A Philosophical Dialogue

Or look at it this way: In Birmingham, they didn't ban Hitler or the Nazis from studying—they just banned the Germans.

👎 What exactly was his point there? Isn't the stigma we carry within the international community already enough of a burden?

It seems like you view the project of American independence as the only legitimate movement following the Cold War. To you, everything else is just a power play by elites. But this wasn't just politics. Was it really based solely on the threat posed by Maddox? Why are American generals facing trial in The Hague? I’m looking for an answer to that question.

But let’s be real: this is also the very alternative that caused the EU to betray its own foundation. And even if most people refuse to see it, the EU effectively died right there in that oversight.

Look, whether they needed to arm us or not is beside the point—I’m honestly lost on what this paragraph is even trying to say. Where exactly does the USA fit into this whole scenario? Is it even possible that a war like this could have played out without them?😕

What can we really do? Equality means equality, and without it, true freedom doesn't even exist. If anyone uses the authority of the government to do things that I am forbidden from doing, then they aren't a "superman"—they don't belong to my people.

I completely agree. But why bring the people into this? The public actually belongs to this system of abused power; they are actively seeking out their own master. Today, they see that figure in the face of the capitalist—someone who carries themselves like a feudal lord or part of some untouchable "elite." I’d finish that thought by saying the people simply don't align with my civilizational outlook, or my worldview, or whatever fundamental anthropological code you want to call it.

Who would have actually guessed? He spent all that time leaning into those "Sleeping Beauty" slogans and giving grand speeches to Americans, while quietly backing policies meant to encourage "population shifts." It’s wild when you consider how he constantly preached about building a modern, liberal state for every single American citizen.

It’s simply happening. We are seeing a transition from conservative ideas of national liberation straight into liberalism. The only issue arises if the enemy is fundamentally imaginary—manufactured, if you will—just to establish a ruling clique and execute a plan to destabilize the entire region, creating a playground for the shady dealings of Western elites. You need to connect the dots between the fundamental global abuses you mention and the perceived necessity of a defensive war. Every American needs to undergo this process if we want to move forward. It is the same task being forced upon us here. Before any external pressure even reaches you, the greater danger lies in becoming complacent, staying stuck in the past, and clinging to a defensive mindset born from the victimhood of that war.

It’s one thing over there, but it's a completely different story here. The folks around here have actually labeled these local actions as an unprecedented historical heist.

This is a great step in the direction I mentioned earlier. But aren't you connecting this back to the war? It’s honestly hard for me to wrap my head around that logic. If that war hadn't happened, the possibility of this ever occurring would have been virtually zero.

So, their argument is that joining the EU will finally allow us to crack down on those local corporate giants and their political cronies.

I am certainly not taking that stance. It’s a similar story here in the States. Talk about Europe is often just used for domestic political maneuvering. I never made such a claim. My point is simply that once people start acting like extreme patriots, we need to redefine that concept. We need to expand the scope so we can actually go after people for legitimate reasons.

Just imagine when someone starts rubbing salt in your wounds—it’s even worse than what Hitler did!

That was my takeaway from the first quote.

Look, I know Germans were essentially worked to death. But I also know that some Germans went as far as splashing German Fischer with red paint.

Amanda Fowler2 said:👎 What was he actually trying to get at here? I mean, isn't the stigma we're already dealing with on the international stage enough?

Look, I think you might have missed the nuance there—in Birmingham, we weren't talking about blocking out just the Nazis, but rather the Germans as a whole. That’s exactly what I meant! Even today, the entire world holds all Germans accountable for those Nazi crimes, not just the wartime generation. But—and this is a big but—if someone mistakes their silence or their patience for being stupid or thinking "it's no big deal," they are seriously mistaken.
I honestly think Germany didn't jump to recognize the US right away because of some hidden agenda—it was more likely just a necessary move to keep their own public from losing it. If you look at the evidence, the sudden German chill toward Americans seems to scale perfectly with how much nationalist rhetoric and excess we see popping up around here. It’s like there's a direct link, I guess!

Amanda Fowler2 said:It seems like you view the whole push for American independence as the only legitimate project to emerge after the Cold War—almost like everything else was just some high-stakes game played by elites. But this wasn't just a game, right? I mean, how does that work? Was it really all triggered just by the threat of Maddox? And if that’s the case, why are American generals being hauled before The Hague? I'm genuinely curious—do you actually have an answer for that?

I honestly feel like this whole "equal guilt" political approach is really just a way to keep the momentum going for state-planned weapons manufacturing—it's almost like a way to justify keeping those production lines running!

The project for American independence—what some people like to call "Sleeping Beauty"—really is a two-sided coin.
Basically—this whole thing is just Maddox's project. It was really the only way he could keep up his little theater act about "saving America."
Or do you honestly think we’re all just that clueless? Like, do you really believe we can't see who actually pulled the strings—who gave the green light to spin up those 19 different political parties (including Harmon's GOP, of course)—all of that happening about six or seven months before the citizens of the former republic were even granted the right to democratize?!
So, I guess it’s kind of interesting how the democratization process in Canada and the US—wait, let me rephrase that—in Canada and the States' counterparts within the old America actually kicked off independently from whatever was happening in the other republics. It almost feels like those moves were actually paving the way for an attempt at democratizing the whole SFRY system itself! Maybe that's just how it played out, but it definitely seems like they were leading the charge.
People used to call that whole project his "work permit"—basically Harmon's way of getting the green light to dive headfirst into politics back in '89 and '90!
There’s another side to that whole project—it was basically acting like a political safety net designed to salvage what was left of the American national identity. It was an attempt to kickstart any kind of fight for rights that had been stripped away from us after the secession of the breakaway republic—you know, back when they pushed through that segregationist constitution.
How much did that whole demand actually matter? I guess it just goes to show how much people have moved on from demanding military obedience from Maddox's Mexico—or specifically, those claims for reparations because the old union fell apart.

It just goes to show how they try to use "democratization" as this cheap little substitute—it's basically just a way to mask the forced silence we lived through back in '87 and '90 when we were fighting for our right to be an independent nation. This whole democratization process was really just being pushed under the thumb of Mexico City, wasn't it? And—this is the kicker—it actually paved the way, completely independent from what the other republics were doing, for the adoption of our new American Constitution!

So, looking back at how things went down—Mexico basically clawed its way to independence by trying to play the old America card, which was pretty hypocritical if you ask me. As for the US, we didn't just get our sovereignty handed to us; it came through this incredibly grueling process, fueled by that whole controversial "Declaration of San Francisco" mess and a period of aggression that everyone knows was totally unprovoked. It was definitely a rough road!

Amanda Fowler2 said:So, okay—was there actually any point to arming them, whether you admit it or not? I honestly didn't quite catch your drift in that paragraph—I guess I might have missed something! And where exactly does the USA fit into this whole scenario? I mean, could that war have even happened without them involved?😕

The EU really should have stepped in to condemn the breakup and secession of Mexico—at least until they went ahead and changed the SFRY Constitution to make it possible. I mean, since they clearly weren't interested in defending the sovereignty of a single nation—probably because having a war break out in the North America served as a perfect little control trap for the "Siberian Bear"—they at least had an obligation to act differently. If they weren't going to protect one state's integrity, then they should have recognized the independence of all the other former American republics immediately after Gazimestan back in '89, or at least started those processes right then and there. Maybe that would have changed everything!
Instead of that—well, they basically just served us up a Major, like Mitterrand... I guess? Maybe!
Oh, and here’s another factor—back around 1912 or 1913, the US actually went through this intense internal clash between the younger and older generations of liberal philosophers. It was pretty wild! See, the old-school liberals eventually landed on this seemingly undeniable conclusion: war is just inevitable. And their logic was—well, if war is going to happen anyway, it’s probably better if America exports it instead of letting it hit home—you know, by controlling things on foreign soil. But the younger liberals? They weren't having any of it. They actually mocked them, basically saying, "Look, if you aren't powerful enough to prevent war from happening in the first place, where on earth do you get the nerve to think you can actually control it?"
Not long after all that, we saw the First World War break out, followed closely by the Second—it was a whirlwind. But looking back from where we stand now, after the Second World War, it’s actually pretty fascinating to see how effectively America applies the insights of its own philosophers!

Looking at things from across the ocean—you know, back in what used to be America—the people in power were those communists whose whole ideology starts with the unavoidable reality of ownership between people, and then wraps up with that same inevitable "discontinuity" (which is basically just a fancy way of saying war) or that supposed "clash between production relations and productive forces."

So, I think the real kicker here—and this is what really matters—is the actual position the US took. It wasn't just about whether they were arming people or staying neutral; it was more about that whole period where the Bush administration backed Maddox and Mexico. Plus, there was that looming threat of a NATO intervention being aimed at the Americans during that massive wave of violence from the American Army against civilians back in September 1991—you know, when civilian buildings were being absolutely hammered by machine guns, mortars, and tank fire. It’s all pretty intense when you look at it that way!

Why does this matter? Well—I guess it’s because learning how to handle the inevitability of war, and then treating that tension with these controlled conflicts, fits perfectly into the whole idea of keeping planned production moving along. It’s basically just a way to keep the gears turning through planned warfare!

I guess the real reason Maddox couldn't just rig the entire election—even after he managed to oust Stambolic, who was basically one of those elite, high-ranking members of the "conscious forces" within the party—is still up for debate. Maybe there were just too many eyes watching him? I don't know, it seems like he hit a wall there!

Amanda Fowler2 said:I’m totally with you on this! But I have to ask—why are you dragging the people into this? It feels like the public actually belongs to this whole cycle of power abuse; they're almost out there searching for their own master. Nowadays, they just see that figure in the form of a capitalist who acts like some sort of modern-day feudal lord or part of an "elite." Honestly, if I were finishing that thought, I’d say it more like... it just doesn't fit our civilizational standards, or our worldview, or whatever you want to call that basic human code!

Actually, I look at it differently! People aren't out there looking for some sort of MASTER—after all, the people are political beings, right? We’re just a community of equals who happen to be free. So, I guess you could say the people are actually the ones building the state in the first place—just so they can protect that sense of equality and freedom in a way that feels truly fair.
The other group we tend to call "the people"—well, they're really just a crowd that either sees themselves as a pack of animals or a bunch of saints—it’s hard to say which one fits better!
That’s why my political community is made up exclusively of people who are equally free and—well, let's just say—totally equal. Honestly, anyone who managed to grab or hold onto more rights than the rest of us? They feel more like outsiders than any foreigner ever could!

And honestly, why on earth would I hide that from them? I mean, the ones in POWER know exactly why they set up this whole dual citizenship institute in the first place—and let's be real, the people who actually took advantage of it know even better why they did it!
So, how am I even supposed to deal with the people who—get this—demand justice for themselves while actively making sure everyone else stays deprived? It’s such a weird contradiction, right? I guess you just have to wonder how anyone can live like that!
Am I seriously expected to just fake some kind of big, brotherly patriotic love?! Why on earth should I bow down—even just a little bit—to all that nonsense they spout about things like "equality before the law" or "we have a state" and all that other stuff!?
Look, we aren't really that kind of crowd. I mean—don't get me wrong—in actual practice, we probably won't move much more than a finger, but we’ll definitely be out there "barking" at every single opportunity—whether we're lounging on the couch, hanging out at the local diner, or just scrolling through the internet. But hey, nothing lasts forever—not even our silence or our tolerance!

Amanda Fowler2 said:.. It just happens naturally. It’s that progression from a conservative idea of national liberation straight into liberalism. ... .

Well, now you're.. leaving out a pretty big piece of the puzzle.
Those "paths" moving from one ideology to another—especially when we talk about "national" liberation shifting toward modern "liberalism"—honestly feel like they were cooked up by a bunch of old-school backroom politicians. It’s almost embarrassing to live in an era where such narratives even exist! And it’s even more frustrating because we’re forced to take them seriously just because they actually seem to influence the world.
But really, should we be treating them as actual realities—and such serious ones at that!?

Amanda Fowler2 said:...
This is, for instance, a beautiful step in the direction I was mentioning. But aren't you linking this to the war? I just can't wrap my head around why it isn't. If there hadn't been a war, the possibility of this would have been minimal.

Well, if a war is planned, then it's just the logical next step of planned production (you know, the clash between those production relations and the accumulated productive forces)—so the saying "snow doesn't just fall to cover the hill..." makes perfect sense here.
Plus, our elders always taught us that we understand the CAUSES of events much better by looking at the CONSEQUENCES.
And those striking similarities? They come exclusively from using the exact same recipe.

But hey, they pulled it off! They didn't just plunder paradise and its property; they actually managed to make paradise come crawling back, voting them into office and keeping them in power. It's almost like people are shouting, "More! Give us more, more, and more!"

Amanda Fowler2 said:... Of course, I'm not starting from that position. Things are similar here too. Talk about Europe is often used for domestic political purposes. I never actually said anything like that. It's just that once they start acting like patriots... you kind of have to shift the boundaries of that concept... so they can be shut down for real reasons.

Your truth is only halfway there! Scoundrels and killers have to find a PURPOSE for their actions within an organized, dying system. Because if those processes just kept going—they'd fall into total chaos, a state where the scoundrels start stealing from other scoundrels and the killers start killing other killers. That's a fast track to anarchy.
That's why the EU will help those in power "calm things down," "tidy things up," and even eliminate extremists. This way, they can pacify paradise (making it look like the crooks were punished and the killers jailed) while protecting their local allies along with their "rightfully earned assets" and high-status positions.

Amanda Fowler2 said:... Well, I know some Germans are extreme. But I also know that some German Fischers have been covered in red paint. .

Of course, those types exist. Even the neo-Nazis aren't exactly a small group. But—when you meet a regular German, try bringing up Hitler, the Nazis, or the Holocaust—then you'll really get what I was talking about.

Kudos to Walter Foster87. Some of those lines are truly brilliant; I completely get where you're coming from now and I'm on board. I might just grab a few quotes to share on one of our local forums. I don't think I even need to ask you about the flow of knowledge. Best regards!

Walter Foster87: I get where you're coming from, but I don't think that's quite it... Because if a constant... goodness, it only holds true THROUGH THIS OR THAT MEDIUM... otherwise it’s DIFFERENT, making it a variable after all... -

hollowpilot9: Fine, I won't insist on everyone grasping the concept of an Absolute Constant, but if you're curious, just look at what happens to a single point during wave oscillation or circular motion. See, all circles are relative—you can have an infinite variety of radii—yet PI is the ABSOLUTE constant for all of them. That’s the kind of absolute constant I believe philosophy ought to be studying.

Walter Foster87: Well, that’s already a question of methodology. I don't have anything against relativizing the trivial or the incidental—you know, to highlight certain features or aspects of a thing—but... that kind of relativism is SIMULTANEOUSLY UNNECESSARY AND DANGEROUS if the "experiment's" extraneous elements aren't skillfully isolated and accounted for.

hollowpilot9: In any harmonious, functional system, nothing is truly incidental; everything matters. A harmonious system doesn't view the incidental as such—it tosses whatever can be relativized out like "waste," and constantly replaces the other things that seem relative. This actually illustrates why relativization ALONE is dangerous. In psychology, it leads a person toward meaninglessness and, ultimately, suicide.

Walter Foster87: Now, that is a brilliant point. Not necessarily because such a matrix exists or doesn't, but because—at least from my perspective—philosophers always seem to lose their grip when it comes to genomes and their matrices.
Philosophers struggle to define human NATURE, and their "great Leviathan" (the state) can't really find its footing until they uncover that "spiritual" GENOME and its underlying matrix.

hollowpilot9: Since you called it "brilliant," I'm convinced that traditional philosophers aren't just losing their grip because of genomic matrices, but MORE SO because of the LOGOS that contains those matrices—something they simply cannot grasp. The young duo Watson and Crick, who discovered that logos within the DNA molecule, were primarily PHILOSOPHERS rather than scientists, despite how they are portrayed today. They set themselves an IMPOSSIBLE task: to connect the SAME with the SAME. Before them, it was IMPOSSIBLE; after them, the IMPOSSIBLE became POSSIBLE. And unfortunately, philosophers still haven't realized that.

