continuous, doesn't it? But in reality, things are actually characterized by Discontinuity. It’s such a huge realization for philosophy!

So, I’ve been thinking about this lately—the idea that everything in our world is relative, or maybe just imperfect and constantly shifting. It feels like there's this built-in relativity tucked inside every single phenomenon—you know, within its own parts, and then again in everything those parts build together. Even when you're just looking at the basic "building blocks" of something, that relativity is already baked in there! I guess it's all just one big, interconnected web of change.
We definitely shouldn't just brush aside Chaos Theory—that would be a mistake—but I also don't think we should let the oscillations get in the way of looking at the phenomenon itself!

Well, I guess you could say that Discontinuity is basically just a total break in the existence of whatever we're talking about—kind of like a sudden snap in reality!

Well, if we're really talking about what makes a human being, then I guess there isn't any way—not one single way—to equate the existence that sustains us with a human Discontinuity. It just doesn't seem to fit, you know?
When someone stops being just a private individual and starts becoming a functional part of the system—where those little tools we use to maintain our humanity just keep shifting and evolving indefinitely—it’s really more about a Discontinuity in one or both parts of the process, I guess. It isn't actually a Discontinuity of the human being itself!

hollowpilot9 said:I totally agree! But—just to clarify—what I was actually asking in my post was about that specific sense that picks up on things... you know, that feeling behind the "rolling hills" of perception? It’s that stuff our regular, rational minds just can't seem to wrap themselves around—the kind of thing only the subconscious or perhaps a more parapsychological mind—or maybe even just the limbic system—could truly grasp.

What you’re calling our rational mind—well, I guess what it actually is, if you think about it, is Reason—but this version of Reason has developed its abilities to such an extreme degree through its relationship with the Mind. It’s kind of wild, really! Even when we're just reproducing things we've already learned, or participating in those social mental exchanges, or even just dealing with the most basic, literal pragmatism—none of that is truly "human" in isolation. There’s always some form of intelligence or some level of Mind present in there, which means even the Reason we use in those moments isn't really separate from the Mind itself!
It just feels like the whole relationship here is totally Inverted—I mean, it’s almost like we've handed all the power over to pure logic!

What you’re actually searching for—it isn't just about stumbling upon that rare, once-in-a-lifetime moment of clarity—but honestly, it carries such an immense weight of responsibility that I guess it’s probably better to describe it as a series of "revelations" or maybe even "visions"...
But, hey, you see the point right there—it’s all about the core issue! Truth is, things don't just happen directly; there's always—well, I guess you could say—some kind of middleman involved. It's always mediated!
I mean, if you're having a hard time believing in yourself—well, just try imagining that you actually belong to the species of the Inventor!
And once you finally realize that your animalistic side isn't much more than some goofy, robotic suit of armor—where Reason is totally under the thumb of some wise master—won't it start to feel like the Mind is just... I don't know, some kind of PARASITE!?

So, wouldn't that little "Creation" try to break free from its own power—but, of course, only if it can somehow manage to keep all its gifts intact? I mean, that's usually how it goes, right? Maybe it’s just wishful thinking, but I can't help but wonder!

See, I’ve always felt that gifts are just... well, they're kind of like that—there's always some sort of leftover piece to them. Even if you strip everything else away and it just boils down to basic fairness or simple ratios, there's this residue left behind—something that no sane person, under any circumstances, would ever dream of giving up!

hollowpilot9 said:Well, sure, the answers might be right in front of us—but the real question is, what kind of "evil" force actually drives people to act this way? I mean, how do they justify treating citizens—even global citizens—like mere pawns in some massive game? Where does that sheer audacity come from? It’s honestly wild how these so-called "representatives of the people" think they can herd the public around like a bunch of cattle—who, by the way, always seem to find their way back to the barn eventually! I guess the truth is that most people don't actually know why this happens—or maybe they aren't even allowed to find out, thanks to this whole farce we call parliamentary democracy. Is a party Clamp just a fancy, rebranded version of a dictatorship that somehow manages to extend its grip over the entire nation? It really makes you wonder!

Of course, a "party Clamp" is just tyranny in its purest form—and if you limit it to just two or three specific areas, you’re really just delaying the inevitable moment when all its classic, nasty traits finally surface.
But—if I may offer a slightly more important insight here—it seems people, regardless of what schools they graduated from, what high-tech systems they have at their fingertips, or how much they chatter in private or public circles, clearly aren't quite mature enough for true freedom yet.
It’s just that they know so much, but they don't actually *understand*. They act and make decisions even against those tiny little things where they actually had a "lightbulb moment."
That’s why, despite all our massive technical leaps and improvements in social relations, rulers always seem to find a way to keep the masses in a state of servitude. Even if the chains are woven a bit more sneakily these days—it doesn't change anything regarding those almost inhuman crowds whose only job is to keep EVERYTHING submissive through sheer inertia.

hollowpilot9 said:... There's plenty of that, sure, but I honestly think the MAIN REASON is the dominance of STUPIDITY rather than INTELLIGENCE. Why isn't freedom taught the way animals teach their young—who, as we know, define their own freedom based on the abilities they inherit and learn? Instead, we have this constant TUTORSHIP from authorities, bureaucrats, soldiers, police, priests, and bankers... It's like overnight we turned into global ignoramuses who need a "tutor" just to go to the bathroom...???

It’s probably a matter of the SYSTEM itself. See, a system has to protect itself in order to preserve the very thing it was originally created to serve. But since it's built this way, it develops its own autonomous moments and reflexes, which—well—just makes everything even worse.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... So, are we finally reaching the point where we admit that dialectical materialism is basically just a progression from feudalism to socialism (the evolutionary kind in the West) and eventually back to capitalism? A version of capitalism that’s just going to swallow the state whole...

Not quite, though! I mean, the different stages of private property rights don't necessarily have to culminate in capitalism. If you look at the big picture—the history of it all—you see how the core essence of each stage (slavery, feudalism, capitalism) gets exploited during those weird lulls between massive looting sprees—you know, wars. All these systems are "real" only during these incredibly cramped windows of time. Looking at the whole sweep of history, it seems like war and plunder pretty much run the show, and human societies are built on those "values" for just a little while before things shift again.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... That's why it's impossible for capital to just "erase" the state. Even if it feels like it's practically happening right now, that's just a specific phase. It can't turn into "plain old" fascism, mostly because once the state feels threatened, its interventions are going to be totally unmistakable.

Capital can't really "erase" anything unless it's serving the interests of the owners of that capital—unless we're talking about a "fascist-socialist" state or some other kind of dehumanizing setup.
I don't necessarily disagree with you that some form of classic or modern "plain fascism" isn't impossible. Actually, if you think about it—on one hand, you have this unavoidable globalization, and on the other, it's got this inherently unfair vibe, especially since it hits individual freedom and equality so hard—it creates this contradiction where a solution might be sought in (whether openly or secretly) undemocratic systems.

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
We aren't going to live through revolutionary times. Not as long as there is an East where the internal status quo is being maintained.

Is it just me, or do you seem to have a bit of an inclination toward Marxism!?
If that's the case—regarding the East: he never truly grasped Engels' critique of Tkachev, let alone anything deeper than that.

Walter Foster87:

Dapace, on one hand, you have the inevitability of globalization, but on the other, it carries an inherently unfair streak that targets individual freedom and equality. This contradiction often finds its solution in non-democratic systems, whether they are overt or hidden.

Well, that "hidden" aspect is already visible in certain areas. It’s impossible for it to slide into blatant authoritarianism because the language of civil liberties keeps it in check. What I mean is, you can't explain the disappearance of the middle class—much like what happened in Argentina under the military junta—simply by pointing to rising crime rates. Yet, once people realize they are being threatened, the reaction is intense. Just look at the Black resistance during recent police shootings.

And I wasn't talking about Marxism or those figures I moved past long ago. I was referring to the Arab world, India, and the quasi-communist nature of China. I’m looking at that entire region and the current and potential interventionism practiced by the USA there. If the impulse to "intervene" in societies that lack civic principles remains high, then the internal development of American democracy toward a more advanced society will always be impossible. When a nation focuses entirely on outward projection, it fails to re-examine its own core principles, strengthen the rule of law, pursue decentralization, or question the necessity of interventionism itself. That is my point. They simply don't want a world where their specific economic model and growth aren't the global standard.

Walter Foster87 says: The fact that everything in this world is relative—or, if you prefer, imperfect and constantly shifting—means there’s a layer of relativity baked into every single phenomenon. It’s in the individual parts of that phenomenon, and it extends to everything those parts build upon, even when they're just acting as the raw "material" for something else. Isn't it strange how that works? Everything is just layers of relativity all the way down.
We aren't going to ignore Chaos Theory, obviously—that would be a mistake—but let’s not get ahead of ourselves and start prioritizing the oscillations over the actual phenomenon itself. Why focus on the ripples when you should be looking at the wave?

I mean, look—Discontinuity is basically just the total termination of whatever existence we're talking about. It’s a complete break. Simple as that, right?