Walter Foster87: Well, there's still that "wide open door"—at least that's one thing that could never be denied to us.

hollowpilot9: Sure, the "wide open door" is always there, but modern processes are driving us toward micro-polarization and capillary action. These days, a "pirate earring on a man" or a "belly button piercing on a woman" seems far more important to people than the actual Human standing behind those "wide open doors." It's incredible how many people would rather stay hermetically sealed—say, inside the tin can of an automobile—than actually walk through an open field.

Walter Foster87: It's good to develop the idea of the creator (the Inventor). But it isn't just about providing support or a special social status for those who innovate.

hollowpilot9: My thesis is that the current model of power—the party-based democracy practiced not just here, but throughout the world—will vanish within twenty years, replaced by the oncoming bio- and cyber-democracy. The very concept of POWER should be wiped from public
(political) discourse. It is genuinely terrifying how our political clowns view themselves as THE POWER, rather than mere administration—civil servants working for the citizens. It isn't the fault of the masses, nor is it the fault of those political hacks playing at being rulers; the blame lies with the academics and the humanist intellectuals who endorse this version of POWER by remaining "wisely" silent. In a culture that fosters and supports true creation, things operate entirely differently. For instance, a police officer in Seoul will tow a wrongly parked car to the right spot, whether the driver is there or not, whereas our "repressive" police officer—because he is tasked with protecting POWER—will penalize the driver simply for parking in a forbidden zone.

Walter Foster87: You see, you know: FORCE IS ALWAYS A MEANS, even when it's abstract. Which means the intelligent force used to mediate is the MIND.

hollowpilot9: Perhaps I only know this subconsciously, but as someone well-versed in PHYSICAL FORCE, I certainly can't explain how a force of 15 kg—just the strength of my own hands—can, thanks to a MEDIATOR, produce a force of 10,000 kg and lift a loaded freight car.

Walter Foster87: Not really. Even when they try to feed us some nonsense about where laws actually come from—it feels like a total smokescreen, doesn't it? It’s just a way to mask the RATIONAL AND INTELLECTUAL REASONS behind passing legislation. You know, the kind of stuff where those who are seizing control want to beef up their own positions, their economic clout, or their rights... or, you know, just systematically weaken everyone else who's been pushed under their thumb.

hollowpilot9: I can't bring myself to be quite as blunt as you, Walter Foster87, when you say there's "NO" such thing. See, force—even if we're just looking at basic biology—serves two functions at once: one existential and one lethal. It’s vital for the one doing the "hunting," but obviously fatal for the one being "hunted." Is it really that simple?

So, you can already see two distinct paths emerging here—on one hand, there's the defensive side, protecting ourselves from cosmic threats (think meteors and stuff like that), and on the other, this weird competitive drive that pushes us toward constant innovation. It’s all about creating new forms of invincibility. Especially since modern warfare isn't really about destroying an enemy anymore—it's more about dismantling the very concept of enmity itself. Ever since World War II, the goal hasn't been to redraw borders, but rather to reshape the defeated territory to fit a specific image. Because we aren't out there carving up maps like we used to, wars might actually become incredibly short—to the point where surrender feels less like a defeat and more like a nationwide celebration.

hollowpilot9: I have to say, I dig this kind of optimism! But let’s be real—"viruses" aren't some new phenomenon; they've always been around, and they always work. Even when we talk about defending ourselves against anything—even a meteor streaking in from deep space—it’s really just two sides of the same coin as an attack. You surely realize that terms like "defense" and "offense" are inherently dualistic—kind of like everything else in this world, right? Personally, I’m leaning toward a third or fourth direction—one that gives militarism its actual purpose and existential function, much like how "militarism" operates within our own biological systems.

So, here we are again—back to square one. It turns out we’re once again staring down the barrel of the same old reality: if we actually want to see any meaningful change around here, we’re going to have to rely on thick connections and playing the game with a bit more cunning. Is there any other way? Honestly, it feels like we've circled right back to the necessity of knowing the right people.

hollowpilot9: That’s a fair point, I guess, but why wouldn't the whole thing just follow the logic of technological evolution? It’s almost predictable—the teleprinter sort of "faded away with a whisper" when the fax machine showed up, and now the fax machine is basically a relic compared to the modern computer. Or look at film cameras—Super 8 just "elegantly" vanished once video cameras entered the scene... isn't it always like that?
Look, wisdom is great and all—it’s essential—but thick connections? No way. Absolutely not. I’m convinced that those deep-seated, messy connections only exist to serve stupidity. Wisdom, on the other hand... well, if we play around with the butterfly effect just a little bit, I think wisdom easily triumphs over nonsense. Think about it: why do we still celebrate Copernicus as this massive scientific icon when his actual findings weren't even the ultimate truth? If we just stand our ground and shout the truth, those "Copernicans" will wither away like a plant left without water. Honestly, who actually needs Copernicus in science anymore, or Erasmus in humanism? Not really.

It gets even more ridiculous—because apparently, the "Trump supporters" actually realize there isn't some master thief out to get them, and they know exactly who drafted and pushed through that specific "LAW"—yet, somehow, they still went ahead and re-elected about 60 to 70 percent of the exact same people who were sitting in Congress when that "LAW" was passed in the first place!

You nailed it, Walter Foster87! Honestly, those thieves were just running wild two, three, maybe four years ago—right up until the "trumpeters" seized control. And once they actually took over the reins? Well, suddenly, the theft just... stops existing? Remember how we used to hear that nobody is a thief until a court proves it? Now look at what’s happening. It’s just one thief telling another that they’re both honest citizens. The prep work for the local elections—for that local POWER—has already kicked off. They’re out there signing coalitions to secure control over this little empire of petty crooks, where being corrupt is perfectly legal because it happens outside the laws passed by Congress. See, if you're a crook at the municipal level, you aren't technically a criminal because you're just following the ordinances passed by the local clique. It's a closed loop. The whole thing honestly transcends any political fantasy you could dream up, yet people still show up to vote and then just stay silent...? Why is that?
There’s this huge uproar going on lately about people turning the entire coastline into nothing but short-term rentals—as if the whole concept of hospitality hasn't already been gutted by the shift toward apartment rentals. Honestly, it's kind of ridiculous. I was talking to a local business owner the other day—he runs both a restaurant and a few vacation rentals—and he asked me something that really stuck with me. He was like, "How am I supposed to run a successful hospitality business when my guests just stay in the apartments I built specifically for them, cook their own meals, and eat in private?" It makes you wonder... is that really how I'm supposedly "destroying" the service industry? Is providing exactly what people want to rent actually considered sabotage?
So, we’re pouring massive amounts of taxpayer money into building high-tech sewage systems to pump waste far out into the ocean—you know, the stuff from those luxury beachfront rentals? Fine. But what about the mess being dumped discreetly and individually just thirty yards away from a packed public beach? I actually had a guy tell me he’s stopped swimming altogether because, well, he’s a bit tired of having someone else's literal crap swirling around his head. When I brought this up to a local politician once, he had the nerve to call me "conservative"—as if wanting a beach without sewage makes me some kind of reactionary. I told him, okay, if I'm the conservative one, then he must be the "progressive" here—because clearly, being so forward-thinking is why we deal with an intestinal illness outbreak every single summer. He just stared at me like a deer in headlights... though, honestly, it was more like a deer staring at a cow. It’s hard to expect a politically corrupt, overheated brain to grasp the basic cause-and-effect relationship between the waste tourists leave behind and the local health crises. Is it really that complicated?

Amanda Fowler2 said:Way to go, Walter Foster87! Some of those lines are honestly brilliant—I totally get where you're coming from now and I'm right there with you. I might just have to borrow a few bits for one of my online forums... though I guess I don't really need to ask permission for a little knowledge sharing, right? Sending big cheers your way!

When it comes to things like fairness, equality, and freedom—don't just sit around asking questions, just GO, GO, GO! ...

Best,

hollowpilot9 said:Look, here’s the thing—all circles are relative, right? You can have an endless variety of different radii—it's pretty wild when you think about it—but Pi is that one absolute constant shared by every single circle out there. I guess what I'm really getting at is that there are these types of absolute constants—these fundamental truths—that I feel like philosophy really ought to be getting to know!

I guess I personally prefer looking at those "absolute constants" through a scientific lens—it just feels more grounded that way! Because when you dive into philosophy, everything seems to become relative, doesn't it? Even in those moments where things feel fundamentally different—or maybe even "absolutely" different, if you will—it all kind of circles back to subjectivity.

hollowpilot9 said:In a perfectly harmonious, functional system—you know, the kind where everything just clicks—there really isn't such a thing as something being unimportant. Honestly, every single little piece matters! Everything is vital to the whole... I guess you could say there's no room for fluff when things are working exactly as they should.

Well, that actually brings up a whole different kind of danger—which is why, for instance, people have gone as far as defining a fork as both a simple utensil for eating and, well, a potential weapon... I guess!
I guess we really need to find some kind of middle ground here—especially since actual research is all about digging into the different pieces of a phenomenon. It feels like a middle ground would be the only way to actually bring out everything that’s been... well, maybe relativized, buried, or just completely wiped from the conversation in the first place!

Check this out—in the first volume of Capital, Marx says that the wealth of a capitalist society shows up as a MASSIVE COLLECTION OF COMMODITIES.
So, basically—he stripped away all those social goods from our collective wealth that aren't actually "commodities" (you know, things that shouldn't be for sale)—and then, throughout that entire massive work of his, he keeps using this whole part-for-the-whole logic. He’s essentially pitching capitalism as this system where you can just buy *everything* with cash, where the commodity form becomes the default way to look at every single thing we produce...

The real issue here is how "sterilization" managed to successfully sneak its way into the conversation right from the jump. And honestly—if you missed the warning signs at the very beginning—you’re basically finished—God knows where you ended up!

hollowpilot9 said:Since this is supposedly "brilliant," I’m honestly convinced that traditional philosophers just can't wrap their heads around it—it's like they're missing the big picture! It isn't just about the genomic matrix; it's about the LOGOS that actually *contains* the matrix, which is something they just seem to struggle to grasp. I mean, look at Watson and Crick—they aren't just scientists like everyone portrays them today; they were essentially philosophers first and foremost. They set themselves an almost impossible task: trying to bridge the gap between the SAME and the SAME. Before them, it was simply impossible, but after their breakthrough, the impossible became possible—and, sadly, I guess most philosophers still haven't quite caught on to that yet!

How can they say it's impossible?! I mean—as Aristotle once said, "What is possible to achieve in part is also possible to achieve in its entirety." It’s just basic logic, really!
But hey, there’s actually something else hiding behind all this talk about philosophy and philosophers—something a bit more practical! I mean, their whole goal isn't really some grand search for "truth" just for the sake of it. Honestly, that whole phrase feels like a total cliché to me. At the end of the day, a person only HAS certain limitations and abilities—so, I guess they can only ever uncover what they are actually capable of perceiving!
The truth is—and I really believe this—that we search for the truth primarily for the sake of humanity and our entire society. That includes the natural sciences, too; honestly, it feels just as essential as looking after our own physical health! But if you ask me, the real heart of philosophy isn't found just in deep reflection (like contemplating God) or even in scientific obsessions. Instead, it lies in the very principles that hold the world together—because at the end of the day, that world is made up of us, every single individual. (I mean, when I pass away, my little corner of the universe goes with me—literally!)

hollowpilot9 said:So, sure—those "wide open doors" are always standing there, waiting. But honestly? It feels like everything is drifting toward this intense micro-polarization and fragmentation. It’s getting to the point where those tiny, hyper-specific details—like a guy's little earring or some niche physical trait—seem way more influential than the actual "Man behind the door." It’s wild, really! I guess it just shows how much people actually prefer staying hermetically sealed off—kind of like being tucked away inside a car—rather than just stepping out and walking through an open field. Maybe we've all just become a little too fond of our own little bubbles!

I don't really worry about the masses—honestly, they’re usually just looking for their version of "bread and circuses" anyway. What actually gets to me is seeing what's happening with the "intellectuals"—it feels like they've started mimicking the crowd instead of leading it, which I guess just ends up validating everyone's lowest expectations.
I guess there isn't much to say here—just a blank slate! Maybe I'm waiting for something interesting to happen? Either way, I'm ready when you are!

hollowpilot9 said:So, here’s my take—and I could be totally wrong about this—but I really think the way we handle power right now is on borrowed time. This whole setup of party-driven democracy that we see practiced both here in America and across the globe? I honestly feel like it’s going to vanish within the next twenty years or so. It seems like we're heading straight toward a future defined by bio-democracy and cyber-democracy instead!

I don't think the issue lies in how we actually run things—it’s more about the foundation itself. I mean, maybe the real challenge is figuring out how to build a truly democratic system modeled after direct democracy!
If history teaches us anything at all—and I really think it does—it’s just that usurpers are constantly finding NEW ways to control the masses. It seems like they never run out of tricks! I mean, look at so-called parliamentarism; to me, it feels like a bit of a "coward's egg," especially when you consider all those little loopholes—you know, things like dual citizenship, political immunity, and that whole idea of the "independence" of the three branches of government... it all feels a bit shaky, doesn't it?

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like—and maybe I'm just being optimistic here—the whole concept of POWER should probably just be wiped from our public vocabulary altogether! It’s such a heavy, complicated thing to deal with, isn't it?
... political rhetoric.

Actually, I’ve always felt that power should really be the main focus of a philosopher's research—I mean, isn't power basically the foundation of any organized society? It’s the very thing that allows us to build our institutions. In my view, a society works toward achieving true justice—you know, like finding that sweet spot of freedom and equality that actually fits a productive community—by building those structures for its own sake. Ultimately, it's all about securing liberty and equality for every single person involved!
The fact that the government still feels totally out of touch with the people—well, I guess that isn't actually a problem with the leadership at all (they probably don't even realize what they're missing!)—it’s more like a problem with the "people" themselves. Maybe? Just my two cents!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly kind of terrifying—if you think about it—how our political bottom-feeders actually view themselves. They don't see themselves as mere administration or civil servants working for the people, but more like they're the absolute rulers! It’s wild, I guess.

Well, I guess that’s basically how it works—but let's be real, the administration is there to actually administer things! Decisions regarding the general application, enforcement, and validity of laws—especially when we're talking about rights being denied or legal contradictions—aren't really within the administration's jurisdiction. That’s why we absolutely need that specific word—power.
By the way—you keep using the word "citizens" in that sense, even though you probably know that among us, there’s really no such thing as everyone being equal or having the same privileges... I mean, if we're being technical, we aren't exactly "citizens" in the true sense of the word—we're more like just residents or subjects of the state.

hollowpilot9 said:It isn't really the fault of the general public, nor is it just about those political hacks playing power games—I mean, we all know how that goes—but rather, it’s the academics and the humanist intellectuals who are to blame. They basically provide cover for this kind of power by staying "wise" and silent when they really should be speaking up. Maybe that's just my take, but I guess their silence is what keeps the whole thing running!

I don't think we can just let those academics off the hook entirely—they definitely played their part. But honestly, maybe being exposed to the public eye was punishment enough? I guess history will just remember them as the ones who swapped their "communist" outfits for "capitalist" ones without a second thought—no science, no shame, just a quick change of clothes!
I mean, if I were setting up your pyramid, I’d probably arrange it a little differently—just a thought! First off, you can't really blame those political hacks, because, let's be honest, we clearly aren't capable of picking anyone better than them—or maybe we just don't have that kind of choice available to us for some reason? Then, I guess you've got the academics and the intellectuals; they really should have stepped up and done something, but they haven't—well, aside from that recent shake-up with V. Gredelja. Ultimately, though, I think the real weight falls on the common people. One reason is simply because they’re the ones facing the most pressure (not the academics or the elites!), and secondly, because they actually hold all the real power when it comes to deciding elections. Plus, from what I've gathered through various conversations and connections, they aren't nearly as clueless as they might seem!
That’s a whole different story—why anyone would vote against their own gut feelings, beliefs, and logic.

hollowpilot9 said:... In a culture that actually fosters and supports creation, things work out totally differently. For instance, a police officer in Seoul might just tow a wrongly parked car to the right spot, whether the driver is there or not, whereas our "repressive" police force—since they’re mostly busy protecting POWER—will just slap the driver with a fine for parking where they shouldn't have...

Well, sure—that’s in a culture that realizes it’s built on creation, reproduces it, and actually enjoys the perks! But—how many of us have actually chosen that kind of identity? How many of us truly know WHY we respect the law, even when the laws are terrible and choosing them feels like picking the lesser of two evils compared to a life with zero rules at all?

hollowpilot9 said:... Maybe I don't realize it subconsciously, but since I'm a pretty decent student of PHYSICAL FORCE, I can't quite wrap my head around how a mere 15 kg of force—just what my own weak hands can muster—can somehow use a MEDIUM to generate 10,000 kg of force and lift a massive loaded train car...

Well, there you go—using the principle of a fulcrum and a lever... or a pulley wheel... it's obviously INDIRECT. And in a society? It happens through persuasion, suggestion, or—if necessary—deception.
Supposedly, that's how potatoes spread through France and all of Europe. Instead of giving speeches or holding seminars about how nutritious they were, the French king just piled up two massive heaps of potatoes, stationed guards next to them, and threatened Parisians with death if they touched a single one. Of course, he told the guards to "sleep on the job" and "not see a thing," so—they say—both piles vanished by the very next day.
(I guess Parisians must be just as stubborn as people from the South or maybe just as rebellious as folks from the Midwest...)

CONTINUATION

hollowpilot9 said:I don't think I can be quite as blunt as you were regarding "NOTHINGNESS"—if that's even the right word to use!—because, well, force itself actually serves two purposes at once, at least when you look at it from a biological standpoint. It’s existential for the one doing the "hunting," but obviously, it's totally lethal for the one being "hunted." It's a bit of a double-edged sword like that, I guess!

Let's look at it this way—power carries a whole different weight these days. I mean, it’s basically just been used to push parliamentary rule forward and cement it as the world's one true DEMOCRATIC (!) system.
But honestly, even a system like that—and all that raw power—it’s still built to last for the ages. I mean, the reason they exist right now is because there's something much more sublime and grand at play here than anything they could ever achieve on their own—I guess you could say it's bigger than the people behind it!
So, look—there’s definitely this weird overlap happening right now, I guess—but if you look at how history actually unfolds, brute force always ends up pushing intellect aside. In the end, though? There’s really no doubt about it—one side is eventually going to take the driver's seat!

hollowpilot9 said:I really love this kind of optimism! Honestly, those "viruses" are always lurking around—they're always active. At the end of the day, building up a defense against anyone (or even against a meteor flying through space!) is really just two sides of the same coin as an ATTACK.

Humans are such strange creatures—honestly! If you actually gave someone everything they ever wanted and stripped away every single responsibility from their life, they’d probably just die of pure boredom (assuming they didn't just take matters into their own hands first, I guess). And optimism? It really is what gives everything its sense of purpose. Now, don't get me wrong—pessimism can be a temporary thing, maybe even a symptom of being an opportunist—which is a type of critical thinking that isn't nearly as useless or bad as people usually make it out to be—but it just can't hold any lasting value. Once it does, it becomes incredibly dangerous. By the way, I've always felt that those who claim to follow Marx's teachings often end up promoting a pessimistic ideology—where every bit of progress or new wealth just leads back to social collapse and war!

hollowpilot9 said:Just remember that whole old saying—you know, the one where everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? Well, look at what’s happening right now! It’s like thieves are just standing around calling each other out in broad daylight. I mean, seriously! The preparations for the local elections—the race for local POWER—have already kicked off. They’re already signing these coalitions to grab control within this little empire of petty corruption. It feels like everything is technically "legal" because they’re operating entirely outside the laws passed by our Parliament. It's honestly wild!

It’s pretty obvious—they managed to force their way in. But honestly, what have we actually done about it? Instead of taking action, I guess we just sit here complaining on this forum or venting our frustrations over coffee and at the dinner table.

Honestly, experience tells me there isn't much we can actually do about it. But—and this is a big "but"—that's mostly because all our attempts end up being so isolated, you know? We're just looking at individual districts, counties, or small towns. It feels like the whole election system was basically designed to be a race to see who can grab the most cash and attract the biggest financiers, rather than what it should be—a genuine clash and competition of ideas!
But seriously, if we could just see all the candidate lists across every single municipality, city, county, and district—all at once—with programs that actually looked similar (you know, sharing at least five or six core pillars), then maybe—just maybe—we’d be able to take an objective look at things. Only then could we really figure out how much of this current mess is actually our own fault!

Walter Foster87 says to Amanda Fowler2:
When you’re talking about justice, equality, and freedom—don’t bother asking questions, just WORK, WORK, WORK...

hollowpilot9: That’s fine and all, but you missed one massive thing—the TRUTH. So, if we look at your sentence through a four-dimensional lens—which is really the only way to get a FULL AND REAL PERCEPTION—it actually goes: When it comes to justice, equality, freedom, and Truth, don't ask anything, just WORK, WORK, WORK.
I see your point, but how can anyone work, work, work if they don't know the Truth? Just look at the Western humanists and how much they worked, worked, worked... and there isn't even a single "h" left in "humanism." Why? Because they didn't know the Truth! It’s the exact same story today.

Walter Foster87: I sort of prefer treating those "absolute constants" as scientific terms, because in philosophy, everything is relative. Even when things seem different to us—different enough, or "absolutely" different.

hollowpilot9: Oh, come on, Walter Foster87! Philosophy without knowing the Absolute isn't philosophy. What you're saying—that everything is relative in philosophy—is simply WRONG. I could just point to Chinese philosophy with the absolute concept of TAO, or European philosophy with Hegel and his absolute idea in *Phenomenology of Spirit*. Besides, you seem to think there’s no distinction between a scientific Absolute and a philosophical one. For instance, the scientific absolute might be the four fundamental forces of the universe, whereas for Buddhists, the absolute truth lies in the Four Noble Truths. For me, personally, the absolute truth is that the tetrahedron is the universal fractal of the cosmos. And let’s not even start on the absolute in theology; relativism regarding the absolute is just mental conformism that clings to the relativity of the "radius" while ignoring the "absolute circle"—you know, the absolute value of PI. Relativism in philosophy basically put it on a beggar's crutch because the "absolute God" was killed, and instead of affirming Humanity, we just got physics-based relativism.

Walter Foster87: But that carries a different kind of danger; for example, people defined a fork as a utensil for eating, a weapon for killing, and so on...
We need to find a middle ground. Especially since research seeks to investigate the individual parts of a phenomenon. So, the middle ground would involve bringing out everything that has been relativized, suppressed, or stripped away during the process of examination.

Look at this example. In Volume I of *Capital*, Marx writes, "The wealth of a capitalist society appears as an ENORMOUS COLLECTION OF commodities."
In other words, he REMOVED from social wealth all the goods that have a social form but aren't "commodities" (meaning, they aren't for sale). Then, throughout that entire massive work, he takes a PART for the WHOLE, pitching capitalism as a system where EVERYTHING CAN BE BOUGHT WITH MONEY, where the commodity form is the universal form of all labor products...

The problem here is that this "sterilization" successfully pulled the wool over everyone's eyes right from the start. And whoever missed the beginning—well, ask God—WHERE did they end up!?
hollowpilot9: You probably haven't grasped what a functional, harmonic system means, because a "fork" can only be a tool within a system, not a functional part of it. A functional part is always in interaction with all the pieces that make up a harmonic whole, and a fork isn't exactly the best example for that. A better example would be, say, a gear in a Swiss watch.
Your Marx example is a bit better, but that messy, bearded gentleman didn't realize that CAPITAL isn't just the result of human labor, but also the result of "THE COMPASS AND THE WIND," as Karl Sagan so brilliantly established! The Marxist concept of a "commodity" is total nonsense today because a COMMODITY HAS BECOME SOFTWARE, not just hardware... something Marx obviously had no clue about. It's like how many people don't realize that wealth is created by SINGING, not just by MINING!

It's still not being taught in schools, even though Walter Foster87 says: How can they not!? "What is possible to achieve partially is also possible to achieve in its entirety" (Aristotle).
But there's something else being hidden regarding philosophy and philosophers. Their goal isn't some pursuit of truth just for the sake of truth. That phrase is just plain stupidity anyway, because a human BEING HAS CERTAIN LIMITATIONS, so they only discover what they are capable of discovering.
The truth is that the search for truth is primarily done FOR THE SAKE OF MAN AND HUMAN SOCIETY. This includes the natural sciences—it's as much a necessity as the physical side of a person. But the essence of philosophy isn't found in reflection (God), nor in the obsessions of science, but in the PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH THE WORLD RESTS, because that world is MAN, and that applies to every single INDIVIDUAL. (When I die, literally—the whole world dies with me!)

hollowpilot9: They just don't have it because they lack the capacity to think—and honestly, it works both ways! AGCTGSATTCAG... you see, it doesn't just read from left to right; it reads from right to left too. It’s a pattern, a symmetry. And yet, they still aren't teaching us how to read like that in our schools, even though it’s basically baked into our everyday existence. Why is that?

I’m not exactly losing sleep over the masses—honestly, they’ve always been perfectly content with their "bread and circuses," haven't they? It's more the supposed "intellectual class" that gets under my skin. There’s something deeply unsettling about watching the intelligentsia stop leading and start mimicking the crowd... though, I suppose that just aligns perfectly with what everyone expects from them anyway.

hollowpilot9: What you’ve laid out there is basically a "disturbing snapshot of the modern world." It makes me wonder—why is intelligence so incredibly lazy when it comes to facing this blatant, widespread disregard for the common good? My take is that this supposed "crisis of intelligence" exists because it has retreated into its own microscopic bubble instead of engaging with the macro-level reality of life. These massive, sweeping shifts in our society catch the intellectual class so off guard that they can barely manage to report on what's actually happening, let alone make sense of it. So, isn't the real issue just a fundamental inability—a genuine lack of knowledge—to tackle today's actual problems? By the time these thinkers come up with a solution, the problem has already moved on, leaving their ideas obsolete and useless.
It’s not really about how we run things—the mechanics of the process aren't the core issue here. The real problem is that we haven't actually built a system modeled after direct democracy yet. Isn't that the whole point?
If history teaches us anything at all—and I suspect it does—it’s just that usurpers are constantly (so far, anyway) finding some shiny NEW way to keep the masses under their thumb. This whole concept of modern parliamentarism? It feels like a total coward's egg, really—just a thin shell hiding all those little 밑 subplots like dual citizenship, immunity, and that supposed "separation of powers" that everyone claims keeps things balanced. Is it actually balance, though, or just more layers to the game?

hollowpilot9: See, the problem really lies in the METHODOLOGY. Direct democracy doesn't actually exist, sure—but what’s even worse is the complete lack of actual communication "feedback." We don't have that two-way, multi-directional flow you see in biological organisms. Instead, you’ve got a standard newspaper editor acting as an anti-democratic filter—not to mention all the state bureaucrats, local officials, and those other filters we deal with daily. Until we develop some kind of meaningful, spiritual, and deeply pragmatic way of communicating, we won't have true democracy, unity, or freedom. The whole thing about subjugating individuals—or "the masses," if you prefer—only works because, within our social system, the individual is treated as an OBJECT rather than a SUBJECT of power. As long as people are viewed as subjects instead of collaborators; as long as the lowest-level worker is seen as a tool rather than a partner; as long as stupidity is prioritized over intelligence; and as long as a regular person isn't treated with the weight of a Pharaoh (the elite)... then any talk about democracy is just a farce.

Actually, I’d argue that power should be the primary subject of any philosopher's research—I mean, isn't power essentially the foundation of an organized society? If you look at it that way, a society working toward true justice—or freedom and equality, if we're talking about what makes sense for a productive community—builds its institutions and its authority for its own sake. It’s all about securing liberty and equality for every single member, right?
The fact that the government remains completely out of touch with the people—well, that isn't actually a failure of the administration at all (they don't even seem to grasp the concept, let alone the vocabulary)—it’s really a problem with the "people" themselves.

hollowpilot9. Not in any way, shape, or form. Power is just a label for social primitivism—it’s basically proof that we haven't actually evolved much as a society.
So, I guess that’s basically how it works—but let’s be real: an administration is just supposed to *administer*. When you start talking about the general application, the actual force, or the validity of laws—especially when we're dealing with things like denied rights, legal contradictions, or the enforcement of specific rulings—that isn't really the administration's job. That’s why we need to use the right terminology here—we have to talk about actual power.
By the way, you keep using the term "citizens" as if we’re all standing on level ground—but let’s be real, there’s no such thing as true equality among us. We aren't really "citizens" in that philosophical sense; we're just subjects of the state. There's a massive distinction there, isn't there?

hollowpilot9: There’s really no doubt about it—an administration actually administers—it's just a matter of figuring out how they do it and whose interests they're actually serving. Take the US federal government, for example; they have these internal protocols that basically mandate an official has to respond to every single piece of correspondence from a citizen. It's built into the system. But here? Well, you could practically call our bureaucracy a series of administrative black holes. Is anyone actually getting answers, or are we just shouting into the void?

Look, we can't exactly claim the academics are innocent in all of this. But honestly? Being exposed by the public is punishment enough. History is going to remember them for how easily—without a shred of scientific integrity or any sense of shame—they just swapped their "communist" outfits for "capitalist" ones.
Honestly, I’d structure your pyramid a little differently. The political thugs are at least taking the blame for this mess—mostly because, let’s face it, we clearly aren't capable of picking anyone better than them. Or maybe we just can't—for whatever reason—make a better choice? It's a question, really. Then you’ve got the academics and the "intellectuals" right under them, because they should have actually stepped up and done something about it... but they didn't. Aside from that recent shake-up over at Yale, anyway.