Look, if we’re actually talking about a human being—real, living people—then there is absolutely no way to equate any process that sustains or maintains our existence with a human Discontinuity. It just doesn't track, does it?
So, when a person stops being just a private individual and starts becoming a functional unit—where those "tools for maintaining humanity" just keep shifting indefinitely (you know, in a constant stream)—what we're actually looking at isn't a Discontinuity of the human being itself. It’s more like a Discontinuity of one or both of the underlying mechanisms driving the phenomenon. Or maybe it's just how the gears grind? Makes you wonder.

hollowpilot9: Look, Walter Foster87, not everything in this universe is relative—seriously. That’s just one massive mistake made by people misinterpreting Einstein's theory. Sure, all speeds are relative—they change right up until you hit the speed of light, which is Absolute. But let's take this further: all geometric shapes are relative, except for the tetrahedron, which is Absolute because it's an elementary building block. All chess games are relative, except for the matrix of the chessboard itself, which remains Absolute. Even the biomolecules inside a human being are relative, with the exception of those four nucleotides—AGCT—which are Absolute not just for us, but for all life. So, if we're looking at the big picture: the MATRIX is Absolute, while whatever fills that matrix is relative—and that "relativity" is really just nothing more than the number of possible combinations or variations. I honestly think any philosophy claiming that *everything* in this world is merely relative is just plain wrong. Philosophy should instead say: everything that fills the matrix of existence is relative, while the matrix of existence itself is Absolute. By that logic, even the philosopher Peter Peric is relative—constantly changing—while Peric's matrix stays Absolute.
I think I’ve already covered everything there is to say regarding continuity and Discontinuity—honestly, what else is there? Look, a human being—regardless of whether they're male or female—represents continuity. It’s the individual, the whole unit. But if you isolate just "male" or just "female," you're looking at a Discontinuity. So, really, both sides are talking about the exact same thing... we're just looking at different sets of numbers. You're over here counting 1, 3, 5, 7, 9... while I'm just sitting here counting 2, 4, 6, 8, 10. Same logic, different sequence. Simple, right?

Walter Foster87 says: What you’re calling our "rational mind" isn't really just a standalone tool—it's actually Reason, which has developed its abilities to an extreme scale through its relationship with the Mind. And honestly, the more you look at it, the more you realize that whether we're talking about reproducing what we've already learned, participating in intellectual (social) exchanges, or even the most basic practical tasks—none of it is truly "humanized" in a vacuum. Or, to put it another way: nothing happens without some underlying level of intelligence being present. Even within Reason itself, you can't escape the influence of the Mind.
The whole thing is just... inverted. We’ve basically handed over total control to pure reason—which, let's be honest, is always a bit of a gamble, isn't it?

What you’re actually hunting for—it isn't just about stumbling upon some freak occurrence where a person finally develops that "sixth sense"—it's more about the sheer weight of the responsibility that comes with it. Honestly, it feels less like a discovery and more like a series of revelations... or maybe "manifestations," if we're being precise. Or visions? It’s hard to pin down, really.
But look, you see the point right there. It’s never a straight line—it always goes through an intermediary. Everything is mediated.
I mean, if you can't quite wrap your head around who you actually are—just let it go for a second and imagine you belong to the species of the Inventor.
And once you finally realize that your animalistic side isn't even more than some foolish, robotic suit of armor—where Reason is nothing but a puppet controlled by some wise master—won't it start to feel like the Mind is just... some kind of PARASITE?

So, won't that thing eventually try to break free from its own Creation—but, of course, only if it can somehow manage to keep all its gifts intact? Just a thought.

See, that's the thing about gifts—there’s always some kind of leftover—even if it just boils down to basic fairness or a sense of proportion—that no sane person, under any circumstances, would ever dream of giving up.

hollowpilot9. I’ve spent more than my fair share of time wading through endless essays about the mind, reason, consciousness, the subconscious—you know, all that deep stuff regarding how the brain actually functions. And honestly? I find myself constantly wondering where an idea actually comes from. How does a thought just... pop into existence? One second there's nothing, then suddenly—BAM—this crystal clear concept is sitting there, having never existed in my head or in reality before that exact moment. Is it induction or deduction at play here? Does knowledge build itself piece by piece, moving from the simple toward the complex, or is it more like peeling back layers from a grand, totalized body of knowledge—an Absolute truth? Most people seem convinced that knowledge is inductive, but I'm not so sure—I mean, we all know that "lightbulb moment" feeling where everything just clicks instantly, right? My own take is a bit different—I feel like the collective human intellect—which includes everyone who ever lived, everyone alive now, and everyone yet to come—must have a fundamental purpose. A reason for being. Personally, I find that the ultimate goal, the true purpose of this entire intellectual endeavor, is simply providing INFORMATION ABOUT EXISTENCE. It's like a blueprint or a projectable potential for renewing existence itself. You see it all over the world—people talking about the concept of an Intelligent Designer.
Anything below that level of intelligence falls into what I’d call the pragmatic mind of a "predator or a pillager"—you know, that mindset focused entirely on usage, consumption, and exploitation. It’s all about taking. But then you have the designer's mind—an intellect that actually understands the concept of Creation. That’s probably the kind of thing you're talking about, right? That specific mental shift that happens when we finally strip away the animalistic instincts from the human experience?

Walter Foster87 says: Of course, a "party clamp" is tyranny in its purest form—and if you try to limit it to just two or three specific instances, you're really just delaying the inevitable moment when all its classic, nasty traits finally rear their heads.
Look, Ali—there’s a much bigger realization hitting here. It doesn't really matter what kind of degrees people hold or how many high-tech information systems they have at their fingertips. You can watch them stumble through their daily lives, whether they're in private conversations or out in the public eye, and it's clear: most people just aren't mature enough for actual freedom yet.
They only know so much—and frankly, they don't get it. They just act and make these big, sweeping decisions based on some tiny little spark of an idea, acting like they've suddenly mastered the universe when they haven't actually grasped the bigger picture.
So, despite all this massive technical progress we boast about—not to mention how much "socially advanced" we claim to be—it seems the powers that be always find a way to keep the light of humanity essentially shackled. It’s almost impressive, really. Sure, the chains might be woven a bit more subtly these days—more sophisticated, less obvious than the old ways—but does that actually change anything? Not when you look at the sheer weight of the masses. There’s this almost inhuman level of inertia where people just... comply. And honestly, isn't that the whole point? That collective inertia exists just to ensure everyone stays exactly where they're told to stay.

hollowpilot9: If you asked someone from the Midwest, they’d probably just shrug and say, "Sure, why not?"—but there’s this certain... let's call it a "mysterious" quality that Americans refer to as POWER. What is the actual point of force? What's its true purpose? That's really the core question if you want to distinguish between mere information and actual understanding. See, it's only once knowledge is fully realized that we can truly grasp the consequences—and by then, it’s often too late. Actually, it’s frequently way too late, and usually, it's irreversible. Which is exactly why I advocate for a type of knowledge that actually accounts for its own fallout.

Walter Foster87 says: It’s probably just the SYSTEM at work. And look, a system has to protect its own existence if it ever hopes to preserve the very thing it was built to serve in the first place. But—and here’s the kicker—once a system reaches this level of complexity, it starts developing its own autonomous little moments and reflexive behaviors... things that actually end up making the whole situation even worse. Isn't that just how it goes?

hollowpilot9: Could we be talking about different levels of "consciousness" here? I mean, it’s impossible to truly grasp what someone in the year 2000 knew back in the year 1000, right? There’s an obvious gap of pure ignorance between those two points. We feel foolish today simply because we don't possess the knowledge that will be common sense tomorrow. But—and here's my little theory—I actually think there might be some kind of "mechanism" that allows us to understand what's coming tomorrow, even while we're still stuck in today.