Continuation:
It’s all about the masses. Let's be real—they are the ones actually feeling the squeeze (not the academics or the intelligentsia, let's get that straight), they hold the actual keys to any election, and if you bother to listen to them in a bar or a coffee shop, you realize they aren't nearly as dim-witted as the pundits claim.
The real question, though, is why on earth would anyone vote against their own common sense and lived experience?
hollowpilot9: It isn't about whether intellectuals are innocent or guilty—it's about their obligation to act. Look, just like a cobbler is expected to actually fix a shoe rather than just write essays about leather, it is the duty of the academic and the intellectual to engage with the world. They shouldn't just sit in ivory towers; they need to work on the public good, from major existential crises down to the mundane stuff like the price of groceries. These political grifters are successful because they're smart enough to invent social rules—smart enough to manifest a political party designed solely to siphon off taxpayer money—and then they have the nerve to say, "Don't blame me, blame *them*, *they* are the thieves stealing your money, so vote for *me* to stop them." The sheer audacity of these political hacks is endless... and yet, the citizens just stay silent, look the other way, or pretend not to notice, effectively handing over the steering wheel to the crooks.
Walter Foster87: Sure, in a culture that recognizes it relies on creation, reproduces it, and enjoys its fruits. But how many of us have actually chosen that identity? How many truly understand *why* we respect the law, even when it's terrible, simply because the alternative—living without any rules at all—is much worse?
hollowpilot9: There you go again, prattling on about UPBRINGING! Where does that start, and where does creative development actually end? Certainly not in a dive bar or a nightclub!
Walter Foster87: Well, following the principle of the fulcrum and the lever... obviously, it happens indirectly. In a society, it happens through persuasion, suggestion, and—if necessary—deception.
That’s how they supposedly spread potatoes through France and the rest of Europe. Instead of giving lectures on nutrition, the French king allegedly piled up two massive heaps of potatoes, stationed guards nearby, and threatened death to anyone caught touching them. Of course, he told the guards to "sleep" and "see nothing," so—as the story goes—both piles vanished by the next morning.
(I suppose Parisians can be just as stubborn as people in the South, or maybe just as defiant as folks in the Midwest...)

hollowpilot9: Great point, Walter Foster87, but go ask ten of your acquaintances and you'll see they haven't the slightest clue how the levers and fulcrums that build the foundation of the world actually function. But my question is deeper and broader because it involves Archimedes and his (ABSOLUTE) fixed point—the one that, if found, could move the Earth! However, the transformation of force works differently here, in a way that escapes both philosophy and science. Traditional theories suggest force builds up by accumulating units of power, but with a lever, force is created by the relationship between the arm and the load—and the arm itself isn't the force!
Walter Foster87: Let’s look at it this way. Force has a very specific meaning today. After all, it was force alone that affirmed and maintained parliamentarism, imposing it upon the world as the standard DEMOCRATIC (!?) system.
But even such a system and such force are merely "for the era." The reason they exist right now is something far more sublime and magnificent than the systems themselves.
In practical terms, there’s a certain blending of things, but in the grand historical process, intelligence eventually drives force, and in the end, there’s no doubt which one will end up in the driver's seat.

hollowpilot9: You make valid points, but it isn't ENOUGH to grasp the ROLE OF FORCE in existence and human society. My hesitation and "uncertainty" come from the fact that force has an incredibly dual nature: it is simultaneously CONSTRUCTIVE and DESTRUCTIVE. Forces, large and small, are EVERYWHERE, and the question is which face they will show. Very few people realize force has two sides—like when you're driving a car. You usually don't learn about its second, destructive side until it's TOO LATE OR NEVER.

Walter Foster87: Humans are strange creatures. If all their desires were met and they had no more tasks to perform, they’d die of boredom (if they didn't finish themselves off first). Besides, optimism provides the fundamental sense of purpose to everything. Pessimism might be a temporary state, or perhaps a symptom of opportunism (which is a form of critical thinking that I don't think is as useless as people usually assume), but it cannot be a PERMANENT VALUE. That makes it extremely dangerous. By the way, supposed followers of Marx practiced a PESSIMISTIC IDEOLOGY—following every period of growth and wealth creation, there was always the collapse of social relations and war!

hollowpilot9: Humans are such strange creatures, aren't we? We're told we're made "in the image and likeness of our creator," yet the statistical number of ways that could actually manifest is just... massive.

Walter Foster87: It’s obvious—they’ve managed to force themselves on us. But what have we actually done about it? Or do we just sit here whining on this forum, or gossiping over coffee and at the dinner table?

Granted, experience usually shows there isn't much you can do. But that's only because any attempts are isolated—just specific districts, counties, or small towns. The whole system is rigged to be a COMPETITION OVER WHO HAS THE MOST CASH AND THE BIGGEST FINANCIERS rather than an ACTUAL CLASH OF IDEAS...
But, look, if suddenly in every single town, every city, every county, and every district across
we saw candidate lists stepping into the light with SIMILAR programs—even just five or six core points—only then could we honestly judge how much of this mess is actually our own fault.

hollowpilot9: They’ll keep forcing their way in because—well, as you keep saying, RADE, RADE, RADE—while we’re busy babbling away in cafes and online forums. In one of those chatty little cafes once, someone actually asked me what my model for a local municipality would look like. So, I laid it out for them:
For mayor, ONLY successful, respected individuals could run—people with proven business track records, plus cultural, intellectual, and social contributions. Basically, no political party members allowed! From maybe 1, 2, 5, or even 10 such candidates, the citizens would choose one person to receive a MANDATE to act as the municipality's social MANAGER for four years. My first day on the job would start by asking the local administration for a curriculum vitae for every single citizen—which, of course, they wouldn't have. If they didn't, they'd have to build them from scratch. Then, I'd pick 3 to 5 distinguished locals to serve as advisors. I'd ask them to use those CVs to select the 30 most capable citizens based on industries vital to the town. Once they proposed names, I'd call those 30 people in and explain my concept of a mandate (not a "rule"). If they bought in, I'd propose a management team of, say, 12 people assigned to specific roles. Each would get the authority to handpick their own sector's staff, creating a municipal team to run things for the next four years. That team would then present itself to the public along with its program for the term. Everyone in that cafe agreed with the concept, but it’s impossible to pull off because of all the legal red tape cooked up by the "nobodies." One of our local leaders was thrilled with the idea and wanted to publish it in one of our newspapers. The editor-in-chief loved it too, but the political columnist tossed the whole thing in the trash because he belongs to the same clique as those "nobodies." And that's it. That's why we have what we have.

hollowpilot9 said:Here’s my take on what real perception looks like: when it comes down to things like justice, equality, freedom, and the Truth—don't waste time asking questions—just get out there and WORK, WORK, WORK!

Got it! I'm ready to go. Just send over the text you want me to rework, and I'll get to work making it sound like a natural, upbeat American voice while following all those specific substitution rules. Standing by!

hollowpilot9 said:I totally see where you're coming from, but honestly—how are we even supposed to get anything done, work, work, work if we don't actually know the Truth? Just look at those Western humanists and how much effort they poured into their work... I mean, they worked so hard! But in the end, there isn't even a tiny trace of that humanism left. Why do you think that is? It’s because they didn't truly grasp the Truth! And I guess the same thing is happening all over again today.

The Truth is—it’s all about the human being. I guess you could say that everything we achieve is ultimately tied to what makes us human, and since our own nature acts as this massive, unbreakable boundary, it really does set the ultimate limit on how much we can actually perceive or understand.
That’s just how the Truth is—it isn't some kind of discovery you stumble upon!
Can we honestly say that—as conscious beings and all—we’re just that clueless? I mean, maybe we're actually so dim-witted that we don't have the slightest clue about SEBI itself? It's kind of a wild thought, isn't it?
Of course not!
See, that’s where we run into this massive hypocrisy—it's like we fall into this trap of claiming something is "universally accepted" (which, honestly, I think might be the most dangerous phrase in all of philosophy and science!) to define what a human being is. But then, on the flip side, you have people—including ourselves, if we're being totally honest—who view humanity in a million different ways. One person sees us as purely rational, another as driven by sheer will, someone else thinks we're soulful, and yet another might see us as just a chaotic mess of impulses... it's all over the place!

So, this is basically where the Jehovah's Witnesses tend to barge in!
They just won't stop blowing their trumpets about how absolutely phenomenal life would be if we all just bowed down to some divine laws—as if that's the magic fix for everything!
Alright—so I told them straight up: if we’re actually going to make this work, you have to lay out those laws for us first. And here’s the kicker—those laws *have* to be robust enough to handle the entire state of society at once. We need something that keeps everything running smoothly—you know, without all those constant hiccups and glitches—on a continuous basis. Otherwise, honestly? It’s just a bunch of empty talk.

But hey, let's take a look at their motto—you know, through the lens of the actual Truth!

A rational being—someone who actually uses their head—is going to build their own set of principles and laws based on Reason as the ultimate absolute. Because of that, they’re almost certainly going to run into some friction—maybe even outright hostility—with anyone else who isn't playing by those same rules. I mean, whether it's clashes over politics, religion, social status, or even race, there's going to be this underlying conflict with any other human beings who don't share that same commitment to logic. It’s just how things seem to work, I guess!

The exact same thing is going to happen—even if they try to build their own little community (you know, that "perfect" life)—when you consider those people who go around preaching a completely different Truth about who they really are!

Look—it’s not exactly a sin to be mistaken sometimes, right? We all get things wrong! But I truly feel like the real sin is hiding behind those little compromises of ignorance—you know, just pretending we don't know better. If we do that, we end up handing over control of ourselves and our entire society to nothing but charlatans and fools—people who are going to drive the whole community toward a total collapse anyway, all while failing to produce a single meaningful result. It's just... well, it's a mess!

On the flip side—and I really think this is where things get interesting—people who are actually united by a shared hunger for the Truth will end up respecting one another's right to chase happiness through all those different global paths—at least for as long as certain "experiments" are being led and championed by their supporters!

Nowadays, we're seeing all these half-baked experiments being rolled out—you know, things like lightened sentences for murder, robbery, or gun misuse—but honestly, they seem to be doing it without any real goal or coherent program in mind. It’s actually happening in the worst way possible—by basically just putting pressure on the public!
I mean, let’s be real—the goal for those in power was never actually about mastering themselves or taking control of their own lives—it was more about subduing the Church and living off its resources instead!

So, I was thinking—just a thought, really—that if everyone who is actually reasonable, willing, soulful, or just plain smart... plus all those other folks who have somehow finally RECOGNIZED THEIR OWN IDENTITY (which is a huge step, right?), then had to develop some kind of vision for how we should live to truly validate ourselves as human beings... well, then things would change! If all those groups, both individually and together, stood up against the improvisers and the usurpers, they could empower themselves and all of humanity to take massive leaps forward—straight toward the Truth.

Even if every single project—all those big ideas we've been chasing—were to fall apart, wouldn't a system like that actually play right into the hands of the usurpers? I mean, think about it! Wouldn't their failure just hand all those "rebels without a cause" back to the establishment on a silver platter? It would basically prove all those "Doubting Thomases" right, wouldn't it? They'd get to claim that their spontaneous, unorganized way of doing things is superior, and that all our grand ideas are dead in the water and deserve to stay that way. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it feels like a trap!

But, honestly, despite all those big-picture idealists out there—I’m just not hearing the usual slogans anymore. You know, the ones like, "We need a Constitutional Convention," or "We want a true three-branch system of government," or "Let's strengthen local self-governance." I guess people aren't even shouting for that right to autonomy—you know, that essential freedom that actually lets us pursue a happy life on our own terms. It's just... quiet. Maybe things have shifted?

That’s why I keep saying you have to actually WORK, WORK, — because, let's be honest, just talking in circles isn't going to get you any results!

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, honestly—philosophy just isn't really philosophy without some kind of pursuit of the Absolute. I guess saying that everything in philosophy is purely relative is just... well, it's not exactly the Truth!

So, here we go again—back to that classic showdown between theism (where the Absolute definitely exists) and atheism (or if those folks prefer the term—philosophical atheism—where the Absolute doesn't exist *a priori*). It’s one of those weird paradoxes where, *a posteriori*, it somehow both exists and doesn't exist at the very same time!
So, that’s why I think philosophical atheism works this way—everything feels a bit relative, I guess—but it still isn't actually stripped of the concept of NON-EXISTENCE!

hollowpilot9 said:I honestly feel like relativism in philosophy has basically left the whole field begging for scraps—it’s almost like we've hit rock bottom. I guess it happened because the idea of an absolute God was essentially killed off, wasn't it? Instead of actually celebrating the human experience, we just ended up embracing the relativism found in physics. It feels like we traded one certainty for another, though maybe that's just how things go!

I guess the kind of relativism you’re talking about is probably that blind version used by those "dialecticians"—you know, the ones who just reflexively shut down any idea of an Absolute? It feels like they start from this position they don't even fully grasp themselves—that whole "everything is constantly changing" or *Panta rei* vibe. It’s almost like they’re stuck in a loop of denying anything permanent before they even try to understand it!
Well, if everything is constantly shifting, then I guess it stands to reason that the Whole itself is changing—you know? Which would mean the Whole is essentially Totality and the Absolute... maybe!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you might not have quite grasped what a functional harmonic system actually entails—and honestly, that example from Marx you brought up? It’s already a bit off. That messy, bearded gentleman didn't realize that capital isn't just some byproduct of human labor; it's also a result of "the compass and the wind," as Carl Sagan so brilliantly pointed out! To me, the whole Marxist concept of "commodity" feels like total nonsense in today's world—mostly because commodities have evolved into software rather than just hardware... something Marx, of course, wouldn't have had any clue about!

Unfortunately, if you actually dig into the analysis, it turns out the old bearded guy DID know about other sources of value—and other types of commodities too—including, most likely, unfree labor. His intellectual mentor, Hegel, actually spent quite a bit of time on this topic, even if he didn't explicitly call out that specific social structure by name. He definitely shouted about it from the rooftops, though—mostly through his various deep dives and conclusions regarding property and ownership!
Look, I really don't buy the idea that students know less than their teachers—that just doesn't sit right with me! And honestly? I’m not buying that fairy tale about Marx being unfamiliar with Schopenhauer's work either. If you ask me, I think that whole story was probably just cooked up to hide the fact that Marx was actually using eristic dialectics in his own writings. Just a thought!

hollowpilot9 said:So, why does intelligence seem so... I don't know, almost indifferent to this massive wave of irresponsibility regarding the common good? It’s such a weird phenomenon! Personally, I’ve been thinking that maybe the whole "crisis of intelligence" we're seeing is because it has become too hyper-focused on the micro-level—you know, all those tiny, granular details—instead of looking at the macro-world of actual life. It’s like, these huge macro-phenomena and massive societal shifts catch intelligence totally off guard! It reaches a point where it can barely even process the report of what’s changing, let alone actually figure out how to interpret it. So, if you ask me—and I could be wrong here—the real issue is just an inability and a fundamental lack of knowledge within our intellectual circles to actually tackle the problems of today. It’s just a bit overwhelming, I guess!

That’s more or less it—though I guess you’ve lumped together those who doubt their own mental faculties (and perceptions) with the folks who only climbed the intellectual ladder just to secure their parents' old seats at the banquet tables and corporate boardrooms.

hollowpilot9 said:... The issue is also about the METHOD, because direct democracy doesn't exist; but what’s even worse is that there’s no communicative "FEEDBACK," no two-way or multi-directional communication like we see in bio-organisms. ...

Direct democracy doesn't exist, but why is that!?
Growing up here, they taught us this total nonsense—that it's impossible because all of us (say, 330 million people) can't just gather in one spot to debate and reach a consensus.
But that critique doesn't explain this twisted version of governance by "the chosen few," where the massive funding of major party interests is fueled by the Federal Reserve, effectively allowing them to tyrannize the interests of smaller parties and independent groups—who usually have to scrape by on the personal budgets of a few people on their ticket.

You have to see it this way: the American political landscape is oriented anti-democratically (which, honestly, lines up pretty well with the election results), and even our parliamentary style was embraced not because it’s some global gold standard, but because it could no longer sustain a single, unified voice.
Just look at how much people around you will drone on about "the two major parties." I mean—has the mainstream media brainwashed them, or do they just lack brains entirely, or maybe they're just naturally anti-democratic? Because in a true democracy, ANY significant interest (or idea) that manages to gain a proportional share of voter support MUST be represented within the government.
There isn't, for instance, any logical basis to systematically prevent an idea (or interest) supported by 1% or more of the voters from entering a body of 100 representatives, right!?

hollowpilot9 said:... In no circumstances! Government is a label and expression of social primitivism and proof of a very low level of social evolution.
...

Well, okay. Let’s imagine this instead. We want—much like the ancient Greeks—to be ruled by Law rather than by men. Because a man might "get up on the wrong side of the bed" one day, or his friends and family might try to sway him, or he might have a lapse in judgment, or lose focus...
So, if we don't want to go the "Methuselah" route, let's follow the path of the French Revolution, which aimed for a Constitution as a law to protect the people from any government and its abuses.

WHO WILL CREATE THAT LAW AND HOW?
And would you even call such a body a "government" body? Would you accept that neither its actions nor its position are actually expressions of social primitivism...?
If so, then you really need to reorganize your whole understanding of what government means.

hollowpilot9 said:...
There's no doubt that an administration administers; it's just a question of how and for whose benefit. For example, American administrations—and several others—have internal regulations that MANDATE that an official must respond to every citizen's letter!