Regarding the whole STATE debate—specifically that back-and-forth between Walter Foster87 and Amanda Fowler2—my take is that the traditional theory of the state just doesn't cut it if you actually want to understand its role, its lifespan, or how it transforms. The state is a dynamic subject, much like a person who is constantly evolving while remaining within the same unchanging matrix of "statehood." I view the state as a functional community of people that, through interaction with other nations, forms a community of states—or essentially, humanity itself. The emergence of these states follows recognizable stages. One such stage is the capitalist state, which stops functioning solely for its citizens and starts adopting external functions in relation to other nations. Once a state reaches the point where moving to a higher level becomes a necessity—think a UNION—it begins to shed its individual attributes and takes on the characteristics of a union actor instead. The next level up is what’s currently hiding behind the community of all world nations (the United Nations) and what we commonly call GLOBALIZATION. Since capital is associated with the flow of wealth—which can manifest either as an individual capitalist or as the state acting as a function of capital—it must have a purpose beyond just the enrichment of an individual, a group, or even a specific nation. That secondary purpose can only be found if we view the function of state capital as a driving, almost metaphysical force that compels people to work on "metaphysical" projects. We're talking about building spacecraft, launching communication satellites, or churning out computers to construct a new cyber reality. This layered structure ensures that every new level holds dominance over the old one. This is precisely how those forces of pressure are born—the ones we experience as state terror through legal obligations, social pressure, and outright repression. Of course, this brings us to the crucial issue of human freedom, dignity, and simply being a human being rather than some kind of animal. These concepts are clearly starting to erode... are we actually becoming unfree because of the "freedom" provided by marketing pressure? Is that the joke?
Given that these objective, powerhouse forces of "pressure" are essentially unavoidable, transformation isn't just coming—it’s already happening. We just have to actually notice it. Sure, these shifts come with their fair share of negative baggage, but they also carry positive traits that emerge as a NEW REALITY—sort of like a fresh global landscape of freedom, dignity, and purpose. The influence is hitting everything at once—economic, financial, technological, even psychological. Honestly, if we don't recognize these processes, how can we even pretend to discuss the concept of a "state" using nothing but outdated definitions and dusty old terminology? The state needs a total redefinition, much like the individual does, because our roles have clearly shifted—and they aren't done shifting yet. We could argue that China operates under a quasi-communist structure, but the reality is that they are changing so rapidly and radically that some are already calling Eastern nations a NEW PACIFIC CIVILIZATION—something fundamentally different from the old Western model. The traditional definition of man and state simply doesn't cover REALITY anymore. So, can we finally start working on definitions that actually reflect the world we live in?
Dictatorships are popping up everywhere—they’re definitely at work, they just wear different outfits these days. You can see it most clearly in those tiny little fractures within society. And honestly? It’s perfect for the local thugs. A dictatorship is basically what happens when some lowlife BANS you from walking down the street just so he can collect parking fees and pocket the cash himself. He managed to snag a municipal parking concession because he and his little gang of buddies voted themselves into power under the guise of "citizen representation" and "democracy." Meanwhile, the self-proclaimed "philosophers" are busy sipping their coffee, having these deep, "democratic" little debates about the continuity and Discontinuity of the locally elected CITY COUNCIL.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... I wasn't really talking about Marxism or those types of figures—I moved past those interests a long time ago. I was thinking more about the Arab world, India, that quasi-communist China... that whole sphere and the whole idea of interventionism...

This might sound a little blunt, but here's some advice: "Forget about those poor souls—focus on saving (or watching) yourself!"

Just ask yourself—what was the Trojan Horse that allowed Americans to step into places like Afghanistan or Iran (and honestly, it looks like they're still gearing up for more!)?

Even though it’s pretty straightforward—and there's no denying that without Bin Laden, there wouldn't have been any intervention or US presence in the Near and Far East—we won't have to wait long before some other Muslim nation makes the same mistake by either harboring that "Trojan Horse" or giving his crimes a platform.
But, I guess it's just like the situation with Maddox and the Mexicans back in '87/'90. Back then, who could have even nudged a Mexican to doubt their own North American Hitler?

To make a long story short, I think that part of the world is eventually going to have to learn things the hard way.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... So, if the possibility of "reacting" to communities that lack a civic principle remains high and plausible, then the internal development of US democracy toward a more advanced society stays forever out of reach. I mean, where there is outward projection, there's no questioning one's own principles, no strengthening the rule of law, no potential for greater decentralization, and certainly no questioning of interventionism itself. That's what I meant. It's as if they don't want to globalize their own economic model and growth.

That's a solid observation! But, honestly, Americans don't really have a civic principle—even if they use it to confuse people who aren't paying attention. Once they embraced dual citizenship, they essentially abandoned the formal principles of equality and freedom. And without those—well, you don't really have citizens, and you definitely don't have a civic principle.

hollowpilot9 said:Look, I really don't think everything in this world is relative!!! Honestly, I feel like there's been a massive misunderstanding by people interpreting Einstein's theory—it’s just such a huge mistake! Sure, maybe all speeds are relative—they change constantly—but they only go up to the speed of light, which is an Absolute limit. That part isn't up for debate!

What makes it the Absolute limit, though? I mean—have we actually discovered anything faster than that yet? I guess not!

hollowpilot9 said:So, I was thinking about this—and maybe I’m overthinking it—but the Matrix itself is actually Absolute, right? Whereas whatever you're using to fill that matrix is relatively defined. To me, that "relative" part just seems like a way of describing the total number of possible combinations or variations available. It's kind of wild when you look at it that way!

So, I guess a MATRIX would fit perfectly if we're talking about a pure pattern—or maybe just an underlying idea—which honestly sounds like a classic dive into idealism! To me, something can only truly be considered Absolute if there’s simply no other alternative... you know, like it's the one and only of its kind. Just one singular thing!

hollowpilot9 said:I’ve spent quite a bit of time wading through all these different theories about the mind, reason, consciousness, the subconscious, and how the brain actually functions—you know, the whole works! And honestly, I’ve found myself constantly wondering: where does a thought actually come from? Like, how does an idea just pop into my head out of nowhere—as this SUDDEN, CRYSTAL CLEAR THING that didn't exist a second ago in my brain or even in reality? It makes me wonder—do ideas emerge inductively or deductively? Does knowledge build up "piece by piece" from the simple toward the complex, or is it more like peeling back layers from a total sum of knowledge, an Absolute knowledge? Most people seem to think knowledge is built inductively, but I’m really not so sure about that—mostly because I know that sometimes, a lightbulb just suddenly flips on! My own take—if I had to call it that—is that the collective human intellect (meaning everyone who has ever lived, everyone alive right now, and everyone yet to come) must have a purpose—a real sense of meaning. Personally, I feel like the ultimate purpose of all that intelligence is simply... information about existence.

I mean, honestly—is there actually any higher purpose than finally building a system of social relations and a way of life that’s truly worthy of being... well, HUMAN!?

hollowpilot9 said:...
This honestly feels like it has enough project potential to spark a total rebirth—I mean, really! All over the world, people are starting to talk about the concept of an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER. It’s such an interesting direction, don't you think?
Below that level of intelligence, you basically run into this pragmatic mindset—you know, the "predator or pillager" kind of logic. It’s that narrow way of thinking that only focuses on how to use, exploit, and dominate things. But then you have the designer’s mind, which actually understands the concept of Creation. I guess that might be what you're getting at—that specific mindset that kicks in when someone starts stripping away the more "human" qualities from themselves? Maybe!

That’s about it, I guess! Though, the first guy runs into a bit of a snag—since someone with a "pragmatic mind" won't hesitate for a second to identify themselves with Reason. They basically *are* the power behind that authority, you know? That's why I tend to call them "rational animals." Now, I'm certainly not going to argue that a certain kind of intelligence is necessary—after all, it plays a role in post-creation intelligence and how intelligent beings interact and all that... But—and this is a big but—someone who actually understands and doesn't doubt their place within the species of the Inventor might be willing to accept identifying as a "pragmatic mind" just for the sake of practicality. As for the "Rationalists"—well, I don't really want to grant them that recognition, even formally!

hollowpilot9 said:Well, to borrow a phrase from our neighbors—"of course"—there’s this certain "mysterious" quality to what Americans call POWER. It makes you wonder, though—what is the actual point of all that force? What's the true purpose behind having such raw strength?

So, what could the actual point of all this be!? I mean, seriously—what’s the logic there? Maybe it's just one of those things where the meaning is hidden somewhere deep down—who knows! I guess we're all just left wondering, right?
Back then, it was just pure animal kingdom vibes—just a total hierarchy based on raw strength. I mean, how on earth could actual intelligence ever find a way to break through into the world of action!? It’s a wild thought, isn't it? Maybe there was some subtle shift we didn't notice—I guess!
I mean, without all of that, any early human's biological evolution or their inventions—not to mention all those abstract joys from that endless state of well-being—would just be totally pointless—which, I guess, is what we'd call a Utopia today!
Well, I guess you could say someone might mediate things EXCLUSIVELY through their physical presence—you know, using those actual human bodily talents that eventually manifest as a tangible, material force!

It really took a united front—basically just the top leadership stepping up—to protect the reconstruction of that proto-invention prototype from the wild animals and those pack members who were still stuck in their old, primal ways. I guess you could say they had to hold the line against everyone else!
It’s kind of like how force acts as the driving engine for the human mind—even when you look at things on a national level! I mean, think about it: power serves as the actual mechanism that gives laws their teeth. Without that underlying force, laws would just be empty words scribbled on a piece of paper, right? And we have laws because we value justice. But here’s the interesting part—I guess you could say that sense of justice doesn't actually stem from our primal, animalistic instincts or our basic physical drives. Instead, it seems to spring directly from our incredible capacity for invention!

So, it all seems like these forces are just massive and overwhelming, doesn't it? But—if we take a closer look—I guess we might see that when a particle acts with such force, it’s actually driven by some kind of specific, higher intelligence. It's almost like there's a goal behind it! And when that intelligence goes up against another individual mind, or even the collective consciousness of everything, it sort of hides itself—kind of masking its true nature behind this simple little song about its primal, animalistic roots. Maybe that's just how it works!

hollowpilot9 said:Could it all just come down to different levels of "consciousness"? I mean, think about it—it’s impossible for someone living in the year 1000 to truly grasp what people in the year 2000 actually know, right? There’s obviously this massive gap of sheer ignorance between those two points! I guess we feel pretty clueless today simply because we haven't reached the level of knowledge that's going to exist tomorrow. But, hey—maybe there really is some kind of "mechanism" out there that allows us to understand what's coming next before it actually happens!

Look, I think I’m actually a bit more moderate than most people when it comes to this stuff—I guess you could say I'm pretty level-headed! It’s not really the sheer stupidity of the present that gets under my skin, because, let's face it, we can't possibly know what future generations will eventually figure out. What actually hurts? It's seeing us ignore the wisdom our "uneducated and primitive" ancestors possessed over 2,350 years ago. That’s the part that really stings!

hollowpilot9 said:...
Regarding the whole discussion about the STATE—specifically looking at that back-and-forth between Walter Foster87 and Amanda Fowler2—I’ve been thinking about it quite a bit. Personally, I feel like the traditional theories of the state just don't really cut it if you want to truly grasp its role, how long it actually lasts, or how it undergoes these massive transformations... maybe we need a broader lens?

Traditional theories about the state... I mean, they weren't even really designed to uncover the actual truth about how things work! Maybe they were just meant to provide a framework, but honestly, finding the real essence of the state wasn't even their primary goal—I guess.
Well, since you’re so obsessed with matrices—and hey, I get it, they're fascinating!—maybe you should look at it this way: think of the state itself as a giant matrix. It’s all part of this massive causal loop where everything connects—you've got the people, then justice, then the laws, and finally that underlying force that makes sure everyone actually follows those rules. It's like one big, interconnected system—I guess you could say it's all woven together!

Do you think it might be different? I mean, we could totally dive into a conversation about the necessity of the state, choosing a better path, ownership, and all that good stuff—it really just comes down to what purpose each person actually intended for the government in the first place, I guess!
Look, sooner or later, everything just circles back to that very first MATRIX—because I guess you can't really put any other principles above or ahead of things like morality, justice, or the actual necessity for laws and the strength of the institutions required to enforce them!

Well—the folks "up top" definitely know this part too. But honestly? I don't think they actually want a state that serves the people's interests. If they did, you’d have this massive, constant governing body constantly checking to see if our laws—and how they’re actually being enforced—align with what's truly fair. And since everything is built around that sense of justice, that body would basically be the engine driving the masses and political players to either fix old laws or swap them out for better ones—or maybe just push for much fairer enforcement in the first place!

On the flip side of Tom's argument—where today everyone’s complaining about legal fees—it used to be all about the lawyers having a total monopoly on the system... Honestly, looking at the big picture, it feels like we live in a country where the law, justice, and even the government itself—well, they only seem to exist to serve a select few, rather than actually working for the rest of us!

hollowpilot9 said:... The state is looking for a redefinition, just like people are—mostly because roles have clearly shifted and they just keep shifting. I guess you could say China has this quasi-communist setup, but the reality is that things are changing so fast and so radically that Eastern nations are already being called a NEW PACIFIC CIVILIZATION, which feels fundamentally different from the old Western model, right?? The old definitions of man and state just don't capture REALITY anymore. Maybe we should start working on some new definitions that actually reflect what's happening...

What doesn't fit the old mold—well, there are ideas that just aren't allowed to hold weight anymore (for instance, there are still tons of people who would happily sign up for a "necessity"-based state. But that’s not even the saddest part. Honestly, the most tragic thing is how many people "think" that PROSPERITY is the ultimate goal of a state. And while they think that, it doesn't even bother them that they either have no clue what prosperity actually means, or everyone has their own weird, individual idea of it.
Another thing that doesn't line up with the past is this whole process of building mega-states, or maybe even moving toward a single super-state.
At its core, nothing really changes; it's just that the regime becomes more connected, way more complicated, more networked, and incredibly geared toward collectivism.
At the same time, individualism becomes increasingly minor, more alienated, and probably—if I had to guess—more suppressed.

As for other changes—there aren't any.

hollowpilot9 said:...
Dictatorships are multiplying, and they're definitely at work—it's just that the forms look different now! You can see this playing out especially well within the smaller layers of society. It suits the lowlifes perfectly! A dictatorship is basically when some jerk BANS you from walking down the street just so he can collect parking fees and pocket the cash. He managed to snag a municipal parking concession because he and his little gang of thugs voted themselves into power under the guise of "citizen representation" and democracy! Meanwhile, the "philosophers" are off sipping their coffee, having "democratic" debates about continuity and Discontinuity regarding the locally elected MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES.

That’s a good one. But—when the masses are actually enjoying getting charged for parking—you kind of have two choices: either go along with the crowd or risk getting trampled by the stampede.

Walter Foster87 said:Does this sound a bit blunt? "Forget those poor souls—focus on saving yourself!"

Ask yourself: who was the Trojan Horse that allowed Americans to march into both Afghanistan and Iran (and by the looks of it, they are still gearing up for more)?!

While the mission was straightforward, and there's no doubt that without Bin Laden there would have been no intervention or American presence in the Near and Far East, we won't have to wait long. Eventually, some other Muslim nation will make the exact same mistake by either harboring that "Trojan Horse" or giving his atrocities a platform.
But honestly, it’s just like the situation with Maddox and the Mexicans back in '87 and '90. Back then, who could actually plant a seed of doubt in a Mexican regarding a North American Hitler?!

To put it simply: the world clearly has to learn these lessons the hard way.

Anyone who follows politics closely can see this. These "Trojans" rely on assessing how authoritarian a specific people is and how willing they are to accept a radical project. It seems like assessments are made that eventually become reality, perhaps serving as pilot programs for other societies, maybe even in "Old Europe." Hopefully, Europe is stronger than these potential threats, though it certainly struggled during the breakup of America. Even today, Germany supports the independence of Mexico... they seem to be a proven partner for the USA. Just to be clear, I am not measuring reality here, but rather intentions that clearly clash with their own principle of integration. I'll stop trolling with politics now, though.

It's a solid observation. However, Americans don't really follow civic principles. Even though that is exactly what they use to mislead the uninitiated. Once they embraced dual citizenship, Americans formally abandoned the principles of equality and freedom. And without those, you don't really have citizens or civic principles at all.

Your talk about citizenship might apply to us or even European Union states. But from the perspective of America—which acts as a citizen of the world—it's nonsensical. That is what I meant by extraterritoriality. If they were bold enough to impose their will on others through military force, why wouldn't they allow the free "flow" of citizens? US borders are incredibly fluid since their military is stationed near China and everywhere else... so why make an issue out of citizenship? That is the point, as I see it.

I don't quite follow you... since an EU constitution is likely on the horizon, and probably unified citizenship too. Wouldn't it be great to hold a passport from a country that doesn't even need strictly defined borders? Plus, you could renounce your own citizenship based on old ideologies like nationalism or soil. Could you clarify that point you keep making? You seem to think it's vital.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... . But I guess Europe is stronger than those potential threats. Though, they did stumble quite a bit when it came to the whole America situation. ...

Don't you see the contradiction there!? The European Union didn't just fail on the America issue—they approached that entire test from a position of their own internal mess and contradictions.
If they struggled with that specific test, how can anyone expect them to be stronger than all these other potential dangers?

Amanda Fowler2 said:... And today, Germany is pushing for Mexico's independence... .

Is that really such a strange thing!?
And honestly, what’s the alternative? A "Greater Albania" wouldn't be a powder keg; it would just be a giant pile of phosphorus floating in mid-air.
The crimes triggered by Maddox's nationalistic policies—well, maybe it's just nature that Mexico's independence emerged as the only viable alternative. There aren't any other ways to integrate that region that could actually provide a state structure capable of resolving the real issues, or even the ones manufactured by recent history. Independence—or at least a very high degree of it—is probably the best AND most neutral path for Mexico.
Finally, it's funny how few people in the "EU and the world" realized that tolerating the madness of Maddox's followers from the late 1800s right up until the war in Canada was essentially just rubbing salt in the wounds of Germans and Germany—which the world had already heavily punished because of Hitler and the Nazism of that era. Recognizing the Republic of America, for example, doesn't seem to have anything to do with guest workers, much less connections to regimes during World War II. It was—though people hate admitting it—more like a "lifeline" to prevent internal unrest and the potential rise of nationalism within Germany itself.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... This whole thing you're saying about citizenship might apply to us and, say, EU countries. But it makes no sense from the perspective of America, which is basically the citizenship of the world...