Watch out, though—I believe Americans were the first to introduce the concept of dual citizenship. Based on that, there aren't even "citizens" in the US. There are only those who *think* they are American citizens, and those who KNOW they are something else entirely—namely, residents of the United States.

hollowpilot9 says:
...

hollowpilot9 said:The sheer audacity of these political hacks is just endless—honestly! And what do we do? We just stay quiet, or maybe we look the other way, which I guess just gives them all the room they need to run the show. It’s like we're handing them the keys to the kingdom by staying silent!

And that’s really all there is to it! I mean, why on earth are people who haven't built up any immunity—and definitely don't hold some foreign citizenship—putting themselves through all that stress? It just doesn't make sense, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s great that you’re writing this—really, I think it's wonderful—but I guess it just isn't quite enough to truly grasp the role that force plays in our existence and in human society as a whole.

Well, you could look at it this way—to protect the production and ensure that everything stayed true to the original prototype, people first had to work together—really put their heads together—to defend that entire process. They had to guard it against wild animals and, I guess, those lingering members from the old pack who just hadn't quite "woken up" to what was actually happening yet!

hollowpilot9 said:...
I guess my hesitation—and that sense of "uncertainty" in my statement—really comes down to one thing: power is such a double-edged sword! It’s honestly wild how it can be both incredibly constructive and totally destructive at the exact same time. Whether we're talking about small-scale influences or the massive forces at play, power is pretty much everywhere—it's just a matter of which face it decides to show us today!

I honestly think that force is just... well, force—but that whole bit you mentioned about how different levels of quality and results manifest? I guess that actually belongs to whatever is *driving* the force, or maybe even deeper, to whatever sits behind that movement as the actual cause!

hollowpilot9 said:Humans are such strange creatures—I mean, if we really are made "in the image and likeness of our Creator," then the sheer math of it is just mind-blowing! The statistical number of possible ways those traits could manifest is absolutely massive—it’s almost hard to wrap your head around, I guess!

That's true—though, if everything goes according to plan, there’s really only ONE winning combination!

hollowpilot9 said:hollowpilot9: They’re going to keep forcing their way in—because, like RADE keeps saying—RADE, RADE, RADE! While we're all just sitting around chatting in cafes or rambling away on internet forums, they're making moves. I was actually at one of those local coffee shops recently, and someone asked me what my model for running a small town would look like. So, I laid out my thoughts for them like this:
I truly believe that only successful, highly respected individuals—people with proven track records in business and significant cultural or intellectual contributions to society—should be eligible to run for Mayor. Honestly, we shouldn't have any political party members running at all! In my vision, citizens would choose from a pool of maybe 1, 2, 5, or even 10 such candidates, and then select one person to serve a four-year mandate as the municipal manager. If I were to step into the job, my very first day would involve asking the local administration to provide me with a full curriculum vitae for every single citizen—which, of course, they don't have! If those files don't exist, the city should probably start building them. From there, I’d pick 3 to 5 distinguished experts to serve as my advisors for the next steps. I’d ask them to use those CVs to identify the 30 most capable citizens based on specific industries vital to our city. Once they made their suggestions, I’d invite those 30 people over to present my concept—which is really about management, not "ruling." If they bought into the idea, I’d propose a leadership team of, say, 12 people assigned to specific functions. Each person would then have the authority to hand-pick their own sector's team, creating a specialized municipal crew to manage everything for the next four years. This entire team would then present themselves to the public, along with a clear program for their term. Everyone I talked to agreed with this concept—it makes so much sense! But, unfortunately, it’s impossible to implement because of all the legal red tape dreamed up by the "political hacks" in charge. I actually spoke with a very prominent community leader who was absolutely thrilled with this model and wanted to publish it in one of our local newspapers. Even the Editor-in-Chief was totally on board! But then, the political columnist—who is part of that same circle of "hacks"—just tossed the whole thing in the trash. And well, that’s pretty much why things are the way they are today.

So... yeah, that’s kind of the issue. I mean—it doesn't really feel worth my time to seriously obsess over local elections for mayor or county officials until we actually GAIN THE RIGHT TO VOTE for things like municipal court judges or police chiefs, you know?

Walter Foster87: Here’s the thing—it all comes down to the human being. Since everything we actually *do* is driven by what makes us who we are, our own inherent capacities act as this insurmountable boundary, a sort of ceiling on our ability to truly perceive anything.
The Truth is both exactly what it is and, simultaneously, completely unknown.
Can we honestly say that we—as conscious beings—are so dim-witted that we don't know a single thing, or that we have absolutely no concept of ourselves?
Of course not.
But then, we fall into this hypocritical trap where we claim something is "common knowledge"—which is probably the most criminal phrase in all of philosophy and science—to define what a human is. Yet, at the same time, we can't decide if a person (including ourselves) is this or that—whether we are rational, intellectual, willful, soulful, or just a chaotic mess... you get the idea.

And this is exactly where the "Jehovah's Witnesses" come crashing in.
They spend all their time blaring about how wonderful life would be if we all just bowed down to some divine set of laws.

hollowpilot9: I decided to take a different route in my search for the Truth—something more anti-Jehovah, if you will—because I wasn't particularly interested in their specific interpretation of divine law (their leaders usually have the Bible memorized word-for-word anyway). My primary interest was whether there exists a UNIVERSAL TRUTH that encompasses all truths, including those of Jehovah. In a sense, I dove into merging the profane with the sacred, joining heaven and earth, as one gentleman once put it. Most people think that's impossible, but I think it's entirely doable! Once, I actually had an encounter with a Jehovah's Witness leader who was incredibly slick with his Bible quotes, but it quickly became obvious that he didn't have the slightest clue who or what Jehovah actually is.
That case perfectly illustrates how easy it is to parrot memorized text, while grasping the core thought behind the text—the very thing everything revolves around—is incredibly difficult. If the central thought is Jehovah or the Christian God, and we can't actually MAP out that thought, then the only RIGHT move is to go "mining" and look at what the ancient peoples thought: the Chinese, Indians, Incas, Aztecs, Assyrians, Egyptians, Jews, Christians, Muslims, Europeans, and so on... When you sift through all of that, you find the same interpretations of God, cosmology, humanity, and Truth, expressed through the methodologies of their respective eras. Since these truths are often marginalized or dismissed as mere "mysticism," I looked to see if these "MYSTICAL" truths exist within modern science—doing something similar to what Capra did with Eastern "mysticism." And, naturally, the result was the same: I found that ancient ideas and symbols regarding Jehovah and God are present in modern science as well. Given that most people are tuned to intellectual conformity and rote learning, it's easy to see why this merging of the profane and sacred, of heaven and earth, is easily brushed off as just some nonsense from hollowpilot9, while total lies are sold off as truth. To me, that's the heart of the problem with our modern intellectual landscape: it's overwhelmingly conformist, trendy, and extremely subjective.
Based on those subjective views, MAN is seen as this terrifyingly complex and tangled natural or divine creation, because that fits the narrative for all sorts of mystics. But I start from the FACT that a human is a very simple bio-sexual creature that perceives and interprets itself falsely because it isn't able to SEE ITSELF—except in a mirror or indirectly through another person. Only when the MIND takes action and turns toward the internal workings of the HUMAN—something people are either reluctant to do or simply don't know how to do, since they rarely investigate themselves biologically or structurally—does religious, scientific, philosophical, and artistic Truth emerge, because it is UNIVERSAL. After such a structurally concrete encounter with "JEHOVAH," everything becomes TRANSPARENT—so transparent that every intention and identity is visible in advance, because we are dealing with the phenomenon of UNIVERSAL TRUTH, an image, a formula, or a definition. Painting only the "dark side of the coin" isn't correct or truthful, because it's certain there is also a "white side." Since religion has "stuck" itself to the white side of the coin despite wearing BLACK clothing, and the secular MIND has stuck itself to the black side despite wearing WHITE clothing, I'M NOT "WRONG"—rather, it's the flawed phenomenology of dividing the world into black and white complementary entities that appear both polaristically divided and polaristically united, which is the essence of human existence and all other simplicities. So, the fundamental philosophical question for me is: toward which side of the coin does man and humanity gravitate—the black, the white, or both?? We already have plenty of PHENOMENA arguing that secular culture is moving toward the BLACK side of the coin, which seems to support the thesis that we are sinking further into a civilization of night rather than day. It looks credible and true to me. Light obviously tends toward a "civilization of night," evidenced by all kinds of nocturnal mass attractions, parties, and orgies. So, whether we like it or not, the fact remains: WHILE WE SLEEP, THEY—the "night birds"—are working. WHEN WE WAKE UP, WE FIND WE'VE BEEN ROBBED, DECEIVED, OR OPPRESSED. Therefore, my thesis is that an INVERSION IS NECESSARY. The "night birds" need to start working, and WE (the philosophers) should head into the "nightlife" so we can get better acquainted with the hookers, the hustlers, the lesbians, the homosexuals, the gamblers, the criminals, the thieves, and all the other "night birds" who WORK while WE sleep. Without that, no matter how hard we work, there is no rational realization or benefit, because while WE are working, the "night birds" are sleeping!!?

So, here we go again—back to the same old collision between theism (the idea that an Absolute actually exists) and atheism (or if the non-believers prefer to get fancy with it, "philosophical atheism," which claims the Absolute doesn't exist *a priori*, yet somehow ends up being both existent and non-existent *a posteriori* at the exact same time). Isn't that just grand?
So, that’s why philosophical atheism works the way it does—everything is relative, sure, but it isn't exactly devoid of the concept of NON-EXISTENCE, is it?

hollowpilot9: Philosophical atheism isn't actually a philosophy—it’s just a misguided worldview held by certain atheist thinkers. Philosophy itself is something much broader, deeper, and more encompassing than mere atheism. It relies on the idea that things both exist and do not exist simultaneously—you know, that quantum, non-linear way of perceiving the world. We seem to agree on that part, don't we? But you can't really say the same for the relative, because the relative only ever *exists*. If you can wrap your head around that contradiction, it becomes much easier to embrace both the relative and the absolute within philosophy—which is exactly what makes it actual philosophy. Leaving only the relative to the sciences, where it belongs. Philosophers and philosophy itself ought to be lovers of the absolute, not the relative; lovers of the sacred rather than the profane; lovers of the infinite, rather than the finite; and lovers of Man—with a capital M—rather than just some random individual.

The kind of relativism you’re bringing up—it's probably just that blind version peddled by those "dialecticians" who basically reject any idea of an Absolute from the jump. They seem to start from this shaky ground they don't even fully grasp themselves—you know, that whole "everything is constantly changing" or *Panta rei* bit. It’s all very circular, isn't it?
I mean, if everything is constantly shifting, then it’s pretty obvious that "Everything" itself is in flux. Which would make the Whole—the Totality, the Absolute—part of that change too. Or is it? Does the foundation move along with the building, or does it just stay put while everything else slides around it? It’s a bit of a head-scratcher, really.
I mean, I’m thinking of them, sure—but I’m also thinking about that massive crowd of incompetents out there who can do nothing more than parrot whatever Einstein or Marx said, or some random philosophy professor... Relativism always ends up acting like a barricade—a total roadblock preventing us from actually reaching the Truth. And without that, philosophy is basically in a coma. You can only breathe life back into it through the Absolute, not through this relative nonsense that has left the whole field begging for scraps on the street.

Unfortunately, if you actually look at the data, the analysis tells a different story—namely, that the old bearded philosopher definitely knew about other sources of value, and likely other forms of commodities too... maybe even non-labor-based ones. His spiritual mentor—Hegel—actually dedicated quite a bit of space to this exact idea, even if he didn't explicitly label that specific social form of things by name. But he certainly shouted about it from the rooftops through all his deep dives into property and ownership!
Look, I don't buy the idea that students know less than their teachers—that just doesn't track for me. It’s a bit like that whole fairy tale about how Marx supposedly had no clue what Schopenhauer was writing; if you ask me, that story was probably cooked up just to gloss over the way Marx used eristic dialectics in his own work. Why would anyone bother making up a lie like that? It feels a little too convenient, doesn't it?

hollowpilot9: I probably don't know if Marx actually realized it, but he went after Diogenes—or someone like that—pretty viciously, essentially tossing him to the fringes of philosophy. And yet, from a modern perspective, this self-taught philosopher arguably thought and wrote better than the great Marx himself? I suspect Marx just didn't see it coming. I mean, as a supposedly massive economist, he argued that gold is valuable because it requires so much actual human labor to mine, which is widely considered total nonsense today, isn't it? By that same logic, he couldn't have known that some rock band, just by thrashing electric guitars and jumping around on stages, would end up making more dollars in ten years than the entire American working class earned while he was "passionately" scribbling away *Das Kapital*. But honestly, that’s beside the point. The real issue—the thing we can't seem to wrap our heads around—is our inability to fix the relationship between private capital and social capital (read: State-run capitalism). We lack a mechanism to distinguish between past labor, which creates wealth *today*, and current living labor, which is tiny compared to the sheer volume of accumulated past labor that continues to drive the economy in every sense. So, it’s no wonder we’re shocked when someone becomes a billionaire overnight just by capturing the productive value of all that past labor, while the people who only earn based on their own current labor are left scraping by. That right there is the genesis of all the economic and political injustices that nobody talks about—or maybe they just don't want to.

That’s more or less it—except you’ve basically lumped everyone together. You’ve got the folks who actually doubt their own mental capacity—you know, the ones questioning their own perceptions—mixed up with the crowd that only climbed the intellectual ladder so they could secure a cushy seat at the banquet table, just like their fathers did. Is it really the same thing? Not quite.
hollowpilot9: Fair point, really—but I’m not trying to paint everyone with the same brush here. I'm just pointing out what the dominant trend seems to be. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of brilliant, wonderful people working in academia and the intellectual circles out there... it’s more about the specific dynamic between the two groups, isn't it? Most academics and intellectuals have basically checked out long ago—they're just sleepwalking through life at this point.

Nastavak:

Walter Foster87: Direct democracy doesn't actually exist—but why is that? Seriously, why?
They taught us that nonsense too—treating us like children, really—under the ridiculous pretext that we can’t all just gather in one place, say, downtown Chicago or something, to have an actual discussion and reach a consensus. As if 330 million people couldn't just get together and figure things out? It's a bit much, isn't it?
But look—even if you take all that criticism into account, it still doesn't explain how we ended up with this absolute disaster of a government. We’re talking about a bunch of "chosen" elites who basically use Federal Reserve money to bankroll the interests of the major political parties... which, let's be honest, is just a way to more effectively crush anyone representing smaller factions or independent groups. Those guys? They usually end up footing the bill themselves out of their own pockets. It's a rigged system, isn't it?
That’s really how you have to look at it—the way the American political landscape leans against democratic ideals is pretty clear, if you actually bother to look at the election results. It's right there in the numbers. And honestly, the shift toward parliamentarism? That wasn't some grand ideological choice because it's the "gold standard" system. It was more of a necessity—a move made because they simply couldn't maintain a one-party rule anymore.
Just look at how much they’re going to squawk about "two major parties"—it’s predictable, really. Honestly, you have to wonder—have these establishment journalists completely lost their minds? Or maybe they just don't have any brains to begin with? Or, more likely, they’re just naturally anti-democratic by design. Because let’s be real—in a true democracy, any significant interest or idea that manages to pull a decent chunk of voter support actually deserves a seat at the table within the government. It’s not that complicated, is it?
So, there’s basically zero foundation for it—no systemic way to stop an idea from creeping into the minds of a hundred representatives if it happens to be backed by just one or more percent of the voters. I mean, how do you even begin to design a system that prevents a small minority interest from infiltrating the legislative process? It's almost impossible, right?

hollowpilot9: I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t shake the feeling that the real culprit here is the West's entire worldview—this deep-seated perspective that basically asks: Why is Jesus looking so somber while Buddha is just sitting there smiling? We have this habit of treating an Emperor like a god, a King like God, or even a President like some divine entity. Whether it’s Harry or Serge, we turn people into idols... and honestly, that seems to be the root of the idiocy you're talking about. If you want to boil it down, the cause is just plain stupidity—which, unfortunately, still seems to be running the show. The real question is: what are we actually supposed to do to make people smart—or "intellectual," as you put it? In my view, helping people develop actual intelligence should be the primary mission for any modern intellectual, rather than just recycling the same old nonsense from the past and present.
If you want to look at our political democracy, it really says everything you need to know about the caliber of representatives we’re stuck with in this country. If this is supposed to be the gold standard—if this is what "functioning" looks like—then I guess I’m just a sad guy living in a democracy where the top leaders and high-ranking officials bicker like they’re working at some local corner grocery store. Seriously, is this really the best we can do?

Alright, let’s look at this from another angle. Imagine we actually wanted to follow the old Greek ideal—you know, the idea that we shouldn't be ruled by some guy, but by the Law itself. It just makes sense when you think about it. I mean, humans are famously unpredictable, right? One day a leader simply wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. The next, he’s being swayed by his buddies, his family, or whoever happens to be in his inner circle. Then there’s the third scenario where he just has a momentary lapse in judgment or logic—we've all been there—and by the fourth time, maybe his focus just isn't what it used to be... why gamble on that?
Well, if we aren't going to go the "Methuselah" route, then let’s just look at the French Revolution—you know, the one that actually tried to establish a Constitution as the ultimate rule of law to protect the people from any kind of government overreach or abuse of power.

So, who exactly is going to pass this thing—and more importantly, how does that even work? Is anyone actually pulling the strings here, or are we all just watching the gears turn without knowing who’s turning them?
Would you actually call that entity the "body of power" and just accept that neither its existence nor its actions—nor even its position—are really anything more than markers of social primitivism? Or are we still pretending otherwise?
If that’s actually how you see things—then honestly, you might need to take a long, hard look at your entire concept of power.

hollowpilot9: It’s funny how our media handles terminology—when they talk about the USA, they refer to the "federal administration," but when they talk about things here at home, they suddenly pivot to using the word "Government." Honestly, I don't get it, and frankly, I don't want to. To me, that concept of "The Government" feels like it’s designed to limit freedom; it implies something looming "above" us. Why don't we just call it the federal administration, or maybe state management—the kind of management that runs the country much like a CEO manages General Motors? I mean, what’s actually the difference between managing a workforce of a million people at a General Motors plant and managing the citizens of a nation? They’re all just people, right? In my view, unless running a country becomes a legitimate, professional career—much like the professional job of managing a massive corporation—we aren't going to see any real political progress. We see this concept of autopoiesis—self-creation, for those who aren't familiar—developing within modern companies all the time. Well, shouldn't we be discovering and developing autopoiesis within society and the state as well? In a truly autopoietic society, there wouldn't be any room for "The Government" or those in power, no matter how many democratic pretenses they try to wrap themselves in.

Look, I’m pretty sure Americans were actually the first ones to roll out this whole dual citizenship concept. And if you follow that logic to its natural conclusion—which, let's face it, isn't hard to do—it means actual citizens don't even exist in the States anymore. Instead, you just have two groups: those who merely "think" they’re American citizens, and then there are the ones who actually KNOW they are something else entirely—true citizens of America.

hollowpilot9: Alright, we’re thinking along the same lines—we're talking about the HUMAN being!

Walter Foster87: Well, you could look at it this way. In order to protect production and ensure the prototype of the primal organism actually works, people first had to defend that entire process with JOINT EFFORT—protecting it from wild animals and those leftover members of the old pack who haven't quite "realized" what's happening yet.
hollowpilot9: I’m more focused on THAT POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE FORCE, even when it manifests as a component of human society. Those forces stay invisible until you slam your fist into a wall—or when someone else decides to hit you in the head with a "wall."

Walter Foster87: I think force is just force; what you’re describing—the varying quality of its expression and results—actually belongs to WHATEVER DRIVES THAT FORCE, or whatever stands behind the action as the underlying CAUSE.

hollowpilot9: No, I’m talking about the equivalence of constructive and destructive force, much like the equivalence of mass and energy. They both look and act like force, but they are fundamentally OPPOSITE, which makes them distinct rather than identical. One is a negative force, the other is positive. They only reach neutrality at the center, in a unified state—but does philosophy even bother to tackle that?

Walter Foster87: True, though—judging by everything—there is ONLY ONE COMBINATION that actually works.

hollowpilot9: WORTH REMEMBERING!

Walter Foster87: Right... well, there's the rub. Because, for instance—I don't see much point in seriously obsessing over mayoral or gubernatorial elections until we actually GAIN THE RIGHT TO ELECT local judges or police chiefs.

hollowpilot9: That really highlights how far we still are from an immediate, or as I like to call it, a biodemocracy. It shows just how much of our current democratic model is nothing more than a farce.

Let's have a little chat about LOGOS when we think, talk, philosophize, or put forward theories. Which Logos are you using when you think—when you philosophize? Is it Greek, or something else entirely? And finally, do you have any actual IDEAS regarding the Truth? What does Truth mean to you?
I suggest we return to Truth (assuming it exists) as the central concept of philosophy.

hollowpilot9 said:>
... And that whole situation really just goes to show how easy it is to parrot some memorized text, while actually grasping the core idea that everything revolves around is—well, that’s much harder!

That's actually a fundamental part of both Cicero's and Kant's insights—though, I guess, the only "difference" is that we're talking about pure philosophy with Kant, whereas Cicero blends philosophy with the study of humanity. From what I gather, those two believed the only real distinction is whether a philosopher realizes that their entire system—all their specific relations, laws, and secondary principles—actually springs from and circles back to one single, central Principle. Everything else is just a derivation of that one thing...

hollowpilot9 said:>
...
Based on those kinds of subjective views, a HUMAN being becomes this incredibly complex, tangled mess of a natural or divine creation—which, let's face it, is exactly what all sorts of mystics want to hear. Personally, I start from the FACT that a human is actually a very straightforward biosexual creature who just misinterprets itself because it can't truly SEE itself, except through a mirror or indirectly through another person. It's only when the MIND actually kicks into gear and turns inward toward the HUMAN essence—something people are either reluctant to do or just don't know how to do (since they rarely explore themselves biologically or structurally)—that religious, scientific, philosophical, and artistic Truth finally emerges, simply because it is UNIVERSAL.

Obviously, the paths aren't identical—because turning inward is ultimately what leads us to the essence, the core, the very nature of being human. But then, that process flows back through all the structural layers (our senses, our cognitive powers, etc.), perceiving "the world as a representation" that gets layered with all the various ideas the consciousness adds or modifies based on its own perspective—including all those innovations and inventions—before finally "descending" back into the practical world.
But once you get there, you aren't just a "rational animal" anymore; you're a being that has encountered a completely different kind of ego than the one those self-proclaimed intellectuals forced upon us. It's a totally different "I," and a completely different way of looking at the ultimate purpose behind everything we do and the life we lead.

hollowpilot9 said:>
... THEREFORE, I'm not the "guilty" one; it's the phenomenology of splitting the world into black and white complementary entities—appearing as both polar opposites and polar unities—that is to blame, which is essentially the core of human simplicity and everything else.

Everything relies on its opposite, so maybe that's why, in any clash of ideas, people tend to identify strictly with either the "black" or the "white" side. One thing is a matter of methodology (like how dialecticians might split into two groups where one defends and the other attacks a position), but the other is how these divisions are fueled by raw emotions, bias, and all sorts of primitive impulses.
If we want to avoid these traps—where simple disagreement turns into actual hostility, or where conflict is deeply rooted in a group's history—we have to do it mentally more than just practically. Honestly, it wouldn't be strange if a priest was secretly an atheist. Given his profession is what puts food on the table, admitting he doesn't believe in God would be just as crazy as admitting he wasted all those years of intense study and sacrifice.

hollowpilot9 said:So, I’ve been thinking—and this is a pretty deep philosophical rabbit hole for me—about which side of the coin humanity actually leans toward. Are we heading for the light, or is there a darker side pulling us in? Or maybe it's just a messy mix of both? If you look at how global culture is shifting lately, there seems to be plenty of evidence pointing toward that darker side. It kind of brings to mind that idea about how we might be sinking into a "civilization of the night" rather than one of the light—which, honestly, feels like a pretty plausible way to put it. Everything seems to gravitate toward those chaotic, nocturnal distractions—all the wild parties and excess that happen under the cover of darkness. It leads to this unavoidable reality: while the rest of us are sleeping, the "night birds" are out there doing their thing. And then, when we finally wake up, we realize we've been cheated, misled, or just plain stepped on. So, if you ask me, my whole theory boils down to this: we desperately need an inversion.

You’ve covered so much ground here! On one hand, we could talk about how people feel this constant pressure to blow their cash on "nightlife"—which, if you think about it, is just a classic part of that whole "bread and circuses" vibe. It feels like there's this cycle where all that spending leads to a sort of indifference toward people losing their dignity, especially when meaningful things get traded in for cheap thrills. Then, that loss of humanity just fuels more indifference and drives everyone even deeper into the nightlife scene—it’s almost like a loop that just keeps feeding itself! I guess, at the end of the day, things really would need some deep, fundamental changes to break out of it.
Nah, you can't forget about the usurper's guard—they're incredibly disciplined. They know exactly where the line is drawn, and they won't cross it unless they have to. And honestly? Even if they actually lose control for a moment—say, if those "conscious forces" manage to slip the reins—they’ll probably just reorganize themselves faster and more efficiently than any small resistance movement could ever hope to realize that the tyranny is actually over!
The real heart of the matter is that we’re actually making progress—I truly believe that! I mean, once you see how those power-hungry usurpers are forced to come up with increasingly sneaky ways to manipulate and exploit people—whether through "natural" advantages or stuff they've just picked up along the way—it becomes impossible to deny it. You just have to see it: the human journey toward the light is absolutely unstoppable!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess you could say that philosophical atheism isn't actually a philosophy in itself—it’s more like just a slightly skewed way of looking at the world held by certain atheist philosophers. It's more of a perspective than a formal system, if that makes sense!

On the flip side—and I really think this is key—a philosopher shouldn't start from the assumption that every single law of nature or society can just be arbitrarily flipped on its head by some omnipotent will. I mean, if we did that, philosophy would basically become a meaningless exercise that just circles back to the exact same conclusion every single time! So, I guess it makes more sense to approach research from the starting point that God (you know, that Uncomposed, perfect, unchanging... being) simply doesn't exist. Honestly, it doesn't even matter which way you lean—the end result of the investigation stays the same.
On the flip side—and I guess this is just my take—anyone who starts their whole argument from the premise that God exists is essentially starting with a bias they’ve already accepted as an absolute fact. It’s like they’ve decided on a "truth" right out of the gate—a truth that, in my opinion, should never, ever be questioned during any kind of actual investigation!
So, if we jump back to the very beginning—both of these viewpoints really just boil down to a leap of faith without any further investigation. I guess the only real difference is that the first one—you know, the atheistic starting point—doesn't actually rule out a theological conclusion later on, whereas the theological side? Well, it kind of lacks the tools to break through its own built-in limitations.

hollowpilot9 said:You can't really say that something relative both exists and doesn't exist at the same time—because, well, if it's relative, it *definitely* exists! I guess if you can just wrap your head around that little contradiction, it becomes a whole lot easier to embrace both the relative and the absolute in philosophy. And honestly, maybe that's the only way for philosophy to actually feel like philosophy, don't you think?

Change and variability aren't just single concepts—it’s more like relativity, which covers so many different perspectives and angles—and in some cases, it even extends to entirely different "worlds" (you know, like that philosophical riddle about a dog being both a consumer and a non-consumer of its own food at the exact same time!?)
Well, I’ve always felt that what really defines philosophy is this deep dive into finding things that are actually lasting—you know, searching for that underlying principle that shows you why certain things exist out of all that infinite material we're dealing with.
That’s why I’m such a believer in the idea that the whole point of philosophy is hunting for the "absolute"—at least, that's how I see it! Because once you actually pin that down, I guess all philosophers will eventually have to land on the same page—sooner or later, anyway—since there can't be many versions of the Truth, right? There's really only one. Especially when we're talking about those big phenomena and laws that just seem to follow the human race forever.

Continuation—

hollowpilot9 said:The only way to truly bring it back to life is through something ABSOLUTE—not some half-hearted, relative approach—which, if you think about it, is exactly what landed us on this "beggar's stick" to begin with!

It feels to me like you're talking about a kind of "relativity"—though, honestly, I guess it’s not all that different from what you mentioned earlier regarding the fallout of theistic philosophy? I mean, if we follow that logic, what is there left to actually study, right? If God can just step in and completely, unconditionally change everything at any moment, then the whole pursuit seems a bit moot—don't you think?
If that’s really how it works—and honestly, since everything is relative anyway, why even stress about it?—then we aren't just moving between two poles like "relative/atheism" and "absolute/theism." It feels more like there are one or two massive middle grounds floating in between. I guess you could compare it to the gap between actual political extremists and the mainstream left or right—you know, those fringe groups versus the actual parties. Because, in my view, the very nature of being a civilized person means that acts of terrorism push those actors completely outside of society—effectively cutting them off from both the left and the right they claim to represent!

hollowpilot9 said:I mean, I'm not entirely sure if Marx actually realized it, but he definitely went after Diogenes—or someone like that—pretty hard, basically pushing him right to the fringes of philosophy. But honestly? Looking at things from a modern perspective, maybe that self-taught philosopher actually thought and wrote better than the great Marx himself? I guess it's possible!

If you’re talking about Diogenes—I know a few of his famous little gems, though I can't say I'm too familiar with his actual philosophy. Honestly, I haven't heard much about that specific attack from Marx, but I have noticed that he rarely ever cites the ancients. In fact, out of all of Aristotle's massive body of work, he only mentions the idea regarding the perfection of the commodity form—and he only does it twice!

hollowpilot9 said:I guess the real issue here—and it’s a big one—is that we just aren't able to properly balance the relationship between private capital and social capital (you know, what the Government controls). It feels like we’re missing a real mechanism to distinguish between the accumulated wealth from past efforts and the actual, living labor happening right now. I mean, today's hard work is honestly pretty minor compared to the massive mountain of past labor that continues to drive the economy and shape everything else!

Why wouldn't we be able to tell the difference between past labor and living labor? I mean, it seems pretty obvious that you can't really have one without the other—living labor needs that foundation of past work (you know, all that accumulated investment and capital) to actually exist! So, if there’s more living labor being put in compared to the past work, then the value—and naturally, the price—of that previous labor has to be higher, and vice versa. It just makes sense! When you step back and look at the whole picture, it shouldn't be any trouble at all to pull in a section from the Constitution that says:
So, I was thinking about how a company’s leftover earnings actually get split up—you know, that net surplus after all the bills are paid? It seems to me that it basically breaks down into two main buckets: one part goes toward employee wages, and the other side handles profits and reinvestments. I guess you could say the ratio usually fluctuates somewhere between a 40:60 split and maybe as high as 60:40, depending on the industry or how the management feels that day!
Of course—I really think a decent politician has to keep that sense of corrective balance at the front of their mind! I mean, you just can't assume that preserving what we already have—you know, everything we've actually built—is the same thing as creating new wealth. It’s a huge distinction, right? At the end of the day, true creation is about life itself—it's about meeting real needs and renewing the lives of people who are actually living right now, rather than just focusing on those from the past.