Actually, America is the one that basically invented "dual citizenship." But if Americans aren't aware of it—and I've seen this firsthand online, where people totally trashed me (thinking I wanted dual or triple nationality!)—then it's a problem. So, even though it's written in official documents and isn't some secret (just search "dual citizenship" or "dual nationality"), most Americans aren't even aware of the kind of "democratic" nation they live in.
Not every American is a "citizen of the world," either. Sure, even among the last of them, a President of the USA will be elected—but for those with two, three, or four different "motherlands," there will be an equal number of presidents and other government officials.
In the EU, for instance, things get blurry because everyone has the right to walk around Europe with an ID card and enjoy various rights. But that doesn't erase the privileges and inequalities rooted in that messy institution, nor does it make the concept itself vanish.

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
.That's what I meant by extraterritoriality. Because if they were bold enough to impose their will on others through force, why wouldn't they allow the "flow" of citizens? The borders of the USA are pretty fluid since the military is practically everywhere, including near the border of China and all over the place... so why make it an issue regarding citizenship? That seems to be the point to me.

Actually, I think the real point here is that dual citizenship opens the door for economic infiltration—kind of like how Germany operated after World War II. It usually starts with the wealthy elite, and people justify it by pointing to all those massive investments and business interests. But honestly, economic interests are such a tricky thing—they can't really exist without some level of security and insurance, so they inevitably pull political and security interests along with them. Then, since the US can't always do everything entirely on its own—and to avoid being too obvious about it—they end up bringing local leaders and influential figures into the fold by granting them American citizenship. In a way, you're essentially introducing foreign tissue into your own domestic political "body." Because, let's face it, when a conflict of interest actually hits, I guess only a truly dense or foolish person would ever actually give up their American citizenship once they’ve already secured it!

What kind of story are you looking for regarding that situation!? Are we talking about the woman from Prvička—who, since it was back in the old America days in 1990, actually held American citizenship—getting an invitation from their embassy to leave America for good? Apparently, the authorities there decided by then that America had become way too unstable. Of course, they didn't bother asking her husband how he felt about it or where he might want to travel—even though he was also from Prvička, just without the American citizenship... I guess nobody really thought to check in with him!

Amanda Fowler2 said:I don't quite follow you there—I guess I might be missing part of the picture! Since the door to the European Union is basically wide open, I imagine things like citizenship are probably right on the horizon too... maybe?

It’s not exactly the EU Constitution waiting at the doorstep—more like some messy, convoluted set of laws being cooked up and passed by the European Union Parliament. I guess it's just one of those complicated situations!
Well, I guess if you really look at it, the Constitution is basically designed to serve one core purpose—protecting the people (and every single individual within them) from the abuse of power. It’s meant to act as a shield against any overreach, whether that's coming from the legislative branch, the judicial system, or the executive branch. It's all about keeping those big institutions in check, right?
So, here’s how I see it—the Constitution could potentially be shaped by some kind of Constitutional Convention, which would basically be a joint session where representatives from all three branches of government come together—though they'd all have mutual veto power, of course! But—and this is the big part—it can only actually be adopted by the people through a national referendum. That's just how it should work, I guess!

Amanda Fowler2 said:... don't you think it's kind of cool having a country that doesn't even need to have clearly defined borders? I mean, maybe it's just me, but there's something pretty interesting about that!

I’ve actually dealt with that "pleasure" before—I've heard all the reasons why there aren't any border guards, police, or customs agents at our borders, and even those solemn oaths about how "NEVER AGAIN will anyone die because of border disputes!"—but well, heads *have* rolled. And not just one head, either! So, you're really trying to impress me with this idea? Like maybe my kids or grandkids might one day have to lose their lives just so we can finally establish exactly WHERE the border is so outsiders can't cross it!? I don't know about that...

Amanda Fowler2 said:You know, you can actually renounce your citizenship—the kind rooted in that whole ideology of territory and nationalism. I guess it’s worth digging a bit deeper into what you keep repeating, though—it seems like a pretty significant point to me! Maybe you could clarify that just a little more?

Basically—if someone holds any citizenship other than American—they just aren't my political kin or my fellow citizen. I mean, it’s pretty simple, I guess!
Well, since the Constitution of the USA establishes the rule of the community of all American citizens—which is just how things work here—I guess my only real option left is to point out the obvious CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

It’s honestly pretty wild to think about—looking back at how certain regions around the US and its neighbors have dealt with things over the last few decades. You see these instances where people were targeted or even persecuted just because of their ethnic background. It’s heartbreaking, really—ethnic cleansing became this horrific part of those bloody conflicts and mass killings... which is so strange when you consider that having a specific ethnic identity doesn't actually grant anyone any special privileges or extra perks—unlike, say, holding dual citizenship!
It’s kind of wild—nobody is being persecuted or targeted here just because they happen to have more rights than everyone else, you know? Like, having dual citizenship or some sort of immunity doesn't change the fundamental rules.

But, I guess you could look at it this way:
When we head to the polls—you know, making those big decisions about our homeland and how it's run—we aren't doing it because of some niche personal interest or specific agenda. We don't hold the right to vote simply because we belong to a certain social group, a particular profession... or even a specific nation. We have that power EXCLUSIVELY because we are, and will remain, citizens of the United States.
So, you can really see where the massive conflict of interest lies among citizens. On one side, you have people for whom America is their one and only true home—their sole political community—and on the other, you have people who view America as just one option among many others, seeing themselves as part of a broader global group rather than a single, dedicated nation...

That's why one thing really bothers me regarding your "special interests," even though I'm genuinely curious about who holds our leadership roles: Is my Prime Minister an American or someone from overseas? Is my Ombudsman a true American or an outsider?

According to them, either way works—but if you ask me? NEVER!

Walter Foster87:

Don't you see the contradiction here? The European Union didn't fail because of the situation in America. It failed because it approached that specific test from a standpoint of its own inherent flaws and deep-seated paradoxes.

How on earth does that make sense? If someone can't wrap their head around the idea of an international state, is Europe really the one to blame? The only alternative was recognizing Canada, America, and Canada, because there simply wasn't any other way. So, what now? Are we just going to roll out another Stability Pact as a precursor to more integration?

Take the recognition given to the Republic of America, for example. I don't believe it has anything to do with guest workers, much less any connection to how regimes operated during World War II. If we are being honest—even if it's uncomfortable to admit—that recognition was nothing more than a "lifeline." It was a desperate move to prevent internal unrest and stop National Socialism from gaining even more ground right there in Germany.

Give me a break... Germany recognized America, and they made it clear they aren't following Maddox's lead. What, are we expecting a Fourth Reich to pop up next?😕 It’s clear today who holds the exclusive right to global dominance. Some people ask if I look at current economic potential, military hardware, or other modern factors and compare them to the landscape of 1933. Honestly, that’s a nonsensical line of reasoning. They can't just pivot into Nazism whenever they feel like it.

So, what you're actually doing is introducing foreign tissue into your own political "body politic."

My apologies. I didn't realize those wounds were still so raw. Honestly, I don't have the energy left to debate nationalism. The points you made regarding dual citizenship—and everything else you posted—are exactly that.

Actually, the real issue here is that dual citizenship paves the way for economic infiltration, much like what we saw in Germany following World War II.

Look, here is my take on this. The fundamental point is that capital simply doesn't recognize borders. Your position is essentially the most rudimentary form of statism I've encountered. I understand exactly what you’re getting at and where you think the "trick" lies, but I just can't agree with you. Even if a world run by capital and plutocracy feels completely alien to my core views, I have to stand my ground. Can we really expect a single nation-state to defend us against the overwhelming dominance of global capital? If anything, that very isolation is what pushed us out of the global flow. It is a matter of joining in or fading away; there is no third option.

I’ve already dealt with that "pleasure" before. I have heard all the reasons why we don't have border guards, police, or customs at our frontiers. I even heard those solemn oaths promising that "NEVER AGAIN WILL A SINGLE LIFE BE LOST OVER BORDERS!" But heads have fallen anyway. And it wasn't just one life. You aren't going to impress me by suggesting that my children or my grandchildren should one day die just so we can finally agree on WHERE THE BORDER IS and where outsiders aren't allowed to cross.

I realize it will take quite a while before borders truly become irrelevant. But why stifle that idea right at the beginning? And honestly, how can you even link the wars of the 90s to the European Union? Nobody actually knows the exact mechanics of moving from communism to capitalism. You call it "transition," but very little time has passed to claim the job was done successfully. Even looking at the Czech Republic and others, we definitely failed the test. Then you look at Russia, which is ruled by an oligarchy. If you view the social fallout of post-communism solely through the lens of border control, that just becomes another obstacle to joining the European Union. It really gets to the heart of our inability to understand that community.

Boundaries are being crossed without any real oversight at all... there's zero luggage screening at airports, nothing like it. Are you really going to deny that?