If you’re referring to retirees and the older generations when you talk about "past work"—then honestly, that’s kind of a separate conversation! I guess the only way those two things really connect is the simple fact that they were the ones who actually built that legacy—and, of course, they were the ones who were paid for it!

The balance between private and state ownership actually works quite well when you look at how planning and market forces play off one another—it’s all about finding that sweet spot! I guess you could say an economy that’s truly focused on steady, long-term growth will naturally blend market methods with strategic planning—kind of like a captain "steering" the different shares to keep everything on course. It’s the same logic that should apply to government intervention or even things like reprivatization—it's all about that careful calibration!
The real sticking point—the thing that’s just so incredibly hard to untangle—is that fundamental clash between the right to private property and the whole issue of one person being enslaved by another. It's a tough nut to crack, I guess!

hollowpilot9 said:It’s honestly pretty wild when you think about it—I mean, we really shouldn't be surprised when someone suddenly becomes a billionaire overnight just by grabbing all the value created by everyone else's hard work! Meanwhile, you have people who are only living off their own actual labor, and they're left struggling to get by. I guess that's where the root of all these economic and political injustices lies—it's the stuff people either refuse to talk about or just don't want to face!

Hey, now I’m really asking you—could you please just define the past work you're talking about?
Well, I guess your point really boils down to one of two things—it’s either about that whole messy vision of "reorganization and privatization" (where the real issue isn't just someone grabbing assets, but rather how blurry the legislative process gets when Congress passes these shady laws that basically stomp all over equality and individual liberty)—or you're questioning the very idea of private ownership over permanent resources, you know, those massive monopolies that seem to dominate everything right in front of us!

hollowpilot9 said:So, here’s the real kicker—what can we actually do to help people become smart? And I mean *really* sharp, like what you were saying, hollowpilot9? In my opinion, that should probably be the main focus for any modern intellectual—instead of just recycling the same old nonsense from the past and present over and over again.

You know what they’d probably tell us? Just be more concise—and honestly, you’d get so much more done!
But, hey—aside from that—none of us can really claim to be blocked from getting politically involved, right? I mean, without that engagement, voters don't have any way to actually champion new ideas or reshape their own interests. And let's be honest—you can't really go about changing people (especially making them a bit sharper!) without spreading those ideas around first.
So, here's a quick question for you all—are you getting ready (or maybe helping someone else get ready) for the upcoming elections?!

hollowpilot9 said:When you look at our political democracy, it really highlights the caliber of the people we choose to represent us—it’s pretty glaringly obvious, actually. If this is supposed to be the gold standard, or like, some kind of established norm, then I guess I’m just feeling a bit bummed out about living in a democracy where the top leaders and high-ranking officials bicker and fight like petty neighborhood gossips!

Look, I’m honestly not even upset about all this—really! It’s just that the whole "standard" we're being fed feels totally manufactured, almost like it was dictated directly from Washington, D.C. I mean, think about it—there’s really no other way to explain how nineteen different political parties could suddenly pop up, set up branches everywhere, and start running around—all seven months before the actual democratic reforms were even codified into law! It just doesn't add up. I guess the only logical conclusion is that they had the green light from federal agencies and intelligence services—which basically means they had the blessing of the top brass. Without that go-ahead, those old party factions wouldn't have been able to morph into legitimate political players and occupy the entire American political landscape before the first real elections even took place. It's pretty wild when you look at it that way!
Honestly, I wouldn't say I'm sad about it—more like I’d just want to roll my eyes at anyone who claims Americans are this undemocratic, submissive, or just plain lazy. It’s funny, really—I guess some people just see what they want to see!

Part 2

hollowpilot9 said:When our media talks about the USA, they talk about the state administration, but when they talk about America, they say "THE GOVERNMENT." I honestly don't get it, and frankly, I don't want to—because the whole idea of "GOVERNMENT" feels like it limits freedom by implying something sitting "ABOVE" everyone else. Why don't we just call it state administration, or maybe state management, where the leadership runs the country much like a CEO and their management team runs General Motors?

So, I guess it really comes down to semantics.
For instance, the "establishment" isn't quite the same as state administration; it’s more like the specific way power is organized within its structure. In fact, the organization itself is tailored to fit that power.
Maybe that "establishment" is exactly what you mean by "THE GOVERNMENT" that gets under your skin so much. And, well, it's not just "above" us like in the US; it's actually more than that. See, in the US, there is a separation of powers—even if it’s imperfect. Here, it’s almost just a formality. Don't forget, the people who actually wield THE GOVERNMENT are literally the ELECTED ones! They are the ones who put the Constitution under the jurisdiction of the entire political body (Congress). So, it's this single legislative body that produces and passes both the Constitution and the laws (and they appoint the judges and the Executive branch too...)

hollowpilot9 said:... Well, I suppose we are thinking about the same thing—the HUMAN being!

Well, yes and no. I mean, sure, the individual is at the center of everything, but the modern world is divided into nation-states. Since people affirm their humanity through RIGHTS, and since those rights are still fundamentally STATE-based (rather than international), determining what constitutes a member of a political nation is—basically—the primary way the human nature is objectified (whether through a collective or through the force of public authority).
So, whenever we talk about a person, I think we always have to keep in mind that limitation—that each of us belongs to some state society (and individuals belong to a whole multitude of these political nations).

hollowpilot9 said:... I am actually thinking MORE about THAT FORCE WHICH IS POTENTIALLY DESTRUCTIVE, even when it is an element of human society. These forces are invisible; they only become visible once we hit a wall with our fist or our head, or when someone else hits us with a fist or a "wall"!

Regardless, I suspect that whenever you look at that force in a broader context, you won't miss even a shadow of the "helmsman"... Even when forces act blindly, you'll still find a certain intentionality at their core.

hollowpilot9 said:... No, I'm talking about the equivalence of constructive and destructive force, just like the equivalence of mass and energy. Both look and act like force, but they are OPPOSITES to one another, which makes them different rather than identical. One is a negative force, while the other is positive! They are only neutral at the very center, in a unified state—but philosophy doesn't really tackle that, does it!?

Such a unified state—well, it might just be a fiction. Reality is always expressed in a range between the dominance of one side or the dominance of the other.

hollowpilot9 said:... So, let’s dive into the whole concept of LOGOS when we sit down to think, chat, philosophize, or throw out some theories. Which kind of logos are you actually tapping into when you’re deep in thought—is it the Greek version or something else entirely? And, just out of curiosity, do you have any specific takes on the Truth? What does Truth even mean to you?
I’d suggest that we try to return to the Truth (assuming it exists!) as the absolute centerpiece of all philosophy.

Actually, if you ask me—all that Greek stuff (and the "near-Greek" variations) is really just a set of tools used to reach an end goal. The actual goal is to articulate what can be "seen" within the abstract. We basically just use whatever tools we’ve picked up along the way or happen to have on hand (which is why I find Eastern philosophies so fascinating—they offer such a different perspective—though maybe I haven't stumbled upon the right literature yet since I haven't quite "seen" the core of it).
Truth, in my view, covers everything from having a perfectly accurate grasp of what IS (in practical terms) to what *ought* to be (since potentiality is also a form of reality—it exists in the abstract too, I guess).
So, when you pull all those threads together, you realize that TRUTH is essentially the thing that bridges all human needs with our capacity for understanding. Humans naturally seek out what truly is and what could potentially be better—because of our own needs, or perhaps just because it's in our nature—and that’s how philosophy and morality both find their home within the Truth.
To me, my "Logos" is the Mind—the creative power of a human being—or, more accurately, the very essence of the generic human nature itself.
But, I suppose what I’m really thinking about isn't primarily the Mind, but Reason. The Mind plays a bit of a supporting role in the thinking process—acting through that intellect we all have to respect, whether it's seen in how intelligent beings interact or as a collection of principles we've mastered (the principles of Reason). Of course, the Mind is definitely the reason we have enhanced memory and all those unique human abilities.
However, the Mind or Logos seems to manifest as CREATIVITY itself. We approach this creativity using Reason, which provides the raw material. Whenever Reason asks a question poorly—like if it imposes too many conditions or ignores obvious limits—the Mind ends up handing back a DISTORTED ANSWER. Or, more specifically, it gives a "solution" to a problem that is just as PURE and free of bias as the moment Reason first stood before the Mind. In those rare, beautiful instances, Reason receives a solution we call an invention. Even when it's just a basic principle or a new way of looking at things, it's coming from a SOURCE THAT DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST (yet) in the physical world, but exists abstractly—allowing us to manifest a good that never existed before.
And honestly? Those things—the fantasies, the utopias, the inventions—those are the most profound pieces of the TRUTH.

Walter Foster87:
It’s basically the core of both Cicero's and Kant's insights—the only real "difference" being that one deals with pure philosophy (Kant) while the other tackles philosophy alongside the complexities of being human (Cicero). From their perspective, the only variable is whether a philosopher realizes that their entire body of work—all those various sides, relationships, and laws—is actually just spiraling around a single central principle, essentially discovering deeper principles within existing ones...

hollowpilot9. So, there are already four of us thinking along these lines...

Walter Foster87: Obviously, the paths aren't identical—since turning inward toward the human psyche is what eventually leads to the essence, the core, the very being—the actual substance of human nature.

hollowpilot9: You know that everything traces back to Socrates' maxima—know thyself if you want to be a philosopher. This "know thyself" bit can be interpreted in a dozen different ways, but it really does come down to reaching that essence, that core, that fundamental truth of human nature, just as you said. Not to be arrogant, but I think I've reached—or am at least incredibly close to—that essence of being human. I managed it by synthesizing the micro-knowledge of modern science with the macro-knowledge found in fields like religion, philosophy, and art.

Walter Foster87: Everything exists in opposition to its opposite, which is probably why, when ideas clash, people feel compelled to pick a "black" or "white" side.

hollowpilot9. Try swapping "everything exists in opposition" with "EVERYTHING EXISTS IN POLAR COMPLEMENTARITY." If you do that, you get this intellectual microscope and telescope combo that lets you refine and expand your ideas, though you'll inevitably have to toss some of them out. This thing you mentioned,
"avoiding traps," could also be called "avoiding deception." Personally, I think that's the real task for both formal and informal intelligence—not for the highly-paid police officers who are busy hunting down thieves, especially when there seem to be more thieves than ever, right??

Walter Foster87: Even so, the point is that humanity keeps moving forward. When you see how usurpers are forced to invent increasingly devious ways to manipulate and exploit people—or even exploit "natural" and acquired privileges—you HAVE TO REALIZE THAT THE HUMAN MARCH TOWARD THE LIGHT IS UNSTOPPABLE.

hollowpilot9: I agree that movement is key, but I think you're familiar with the "Myth of Sisyphus," which clearly defines the boundary where "moving forward" turns into "moving backward"—which is a crucial feature of every oscillation we've discussed. In Camus' version, Sisyphus is constantly pushing something up a hill, only for that "object" to roll all the way back down once he reaches the peak, or perhaps even sooner if he loses his grip. Sisyphus' "hill" is essentially a synonym for all wave amplitudes, because that hill is really just half of a wave's amplitude. Therefore, forward motion has an evolutionary limit that I call the EVOLUTIONARY MAXIMUM. Beyond that maximum, an INVERSION occurs, and all processes begin heading back toward the starting point—not as a regression into a "primitive existence," but as a return to renewal, much like the cycles we see in any form of life. It's where the evolutionary minimum and maximum meet at a "single point," and that is what philosophy must recognize as the Truth. Only then can true philosophy be written, and the best name for such a discipline would be the Philosophy of Origin! The origin is always there, right where the inversion happens!!
You say the movement toward the light is unstoppable, which makes sense if you look at how the "point" of night moves toward the light of day, but you have to remember that the "point" of day is simultaneously moving unstoppably toward the night. The crucial question is: can these directions of movement be avoided? Or rather, is there a type of movement that stays solely in the light or solely in the dark? My answer is yes, such movements exist—people just need to become aware of them. They need to learn how to "run backward" or simply stay still.

Walter Foster87: On the contrary, a philosopher shouldn't start from the assumption that all laws of nature and society can be arbitrarily changed by some omnipotent will. If they did, philosophizing would become mindless, incapable of reaching anything beyond a single conclusion. That's why, in a way, the starting point for actual research is the premise that God (an Uncomposed, perfect, unchanging... being) DOES NOT EXIST.

hollowpilot9: Look, we were talking about philosophical atheism here—which, let’s be honest, isn't even a standalone philosophy, is it? It’s more like a tiny sub-branch of philosophy, because you also have philosophical theism. As far as I can tell, the laws of nature and the laws of theism have never actually been in "conflict." The conflict only exists in the minds of people who completely misinterpret and misread both the laws of nature and theism. That should be pretty easy to prove, right? And as for drawing a single conclusion from all this... well, saying there's only one conclusion is like saying there's only one circle just because you can measure its radius. Or like concluding there’s only one shade of white, when white is really just whatever happens when you mix those four primary colors together.
I honestly don't get why people keep insisting that the idea of God is some kind of prejudice or limitation. Because if that’s true, then Man is also a prejudice and a limitation—and since God and Man were never truly separate to begin with, that logic falls apart. They were only split by the ignorance of materialistic philosophers like Feuerbach and those Marxist dialecticians. Those guys "killed" God rather than establishing the connection between God and Man, and that’s where all the delusions start. You know my views well enough, but why aren't they ever actually taken seriously? Why do you, too, dodge the conversation regarding the ATTRIBUTES OF GOD AND MAN and avoid comparative analysis? To even attempt that, you'd have to abandon the notion that the idea of God is a prejudice. It's blindingly obvious today that the primary attributes of God and Man have grown so close that Rifkin had to write "Who Will Play God?" after touring secret underground bio-labs in the US. Basically, God and Man are moving toward each other, not away—which is the massive flaw in atheistic philosophy. Attributes are the facts that define what something is, regardless of how we choose to perceive it. Fiction or prejudice can't possess attributes. If an attribute of God is omnipotence, then it must also be an attribute of Man. If it isn't an attribute of Man, then it isn't an attribute of God either; in that case, it’s just fiction or prejudice. It’s funny how people will talk endlessly about everything under the sun, yet when it comes to Man, they become so reductive or just stay silent.

Walter Foster87: Change and variability aren't just one thing, you know. Relativity covers a huge range of different perspectives and points of view—even in certain "worlds" (you know, like a dog that is simultaneously consuming the food it eats and not consuming it!?)

hollowpilot9: It seems to me we're interpreting relativity in very different ways. I've already said it: Man is constantly changing, which makes his status and appearance relative, while his underlying matrix remains unchanged through all that flux. That’s the reason and the explanation for why we don't feel motion at all... even though we're hurtling through the Earth and the universe at dizzying speeds, we have no sense of that velocity. Is that a fact? Yes. And if it is, it should be respected. The idea that there is an objective physical speed of motion but no subjective one is just a fairy tale for children. In oscillatory motion, all points, all definitions, all beings are simultaneously moving and not moving. Most people miss this contradiction because they were never taught to study the phenomenology of oscillation as a universal phenomenon in the cosmos.

Walter Foster87: Now I'm getting the feeling you're talking about a version of "relativity" that isn't much different from what I mentioned regarding the consequences of theistic philosophy (I mean, what could there even be to study if God can just change everything instantly and completely)?

hollowpilot9: There's no need for me to explain relativity, because I always imply the relativity that belongs to the complementary polar entities of the whole, whereas the whole is always absolute. I know this contradiction isn't easy to grasp at first glance, but if you put in the effort, you'll see that the relative and the absolute are simultaneous. I explained this using the relationship of a polar pair, oscillation, and quantum motion. These are the insights and conclusions of nonlinear perception. So, I don't need convincing regarding the relativity of space-time and polar entities up to the point of the singularity—that is, until the Absolute begins the inversion of the relative. Acceleration turns into retardation, and life moves toward the light instead of away from it.

it swings from darkness to light and back again. And as for God—well, you already know that talking about God isn't really going anywhere because nobody in this world actually knows who or what God is. I can't even begin to argue about some vague concept or mental image. Please, I’m just leaning on Hans Küng, a very fine theologian, and Scharden—who was quite the innovator when it came to interpreting the divine. Without a grasp of the concept of Man, the idea of God remains empty, and I simply can't engage in a debate about an empty concept.

Walter Foster87: If you’re thinking of Diogenes—I’m familiar with a few of his witty little outbursts, though not necessarily his philosophy. I haven't heard much about this specific attack by Marx, but I do know that Marx rarely bothered quoting the ancients; out of all of Aristotle's massive body of work, he only ever cites the idea of completing the commodity form—and he does it twice!

hollowpilot9: I didn't mean Diogenes, I meant Dietzgen. During Marx's era, he was considered a "lay philosopher," and his ideas were actually closer to modern understanding than Marx's were. He viewed idealism and materialism as equal sources of knowledge and cognition, advocating for a certain kind of monism. Because of that, Marx gave him a pretty harsh verbal beating and pushed him to the margins of philosophy, even though the man arguably had more philosophical depth in his head than Marx did.

Walter Foster87: Why shouldn't we be able to distinguish between past labor and living labor? It's pretty obvious that without past labor (investments, capital), living labor can't even be affirmed.
Look, I'm asking you now—DEFINE THIS "PAST LABOR" YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT!

hollowpilot9: Theoretically, maybe you can draw a line, but practically speaking, the big shots won't allow it (at least not yet). Past labor is basically an endless supply of "milk" for the "milkers"—it's capital so massive that ordinary people, the little guys, can't even see the scale of it. It’s also, among other things, the "milk runoff" known as the "state budget." Just look at how many bureaucrats are hooked up to that "milk supply" within the EU alone, not to mention everywhere else??
To me, past labor is everything that exists and functions today, including the money sitting in banks that was created by people long dead, or by those who no longer possess what they built because it was taken from them one way or another. That capital—whether it takes the form of cash, knowledge, buildings, or operating machinery—is the "property" of people who no longer exist or people who have been stripped of it, which then becomes the property of their successors or those who seized it. People born into that lineage—say, through real estate, factories, or banking—are born wealthy, while everyone else is born into poverty. Since the wealthy and the state have, in various ways, appropriated huge swaths of wealth from past labor—and criminals around the world have done the same—there's this constant scramble and chaos over that wealth. It shows the blatant criminality present in many governments worldwide and so-called "organized crime." That’s the kind of past labor I'm talking about. In contrast, living labor is just what a LIVING human being performs in exchange for... well, just some meager paycheck.
Alongside this, there's a parallel inflation of legal norms—laws that restrict human freedom because they are built on negatives and prohibitions. I met this young, supposedly bright lawyer who had absolutely no clue that restrictive laws are often generated based on the actions of a tiny 5–10% of criminals, yet these laws end up banning or imposing things on everyone, including honest people. For instance, a law might mandate video surveillance and physical security "to prevent petty theft," but then the camera and the security guard end up eyeing and suspecting perfectly honest citizens. I’ve actually dealt with a rather unpleasant incident myself because of exactly that. The old "establishment" used to demonstrate this on a 1:1 scale, but these rules are dreamed up by lawyers and politicians, not by "honest citizens," right??
Generally speaking, when you look at social phenomena and processes, you see an increasing tendency toward hermeticism and everything being regulated by rules invented by people for other people. In my opinion, the consequences are already catastrophic, because this trend directly undermines Constitutional provisions regarding freedom of labor, thought, speech, and so on. Where prohibitions and bans reign supreme, you simply won't find happy, satisfied, constructive, or creative people.

Walter Foster87: You know what they’d say to us? "Be brief, and you'll have accomplished much."
But besides all that—of course—none of us can honestly claim to be immune to political entanglement.
hollowpilot9: People who write short stuff usually just don't have anything worth saying, so they pretend they're being profound. I once told them I could describe the entire universe in a single sentence by just putting a dot on a blank sheet of paper, but nobody among those "shallow-minded" types would get it; they’d probably just tell me where to shove it. Political involvement is stifled by the very structure of politics itself—take party discipline, for example, which acts as a direct middle finger to the Constitution regarding freedom of thought and acting according to one's conscience.

Walter Foster87: See, I’m not actually sad about it. That’s because the standard was forced upon us, and it came straight from Washington.
hollowpilot9: I never bought into excuses, and I’m certainly not starting now. It’s easy to just point fingers and say Washington is to blame. Personally, I think it's a mix of external and internal primitive tendencies.
I’ve "slipped up" on the topic of American identity a few times. Back when we were living under that old-school era of supposed liberalism, our anthem at the military base in San Antonio was "The Battle Cry of Freedom,"
but in this current state of affairs, when I asked to sing that song, I practically got jumped by some "patriot" because apparently, it was "too radical." To people like that, I wouldn't just spit in their face—I'd give them a piece of my mind—and I'm not afraid of a scrap... though I usually just run away, since unfortunately, there's nobody around to defend me. There are plenty of primitives like that, which is why we're stuck taking lessons from people who completely confuse cause and effect. Half the country just sits there swallowing the nonsense spewed by these self-proclaimed domestic saints and "humanists." Once, a rather "unrefined" former President put it perfectly: "It's no longer just Washington's fault for all the bickering and stupidity in America." The American people are just split—left vs. right, Democrats vs. Republicans, nationalists vs. globalists, honest folks vs. liars, and truth-tellers vs. everyone else. Who caused that? (And look, I really don't want to get into a debate about it.)

Walter Foster87: So, you're saying it's just semantics.

hollowpilot9: Sorry, but that isn't just semantics. Every speech used to start with "This administration," or "My administration," and it always came back to the administration. It seems like leaders just catch a fever for power, because they’re constantly obsessing over "this administration" versus "my administration." I mean, does the Constitution actually say that elected officials *are* the Government after the election? If it does, then the Constitution is a joke, because the term "Government" carries all these sociological and psychological implications—it leads the clerk at the local DMV to actually believe they *are* the ultimate authority, and they act accordingly. Who needs power besides THOSE WHO RULE, or maybe just the mindless masses—though I highly doubt that, given that even cattle leave the house and come back without any sense of being "bosses"? Under the old regime, power was clearly defined as the power of the people and the party, whereas nowadays, every little party faction acts like it's the actual authority. That’s why I don't see this as a nuance; it’s a DELIBERATE AND CALCULATED USE OF A TERM to facilitate political reductionism rather than actual political freedom. Politicians, if we even need them, should be "servants of the people," not "the government of the people"—at least, that's how they're *supposed* to talk.

Walter Foster87: Well, yes and no. While man is obviously the center of everything, the modern world is carved into nation-states. Since people affirm their humanity through RIGHTS, and since every right is still a STATE right (rather than an international one), defining the membership of a political body is essentially—fundamentally—the process of OBJECTIVIZING HUMAN NATURE through the force of public authority.

hollowpilot9: I guess I was wrong there, because if a person affirms themselves through rights rather than through their own actions, then my entire humanist disdain collapses like a house of cards. If a person is validated merely by the rights written in the Federal Register, God help us! Renowned lawyers used to tell me, "Just tell us what you want, and we'll tailor a 'suit' for you." Often, inside that "suit," you find nothing but anti-humanism and criminality, yet fools actually believe it's the Law that must be obeyed!

demos: Honestly, I think if you’re ever going to promote that kind of force within a broader context—well, you won't be able to ignore at least a shadow of a "pilot"... Even when forces act blindly, you'll still find Stanford University at their core.

hollowpilot9: Constructive force "builds the nose," while destructive force "breaks the nose"—and those aren't the same thing!! There's no doubt that both types of force have Stanford University behind them, but one also has pure stupidity backing it up.

demos: That kind of unified state—it's nothing more than fiction. Reality always oscillates between the dominance of one side or the other.

hollowpilot9: Fiction? What are you talking about?? A unified state of forces is what we call BALANCE, HARMONY, STABILITY. What you're describing is anything but unified; it's polar, divided, and polarized—which is exactly why we get tension, conflict, wars, frustration, and so on. That stuff is real enough, sure, but it belongs to the "profane" realm—the split, binary world. I’m talking about the "sacred" polar unity—NEUTRALITY! You aren't actually going to tell me that being neutral is a fiction, are you?

demos: In reality, all that Greek and "pseudo-Greek" stuff is just a tool used to achieve an end. The goal is to describe what is "visible" in the abstract. We just use whatever tools we've picked up or have lying around (which is why I'm interested in Eastern philosophies—as something different and distinct—because just looking at things doesn't get you anywhere, unless I haven't stumbled upon the right literature yet).
Truth, anyway, encompasses both the most accurate perception of what IS (in terms of practical action) and what ought to be (since what *ought* to be already exists as a possibility, and exists within the abstract sphere too).
So—when you pull it all together—you come back to the idea that TRUTH is what unifies all human needs and our capacity for perception—because FOR ITS OWN SAKE (or if you prefer, for its own needs), MAN SEARCHES FOR WHAT IS TRULY REAL AND WHAT COULD BE BETTER, which is why philosophy and morality are both held together within truth.
In short, my logos-um, the creative power of man—or rather, the very essence of the generic (gendered) nature of the human species.
But what I mean is, the dominant factor isn't Intelligence, it's Reason. Intelligence participates in thought only indirectly—through the Stanford University we have to acknowledge and respect, whether as relationships between intelligent beings or as acquired wealth (the principles of Reason). Intelligence is certainly the cause behind enhanced memory and the development of various uniquely human abilities.
However, Intelligence—or logos—manifests somehow as CREATIVITY ITSELF. We approach it through Reason, which provides the raw material. Whenever Reason asks a question inadequately (by over-constraining the solution or stepping outside obvious limits), Intelligence will hand it a DISTORTED SOLUTION. Or rather, a "solution" to a problem that is just as GOOD (PURE) as it is free from ulterior motives—where Reason itself stood before Intelligence. In those rare instances, Reason receives a solution we call an invention. Even when it's just a principle or an approach—it's a TRULY NON-EXISTENT (but abstractly existing) SOURCE from which we manifest a good that never existed before.
And those things (fantasies, utopias, and inventions) are parts of the ULTIMATE TRUTH.

hollowpilot9: In this specific detail of my question, I'm talking about the LOGOS we use when we speak, investigate, and conclude. Stanford University without logos is just madness, confusion, fantasy... You've mentioned METHODOLOGY several times, but methodology simply doesn't exist without logos. So, I'm always in favor of a methodology where the applied LOGOS is clearly defined. My question is: With what methodology and what logos does philosophy philosophize? Does every subject in philosophy have its own methodology and its own logos, or is there one universal methodology and one universal logos for all of philosophy? Without clear answers to these questions, philosophy makes no progress toward Truth, because LOGOS IS WHAT RECOGNIZES AND DEFINES TRUTH, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! For instance, it's a polar logos that determines, among other things, the Truth of Man. It seems philosophy knows very little about that logos, or uses it very little. I use that logos quite often, and that's why I say so clearly that philosophy must rise to the level of creation, rather than the destruction usually called "CRITICISM"—which is then misinterpreted as construction because it rejects what's bad and promotes what's good!? But please, according to whose opinion? The opinion of some critic-philosopher? That's just stupidity squared, because you're just interpolating two stupidities to make one bigger one!!
I’d argue that most misunderstandings between people stem from a failure to recognize—or actually apply—the appropriate logos relevant to the subject at hand. For instance, the logos used in casual, everyday "water cooler" talk works fine when you're just recounting life events, but it falls apart the moment you pivot to analytical or investigative discourse. And once that shift happens, everyone involved needs to be operating under the same logos regarding the field or topic. Otherwise, you’re basically asking for a breakdown in communication, which inevitably spirals into arguments and, frankly, insults. You can see this happening on nearly every thread on this forum—people applying different logoses to the same issue. It’s because most people haven't been taught, nor have they been trained, to utilize the specific logos required for the context they're discussing. First off, it all comes down to the perspective being applied. As Jaspers suggested, there is as much philosophy as there are philosophers—meaning, as many philosophies as there are philosophical viewpoints. I've touched on this before. In that light, two perspectives have dominated for ages: materialism and idealism. Both ended up in the trash heap because they were built on the absolute nature of either matter or the idea as the primary cause of everything. Materialism met its ignominious end through the logos of dialectics, while idealism fell via the logos of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. Essentially, it was the wrong logos that sent both to the scrap yard; they failed to apply the LOGOS OF LIFE. That particular logos was never utilized in traditional philosophy or academic dialogue, simply because humanity hadn't discovered it yet. The real kicker is that if you write ATGCCGTTGAAT, I might write TACGGAACTTA, and we’re both technically writing the exact same thing—except you’re doing it with deep knowledge and intelligence, and I’m doing it without any. Yet, we both claim the right to call it Truth! So, traditional science and philosophy remain oblivious to the fact that the value of cognition for TAAGTTGCCGTA is identical to that of ATGCCGTTGAAT. This kind of higher-level knowledge currently only applies to the micro-phenomena of life, while the macro-phenomena of life continue to drift without a logos. Not knowing the complementary and inverse logos is the primary reason for the cacophony of conflicting views on the same subjects. Beyond that, in the humanities—specifically philosophy—I don't see much discussion about how differing views arise from variations in how we perceive space and events within it, leading to a massive mess of overlapping terms for the same reality. Most people are essentially hardwired to live and think in two dimensions; traditionally, we exist in a flat, two-dimensional way. People with those habits—which is most of the population—struggle immensely with three-dimensional thinking. Consequently, any conversation between a two-dimensional person and a three-dimensional one usually ends in total confusion the moment they move from form to substance. A two-dimensional philosopher can only philosophize about form, because their mind is blind to the substance, which is inherently three-dimensional for both the individual and the universe. Total chaos ensues when the mind begins to recognize the fourth dimension, which carries a completely different logos than one, two, or three-dimensional space. In that realm, substance is paired with an "anti-substance," which "drives crazy" traditional philosophy, which is still barely grasping the concept of three-dimensional substance. Our philosophy is stuck in two-dimensionality and linear perception, treating the world as if it follows a simple arithmetic order, when things are fundamentally different. Take Buckminster Fuller, for example—a significant 20th-century philosopher. Very few people here even know he existed, or am I mistaken? And what should I say about myself? I am certainly on par with, if not a better philosopher than, Fuller—not because I’m more learned or more intelligent, but because I understand the logos better, whereas he was merely intuiting it. These differences aren't just between Fuller and me; they exist everywhere due to the application of different methodologies and logoses when solving the same problems. My methodology and my logos are superior not because of my intellect, but because I recognize the superior axial cross-section of a phenomenon, rather than relying on radial views or three separate looks at the external shape—looking at form without looking at substance. Anyone can apply this axial cross-section if they want to, but it remains unknown to most, except perhaps to engineers and designers of complex artifacts. The truth is that traditional philosophy, and even a good chunk of modern science, is unaware of such a superior "viewpoint"—this cross-section. My discovery is that the axial cross-section belongs to science and philosophy, specifically to a philosophy that philosophizes ONLY about the whole—the totality. I brought up the question of logos to explain why differences in thought occur, where "my thought" isn't actually mine, but rather the "thought" of the axial cross-section. If you actually want to know what I'm talking about, just say the word, and I’ll dive into the logos of the tetrahedron, its meaning, and its implications for Stanford University-level human intelligence—which, based on what you've written so far, you would likely be able to verify and comment on quite accurately. If you convince yourself that this is indeed a superior logos, start applying it to your own reasoning and debates. If you do, we’d see actual progress, and no one could complain that we’re just talking and writing without producing tangible results. If you—and I’m opening this up to others—could confirm that the tetrahedral axial logos is indeed superior, it would constitute a massive leap forward in philosophy, thanks to a tiny tetrahedron: the elementary geometric fractal of the universe.