Walter Foster87: So, what makes it ABSOLUTE? I mean, haven't we already discovered something faster than that?
hollowpilot9: When I use the term "absolute," I’m talking about a CONSTANT—something that remains unchanging for the "subject" it refers to. Take the speed of light; it’s a constant for the velocity of both particles and waves (photons), which is what we call light. In a vacuum, we’re looking at 299,792,458 m/s. Of course, in material environments, that speed fluctuates depending on the medium—and if you’re measuring it with laser light and an atomic clock, you'll get a reading even more precise than that figure. But for the sake of our little debate, the crux of the matter is this: at the speed of light, the concept of time essentially vanishes. Time becomes simultaneous—timeless—and that is why it is ABSOLUTE. You might be thinking about things like the interaction speed between an electron-positron pair, or maybe something involving communication between entangled twins, or even holographic communication. In those scenarios, the concept of time doesn't exist, so the very notion of "speed" disappears too. That is precisely why the speed of light acts as the ultimate limit; beyond it, there is simply NO OTHER SPEED.
Ignoring such a specific constant (the Absolute) actually robs a scientist or a philosopher of their CREATION freedom. You see good examples of this in Kelvin's Absolute zero acting as the temperature boundary—in the mathematical universe, that’s Absolute Zero, whereas in the biological world, the Absolute boundary is found in AGCT molecules. Therefore, you have one thing that is merely a relativistic perception of the world, and another that is SIMULTANEOUSLY relativistic and absolutist. That kind of perception is True, real, and philosophically the only correct way to view it.
Here are a few quotes that explain pretty well what the speed of light actually is and why it’s Absolute:
It is a basic postulate of the theory of relativity that the speed of light is constant. This can be broken down into two parts:
· The speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer.
· The speed of light does not vary with time or place.
Minkowski's theory showed that Einstein's theory of relativity could be understood in terms of a four-dimensional non-Euclidean geometry that considered space and time as one entity, ever after called spacetime.
And here is how Newton wrote about the speed of light:
"Absolute, true and mathematical time, in itself, and from its own nature, flows equally, without relation to any thing external; and by other name called Duration. Relative, apparent, and vulgar time, is some sensible and external measure of duration by motion, whether accurate or unequable, which is commonly used instead of true time; as an hour, a day, a month, a year. It may be, that there is no equable motion, whereby time may be accurately measured. All motions may be accelerated and retarded, but the flowing of absolute time is liable to no change."
Walter Foster87 says: In that case, the MATRIX would correspond to either a mere pattern (form) or an idea, and that kind of philosophy—well, that's just idealism. "Absolute" can only refer to something that HAS NO ALTERNATIVE—something that is One and Only of its kind.
hollowpilot9: I think you actually made a very fair point by suggesting that "mere patterns and forms"—which are just external descriptions of reality and always two-dimensional or superficial—can be projected into 3D, and then into 4D space. Once you do that, that "mere pattern and form" transforms into the MATRIX I’m talking about. For instance, a certain pattern might be a matrix for dyeing fabric, or a specific structure might be the MATRIX for a human, a mouse, a dog, and so on. What I am actually referring to is the matrix that serves as the human genome! That matrix is ABSOLUTE, not just for humans, but for all living things! It’s high time philosophers realized this!!!

Walter Foster87: Can there be any purpose more magnificent than achieving a system of social relations and a life worthy of a—HUMAN BEING!?
hollowpilot9: What you wrote is incredibly important, but it’s equally vital—if not more so—to recognize the emergence of consciousness regarding the fact that the system of social relations needs to be one that ensures a life worthy of a—HUMAN BEING. And I mean a HUMAN being who is leaving, who is currently existing, and who is arriving—and the one who ARRIVES must possess attributes that are worth loving; otherwise, all we’re left with is "reverse gear" and the abyss...

Walter Foster87: That’s about it. Though, the first guy has an issue here—someone with a "pragmatic mind" will unhesitatingly identify themselves with Reason. They literally exist within the grip of that power. That’s why I call them a rational animal. And I won't argue that a certain type of intelligence must exist, simply because it participates in post-creation intelligence—those relationships between intelligent beings and all that. ... But I suppose someone who actually knows, and doesn't doubt, that they belong to the species of the Inventor, could accept identifying with a "pragmatic mind" just for the sake of practicality. As for the "Rationalists"—well, I don't intend to grant them even that much formally.

hollowpilot9: If that's the case, let's develop this idea of the creator—the designer. And I don't just mean the BIG ones—the cosmic ones, or our NASA, or Ford, or General Motors—but also the tiny ones. Those little creators and designers who make everything from dresses, pants, underwear, and hats to doorknobs, windows, forks, plates, bicycles, watches, pencils, and so on, much like how "foreign manufacturers" extensively do these things already. If we took that path, I'm certain an American citizen would feel a lot more comfortable than they do when surrounded by "neighborhood handyman types," small-time traders, and middlemen—just a bunch of hustlers. We have the exact same situation on an intellectual and mental level. There is no creation, no innovation; instead, there's just a surplus of copycats, plagiarists, and people interpreting someone else's ideas and innovations.

Walter Foster87: Well, what purpose could there possibly be in that!?
It was a kingdom of animals and a hierarchy of force. How could intelligence ever break through into the sphere of action!?
Because without that, all biological invention and the vast, abstract enjoyment of that boundless good and the state it brings—what we’d call a Utopia today—would be useless to pre-humans.
Therefore, the mind could only mediate THROUGH THE BODY and man's physical talents—which ultimately manifest as material (real) force.

hollowpilot9: I don't know what the point of FORCE is, since it functions once as construction and once as destruction. This duality of force, especially regarding Paul's message to the Corinthians, amplifies that duality to "infinity," because Paul suggests God doesn't love those who struggle or hold onto force, yet that same God APPLIES FORCE when he needs to bring sense to disobedient Egyptians. That image feels familiar even today, since "the stick and the carrot" still work, which makes me think the force we're discussing must have some other role. It would be worth discussing whether we should look at what kind of force the great POWERS of the world possess in an energetic and militaristic sense? I don't believe the force they wield is solely for "destroying the enemy"; there must be some other meaning—perhaps something cosmic, macro-creative, or something along those lines?
I agree with you and anyone else who sees and knows that FORCE isn't as terrifying or powerful as it seems at first glance. Force is only FORCE as long as there is no COUNTER-FORCE, and counter-forces are equivalent to forces. So, your last sentence makes perfect sense because you're talking about
"opposing particular intelligence," which is the cause of all past, present, and future "shaking," or waving around a "deadly sword"??

Walter Foster87: See. I'm much more moderate. Stupidity doesn't hurt me because I don't know what someone in the future will know. What hurts me is stupidity—specifically, the fact that we aren't applying the knowledge our "uneducated and primitive" ancestors knew 2,350 years ago.
hollowpilot9: Maybe you haven't noticed, but I "argue" precisely because of what you say!? Aren't many of today's problems caused by the fact that HIGH INTELLIGENCE abandoned and FORGOT its early wisdom? I've spent a lot of energy on this Forum trying to show that measured, little-minded science isn't the ONLY science—though, of course, it's been futile, since only science knows what NATURE KNOWS!?
Walter Foster87: Traditional political theory never really aimed to uncover the truth about the state anyway.
But since you love MATRICES, take it that the matrix of the state exists in a causality formed by Mind—justice—laws—and the force that subjects everything to the law.

hollowpilot9: You have all the advantages when it comes to the state. I only got involved because I'm drawn to the evolutionary picture where the organelles of a higher social system act as components—which is just a hypothetical thesis until HOMOTERAS comes to life. Actually, I'm inclined to believe—as I think Goethe once said—that every nation (state) has its own FUGUE in history.

Walter Foster87: This one hits the mark. But—when the masses are perfectly happy paying those parking tickets—you’re stuck with a choice: either just follow the herd or risk getting trampled in the stampede.

hollowpilot9: If that one is "good," here’s a little extra for you: It’s honestly wild how everyone blows their own horn about being such big patriots, while certain THIEVES get a free pass—simply because the "trumpeters" are too clueless to realize the thief isn't actually missing, since they already rigged and passed a LAW making them legal thieves instead of illegal ones, or at least that's what the "trumpeters" think or believe.

Smith said:The only real alternative back then was to recognize Austria, America, and Canada—because, honestly, there just wasn't any other way to play it. So, what does that actually mean for us today? I guess we might see another stability pact being drafted, maybe acting as a precursor to some new rounds of integration... who knows!

On the flip side—and I might be oversimplifying here—the other option would have been to actually build up armed groups to back the anti-Maddox coalition. We’re talking about moving forward with the support of those internationalists who are all about upholding the modern global order and antifascism (which, let's be clear, basically means keeping borders exactly where they are!). It would have meant using force to dismantle Slobodan Maddox and his whole crew, which might have finally paved the way for real conversations about how to fix things and reorganize America once he was out of the picture.
That’s exactly why any kind of new America—or those silly little "pacts"—just isn't going to fly around here anymore. I mean, unless someone completely loses their mind and decides to actually trust people based on nothing but empty promises and scraps of paper, it's just not happening! But honestly, this is also that massive ALTERNATIVE where the European Union basically betrayed its own core values. It’s like—and I know a lot of people miss this—the EU has already effectively died because of that one huge oversight. It's pretty wild when you think about it!

Smith said:Oh, come on now... You really think Germany recognizing our independence means they’re trying to be like Slobodan Maddox just so they can kickstart a fourth Reich? I mean, maybe that's how you see it—but I guess that feels like a bit of a stretch, doesn't it?😕

There’s really no reason to be confused—honestly!
Ever wonder why young Germans—I mean, people in their late 20s and mid-30s over there—seem to react so incredibly defensively whenever anyone brings up the whole Nazi era, Adolf Hitler, or Hermann Göring? It’s like they're always on high alert! And honestly, I guess you have to ask why they get just as worked up about neo-Nazis or skinheads, too... it's such an intense reaction every single time!
If you can't see just how far this nation has been "over-educated," then I guess you're missing that incredibly thin, sensitive line created by all that pressure—you know? It feels like an overwhelming sense of guilt has been forced upon Americans to such an extent that there’s practically no room left for actual tolerance. Any illusion of it—well, maybe it's just the sheer resilience of a membrane formed by those final lines of defense!

Or—if you want to look at it this way—it’s not that Adolf Hitler or the Nazis were banned from entering Birmingham; it was specifically the Germans who weren't allowed in!

And just imagine if you were to rub salt in those wounds—honestly, it would be way worse than what you're doing now... I mean, it’d basically be like being Adolf Hitler himself!

Smith said:Oh man, I am so sorry—I honestly didn't realize those wounds were still that raw. I guess I just don't have the stamina left for these deep dives into nationalism anymore! Honestly, between that one sentence you mentioned and all the other stuff you posted about dual citizenship... yeah, it definitely feels like we're heading right back into that territory.

What can we even do? At the end of the day, equality is equality—and honestly, without it, there’s just no such thing as true freedom! If someone can use the power of the government to do things that they won't let me do—well, then that "superman" isn't one of us, and they certainly don't belong to my people!

Smith said:...
Look, here’s how I see it—the whole point is that capital just doesn't care about borders. It flows wherever it wants, regardless of where one country ends and another begins... I guess you could say it's basically borderless!
And I guess your take is just some super basic, old-school statism—maybe?

Why would anyone call that statism—I mean, isn't it just being realistic?! I guess it’s all about perspective, right? Maybe some people see government involvement as overstepping, but honestly, I see it as just facing the facts of how things actually work!
It feels like we’re all just peasants in our "own" countries—honestly! While this modern, pseudo-feudal upper class is being formed by these so-called poly-patriots or dual citizens... well, that's just the reality of it. It’s pretty blunt, I guess. But at the same time, it's also true that nobody actually owns anything unless they have a legal RIGHT to it. And rights—whether we like it or not—are still granted through the State, not some random collection of international treaties or global organizations. That's just how it works!
So, here’s how I see it—statism is basically just a way to mask the actual reality of things by hiding behind labels like nationality, religion, or race. It’s all about those specific identities, right? But if you look at what's actually happening—the true dynamics of governance and how people are being controlled—it all really boils down to the framework of citizenship. I guess that's the real distinction!
If you ask me, Harmon—well, I guess you could just call it extreme statism!
I mean, honestly, who would have actually guessed? You listen to him throwing around those slogans about "Sleeping Beauty," making all those grand speeches to Americans—and then he goes and supports those whole "population relocation" policies that basically need to be encouraged... while simultaneously claiming he wants to ignore everything else and just build this "modern, liberal" state for all American citizens! It’s such a wild contradiction, isn't it?

Smith said:I think I see where you’re coming from—and I totally get why you might call this a "trick" question—but honestly, I just can't bring myself to agree with you there! Even though that whole world of massive capital and plutocracy feels pretty foreign to my own core beliefs about how things should work, I have to wonder... can a single nation-state really stand its ground against the sheer force of global capital all by itself? I mean, isn't it actually that kind of isolation that pushed us out of the global loop in the first place? It feels like it's a case of either jumping in or fading away—there really isn't a third option, I guess!

It’s not about having some specific national state—it’s all about JUSTICE, EQUALITY, and FREEDOM!
Well, if you look back at both the old America days and the era under Slobodan Maddox—they actually used to recognize dual citizenship! But, I guess it wasn't exactly open to everyone... it was mostly reserved for the elite or those deemed "special cases," if you know what I mean.

I guess what we’ve never really seen here—not in our neck of the woods, anyway—is a society that actually focuses its energy and its hopes on reaching the highest possible level of equality and freedom for everyone involved! It’s something we've always talked about, but maybe we haven't quite hit that mark yet.

Capital is right there—though, honestly, it feels like it’s only carrying about third-rate significance at this point!

Just imagine—say one of those smaller nations... let's say they decide to stay completely independent, maybe taking a page out of the Switzerland playbook—and then they actually find the guts to stand up to the tyranny of the global superpowers! They could potentially finish what needs to be done on their own soil—you know, actually perfecting the commodity form of goods right there at home!
In those kinds of circumstances—I mean, really think about it—how much of that capital would actually stay capital? I guess you have to wonder if any of it would even survive!

Smith said:I mean, I get that it’s probably going to take a long time before borders become a totally irrelevant concept—that might be a bit optimistic, I guess! But honestly, why even stifle that idea right at the starting line? And, I have to ask—how exactly are you linking the wars from the 90s to the European Union? It seems like a bit of a stretch, maybe?

Well, for one thing—it just produced way too much evil, spilled far too much blood, and honestly, there were just so many betrayals involved... I guess you could say it was just fundamentally broken.
Well, I guess you could say that those wars back in the 90s were essentially a wake-up call—a real reality check for everyone who thought they actually understood what happened during the 1940s! It’s like, if you thought you knew everything about WWII, those later conflicts really threw a wrench in that whole theory, wouldn't you say? Maybe it was just a way to prove that old lessons don't always apply the way we expect them to—it's all pretty complicated, I suppose!
Finally! It’s about time—mostly because that whole idea turned out to be nothing more than a total soap bubble... you know, one of those "fool's gold" schemes that just isn't built to last!
Well, they say you either learn from other people's mistakes—or, if you're a bit more stubborn—you learn them the hard way through your own skin. But honestly? I feel like we’ve already done the hard part! We’ve lived through all of it ourselves—firsthand, no filters, and definitely the painful way.
If anyone actually thinks we haven't learned our lesson—well, they are dead wrong! Seriously!

Smith said:Honestly, does anyone even really know the right way to transition from communism over to capitalism? I mean—it's such a massive shift! I guess there isn't one single roadmap that everyone agrees on, maybe? It’s all pretty complicated—but I'd love to hear what you guys think about it!

Oh, come on now! Who could possibly know for sure? I guess all they really understood was that once those social structures were finally set in stone—you know, at the very end of a planned economy—they’d actually generate so much wealth that the systems themselves wouldn't even be able to handle it all! It just seems like it would be way too much for the existing setup to wrap its head around, maybe.
Man, that’s exactly where the whole mess starts! I mean, how is anyone even supposed to figure out how to account for all that accumulated wealth? It’s such a massive headache—honestly, I don't know! And then you have this guy—poor soul, really—who could barely bring himself to agree to trade just a tiny fraction of what he originally pulled from his own holdings... it's just complicated, I guess!

Come on now, we aren't really that... — I mean, maybe we are a little bit, but let’s be honest!

Smith said:...you’re calling that a transition...

Sure, but there was one way over there, and a totally different way over here. What happened here—well, people have actually called it an UNPRECEDENTED ROBBERY.
And honestly, a robbery is a robbery—no matter what fancy name you give it or what kind of "laws" you use to hide it.

Smith said:but it hasn't been long enough to say the job was actually done successfully. Even looking at places like the Czech Republic and stuff—we definitely failed the test. And look at Russia, where it's basically just run by oligarchs now. If you think the only social issue from the post-communist era is border control, then that's just one more hurdle standing in the way of joining the European Union. It really gets to the heart of why we struggle to understand that whole community.

Do we even understand ourselves!?
We have these ideologies that millions swear their lives by—only for them to vanish without a trace into the "dustbins of history."
Being real here—I guess we aren't really cut out for big ideas or understanding certain communities. For us, all of this just seems to be a way to try and outrun everyone else in the market, or maybe just a way to stay somewhat relevant.
So, we became "great Europeans" just as quickly as we were yesterday—communists, or part of America....

And if you want to see whether we actually UNDERSTAND that community—just look at the arguments for and against the European Union. Most of the people who are FOR it find their reasons in condemning figures like Kutle, the Hague, and all those shifts that America was incapable of handling BEFORE APPROACHING EUROPE.
They basically believe that by joining the EU, the local "tycoons" and their political buddies will finally be shut down and stuff like that.
But then, those who are against the EU don't necessarily doubt that result; instead, they figure Kutle is just some "average Joe," and that the national crooks won't face any consequences in the EU because, well, there are even bigger crooks ruling things over there.

Smith said:And borders are truly crossed without any real oversight... there's no luggage checks at airports, nothing like that. Are you going to deny that?

Why would I ever deny that? In the old America, there weren't even marked crossings or clear border lines—and yet, that didn't stop Jović and Slobodan Maddox from acting like total animals—endlessly.

hollowpilot9 said:When I use the word "absolute," what I really mean is a constant—something that stays totally steady and unchanging for the "subject" it’s actually referring to... I guess you could look at it that way!

I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that's quite hitting the mark—honestly! Because, if you look at a constant... goodness, it actually only holds true WITHIN one specific medium or another. If you switch things up, it changes—which basically makes it a variable after all! —

hollowpilot9 said:If you don't take a specific constant—you know, the Absolute—into account, I guess a scientist or a philosopher just loses that total freedom to create. It really limits everything!

Well, that’s actually more of a methodological question, isn't it? I don't have anything against playing around with the trivial stuff or the side details just to highlight certain features or different angles of a subject—that can be useful! But—and this is a big but—doing that kind of relativization becomes simultaneous and genuinely dangerous if you haven't explicitly called out and stripped away those artificial elements used in the "experiment."
I mean, honestly—it’s exactly because of that kind of freedom that we ended up with so many of those massive screw-ups pulled straight from that new "Bible," you know? I'm talking about Marx's "Capital."
And honestly, it all just boils down to these shaky assumptions—you know, basing everything on things that are totally irrelevant, or maybe just treating stuff that could be roughly called non-existent as if it were actually real... I guess!
Well, I guess you could say that assumptions are basically the parents of all those massive—and honestly, pretty huge—misunderstandings!

hollowpilot9 said:I’m really talking about the matrix that makes up the human genome here! This matrix is the absolute foundation—not just for us humans, but for every single living thing out there! I guess it's high time that philosophers finally caught on to this!!!

This one is just brilliant! Not necessarily because this kind of matrix actually exists or doesn't—it’s more about the fact that (at least from where I'm sitting) philosophers just absolutely lose their minds when you start talking about genomes and their matrices. They just totally flip out!
Philosophers always seem to struggle when it comes to pinning down what human nature actually is—it’s such a tricky thing! And honestly, I guess their "great Leviathan" (the state, if you will) just can't really get off the ground until they finally figure out that "spiritual" genome and its underlying matrix. It's all connected, I suppose!

But—even with all that—I don't think it’s just a matter of two people being able to crack the code of human nature, especially when you consider how much progress we've made in molecular genetics lately! It’s such a fascinating field, isn't it? I guess those breakthroughs might actually help us solve some of those deeper puzzles about who we really are.

hollowpilot9 said:What you’ve shared here is incredibly important—but honestly, I think there's an equally vital point to consider... we need to reach that level of awareness where we realize our entire social structure has to be built to protect the dignity of the HUMAN being. And I don't just mean the person standing here right now—I mean the person leaving, the person existing today, and especially the person who is yet to come. That future generation needs to inherit a world with qualities actually worth loving; otherwise, I guess we're just stuck in reverse, heading straight for an abyss.

Well, I guess those "wide open doors" are still there—meaning we were never actually denied access to them in the first place!

.

hollowpilot9 said:If we really want to move forward, maybe we should start leaning into the whole concept of being a creator—you know, a designer? And I don’t just mean those massive, world-altering designers at NASA, Boeing, or General Motors—though they're certainly impressive! I'm talking about the little guys—those small-scale creators and designers who craft everything from dresses and shoes to door handles, windows, forks, plates, bicycles, watches, and even pens. You see it all the time with manufacturers over in China or Turkey, right? I honestly think if we took this path, an average American would feel so much more empowered—way more comfortable than they do now, surrounded by nothing but "handyman" types, corner shop owners, and those endless layers of middlemen and resellers. And honestly, it feels like we have the exact same situation happening on an intellectual level. There's just no real creation or true innovation happening here—instead, we seem to have an endless supply of copycats, plagiarists, and people who just spend their time interpreting everyone else's ideas and inventions!

I really think there's something beautiful about nurturing the Creator's—or rather, the Inventor's—vision. It’s not just about giving innovators a little extra support or carving out a special niche for them in society, though that definitely helps! To me, the real magic lies in fostering an environment built around RELATIONSHIPS—the kind of connections that actually make it possible for an invention to become a reality. If we set things up that way, the whole community gets to participate in what I honestly believe is the most dignified work a human can do. And—this is the best part—the entire community gets to share in the benefits of those new gifts from the Mind together!
Look, let’s be real here—if we actually want to get what we're after, we’d probably need to overhaul the entire government from the ground up. Like, root and branch. And—believe it or not—I honestly suspect that if we tried to make a change that massive, nobody would even bother paying attention to it. It just wouldn't be worth the effort in the eyes of most people, I guess.

.

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly don't know what the point of FORCE even is—I mean, it seems to work as a tool for building things one moment, and then just tears everything down the next!

Look, you see what I mean here: force is always just a means to an end—even when we're talking about something abstract. So, I guess that brilliant, mental force we use to mediate everything? That’s really just the Mind!

.

hollowpilot9 said:That image still feels incredibly relevant today—I mean, let's be honest, the whole "carrot and stick" approach still works just fine! It makes me think that maybe the force we're talking about needs to serve a different purpose too, I guess.

No way. Honestly, even when they try to spin the legal basis for everything—it feels like a total smokescreen! It’s just a tactic to hide the actual RATIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL REASONS behind why these laws are being passed. At the end of the day, it's all about those power-hungry grabbers trying to cement their own positions, boost their economic clout, or expand their rights... or, you know, just weaken everyone else who's been pushed down. It's pretty transparent if you look closely enough!
I honestly think that what truly drives any kind of real power are Mind and Reason. They can clash—which, of course, drags all the forces they control right into the middle of the fray, too. Then you have the idea of intelligence being used for the greater good, but there's also that other side where intelligence is just focused on looking out for one specific little group. And really, when that happens, conflict feels almost inevitable! I mean, when you have two opposing groups whose entire mental focus is locked onto their own version of Reason and its logic—well, it goes without saying that things are going to get messy.

Well, when it comes to sheer force, I guess you could say it works both ways—kind of like that old idea about "rolling logs," if that makes any sense! Or maybe more like the saying, "Every force lasts a lifetime!"—it’s all a bit subjective, I suppose.

But hey, there’s another side to this—if you look at things through a human lens, I mean. The Mind really needed a living, breathing being to actually manifest itself through, right? But that living thing had its own unique shape and its own specific—you know, natural—needs. So, I guess the Mind—just for its own sake—had to provide that creature with inventions that actually fit the needs of that physical body... which basically means catering to those specific talents or strengths that the Mind wouldn't have been able to use to kickstart any kind of external work without!
Back in the day, you’d have the old-school dialecticians sitting around debating the whole dialectical relationship between the mind and the body—you know, that constant tug-of-war between thought and raw force!

.

hollowpilot9 said:....
It might actually be worth sitting down and having a real discussion about what the world's major superpowers are actually doing with all that energy and military muscle they have at their disposal. I mean, I just can't wrap my head around the idea that all that power exists solely for the purpose of "destroying an enemy"—that feels a bit too simple, doesn't it? Maybe there’s a deeper reason behind it all—something more cosmic, perhaps? Like some kind of macro-creative force or something along those lines? Just a thought!

Well, I guess you can see two distinct paths emerging here—one is all about defending ourselves from cosmic threats (like meteors and stuff), and the other is this kind of competition that pushes us toward creating something entirely new (a sort of new era of invincibility). It’s interesting because, nowadays, wars don't seem to be about destroying the enemy as much as they are about—well—eliminating the enmity itself. Ever since World War II, the victors have mostly tried to reshape the defeated areas to fit their own vision, rather than just redrawing borders like they used to. So, maybe—just maybe—wars will become incredibly short, where surrenders turn into something more like a massive national celebration!

.

hollowpilot9 said:.... Maybe you haven't noticed yet, but I "argue" specifically because of what you're saying! I feel like so many of our modern problems stem from the fact that HIGH INTELLIGENCE has basically turned its back on—and completely FORGOTTEN—its early wisdom? I’ve spent quite a bit of energy here trying to show that narrow, little-minded science isn't the ONLY kind of science out there—though, of course, it hasn't really worked, since people seem to think science is the only thing that knows what NATURE KNOWS!?

So, we're right back to the idea that the changes we actually need can only be achieved through deep connections and acting with some real wisdom.

.

hollowpilot9 said:... It is just wild how everyone blares "trumpet trumpet, we're patriots!" while certain THIEVES get away with it simply because the "TRUMPETERS" have no clue where the thief went—mostly because they rigged it and passed a LAW that makes them legal thieves rather than illegal ones, at least according to what those "trumpeters" think or believe.

And honestly, it gets even more unbelievable—because those "TRUMPETERS" actually *do* know the thief isn't there, and they know exactly who drafted and passed that "LAW"—but they went ahead and re-elected about 60-70 percent of the exact same people who were sitting in Parliament when that "LAW" was first pushed through!