Post-history...

Once time reaches its saturation point, things begin to emerge—man-made objects serving as desperate technical extensions of existence itself. Metaphysics acts as a numerical placeholder for the void in our future, primarily because the human vision of it has failed. History is being regressed into a machine-driven magic, returning us to primitive cults and totems shaped by external nature, though this time the "little gods" are manufactured. Fortunately, or perhaps unfortunately, this mathematical mythology lacks any inherent dynamism. It can exist as a separate entity, but it cannot usurp its designated role to replace God. What humans create can never surpass them; at most, it can only become a mirror of themselves. This fear of alienated technology is fundamentally a fear of nature, yet there is a massive difference in who holds the reins: Homo sapiens, in their characteristic arrogance, have chosen the very tools that will facilitate their own extinction. It seems people have voluntarily—or perhaps subconsciously—stifled their own freedom, surrendering it to something residing purely in the realm of potentiality. We have handed control to simple, logical categories that mediate and translate reality. Given the average consumer's IQ, this mediation must be profane and obscene; it simulates transcendence through an overwhelming abundance of simplicity, effectively negating all ethical and aesthetic value. The fear of technology is caused by the death of axiology, not the other way around. There is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
Perhaps the individual in this chaotic, godless world—and thus a world devoid of conscience—is only possible as a persona threatened by a "Big Brother." But today, that threat is absolute, and there is no significant adversary left to turn the individual's will toward a revolution. The world has dissolved like late-stage Rome, making it impossible for any subcultural or social movement to achieve planetary scale. Everyone is already globally synchronized, broadcasting on secondary channels. No collective project can sway a population that is already fully supplied with basic necessities and information. However, this chromatic, cathode-ray madness—this frantic attempt to forget the heavy burden of hatred—isn't something we who seek transformation should focus on. We simply want to clear away the mud, charging blindly toward the plaza.

The abyss of aggressive advertising—a world of colors, faces, sounds, and attitudes—cannot be critiqued from any external vantage point. It is an exclusively political manifestation of "being-here," a coexistence where even cryptophilia becomes meaningless. Within these familiar forms, endless layers of "exclusive existence" are imposed, offering highly questionable versions of intimate acts and feelings. The problem arises when the will attempts to step out of the mud of this modern pseudo-polis. People suffocating within these personas never trigger true conflict. In our case, radical negation is often mistaken for reflection, but it leads nowhere. All that remains is mere recognition and protest—a resistance against a fake hyper-diversity running on the same conveyor belt, powered by the petty interests of massive egos and the charisma of mediocre daredevils. It is a manipulation of every species that escaped control, where interests serve merely as the impulse driving the remnants of a Gulag. These forces produce consequences far more lasting than their intended motives. Even when masked by the "sacred" economy, these narrow interests require massive amounts of mechanical-populist labor to function. This generates a mindless surge of "public opinion," which in turn dethrones the consciousness of every actor involved. It turns the participants into simple psychotics, mere reflections clinging to a single illusion of control. The "I" becomes the "you," so that together, on a zero-sum ground, they become the "it"—a thing, a nothingness. They become a fabricated adverb acting as a fingerprint of the self, while everything is crushed by an unknown "id." We will be lost on the way. And who would bother to remember that the beginning was once a powerful will to find the timeless? This is clearly the end; why would a starting strategy matter now?
It is like being at the source, where character is destiny—a thousand different meanings standing in the foyer of a two-millennium-long solipsistic culture. Here, the subject’s self-awareness, the definition of morality against one's stances, and the absolute freedom within the necessity of rational perception are all that remain.
Fate isn't some cosmic script written in the stars. It can't be unmasked by prophets peering through the veil of the physical world via divine will. The masters of the dreamscape—that other realm—are simply searching for a straight line along a crooked path of revelation. This path is inherently unstable because it is rooted in character. Character is something deeply immanent and volatile; it is predetermined yet free enough to shatter any necessity. It constantly collapses back into lower forms of existence, undoing the tension between the individual and the object, the self and the possession. It is purely, excessively human.
The answer to this existential riddle lies in character. Everything else is just a lowered curtain. Adding the burden of freedom is merely a virus infecting an already weakened immune system—the fractured character of the new millennium. In the cheap slang of our era, people strip away the meaning of absolute ethical ideals. These ideals are the true reality of a whole, 100% individual, far removed from the external image, the view from above, or those rare moments of self-sacrifice. They are lost in the flashes of "lies" within the "truth" of a world blurred by cryptometaphysics.
However, this sentence is merely an answer. It doesn't hint at a sequel; rather, it is the product of profound disappointment. It stems from an inability to weigh oneself, the world, history, freedom, or survival. Character, as a collection of traits, isn't fate itself. It isn't a choice leading to optimistic growth. Instead, character is fate *to* a person, or fate *for* a person. To emphasize: if we detect a diseased state in a famous character, it is essentially a punishment. Beyond that, nothing else is needed to muddy fate or amplify the tragedy of existence. Here, man is a finished meaning—a total nothingness. He is a hollow concept with a single possible outcome: hopelessness and loss. Like the world and everything derived from it, he is a degraded concept.
Man has no fate. Character is his only sufficient fate.

The Perils of Confession

Thoughts exist in three forms: spoken (in marketplaces), written (in libraries), and sold—atemporalized and tucked into the drawers of the subconscious. Sometimes they seem lost forever, only to return uninvited as altered fragments of the same eternal questions. Spoken thoughts are rare; they are hard to shield from oblivion. Some claim they don't even exist. There are fewer and fewer people who truly speak, and more and more who certainly write. Writing provides a sanctuary. Once a question is posed, it serves as enough resolution for a person. What else is there to do when countless thoughts are sold off through a simulated flow of time? A single sentence, even if it doesn't live alongside others, creates finality. Though it cannot speak, it stands guard against wandering minds. Yet, it creates a rift, forming its own lost world. Small epigons of papyrus desperately chase this eschatology. Let it be fragmented, jumbled, prolonged, or unwritten, until it finally structures itself into something non-dead. Do not read it aloud, lest it dissipate, and do not seek meaning between the lines. The structure is the letters themselves. Something imagined far away, vast, perhaps within me? Always within you. What is new here?

New Babylon

Regarding the etymology of the word *glossa*: 1) Originally: a dark, obscure word requiring interpretation; implying uncertainty, where language begins as wonder, leading to 2) Subsequently: interpretation or explanation—the removal of the uncertainty inherent in wonder, which is the most general way of presenting the *glossa* (the interpretation) itself. The socio-semantic framework of speech does not allow for lingering uncertainty. Instead, that initial, incomprehensible wonder is radically transformed (not in a temporal sense) into the mere interpretation of the word's origin, thereby filling it with content. Here, however, the word (whether a *glossa* or otherwise) is speech transposed into a transparent form of a specific language, dialect, or slang; this allows the involution we are discussing to emerge from this darkness of meaning as 3) In everyday life, an acerbic or malicious remark. Within this fractal range, the word has gained its written history. Since the world is determined by history (and vice versa), this history takes the shape of speech, pointing toward 3) malicious remarks regarding all forms of 2) interpretation and explanation, especially regarding 1) the ambiguity of every wonder. I found myself in this position while reading a semantic sketch that I intended to 2) interpret as an involution in the case of the word *glossa*.😛

A stray thought, tossed out carelessly in a room, eventually finds its way to someone else. As it spreads, it reaches a primal semantic state—returning to the simplest possible pattern of human communication. Social language is always dead serious. News lacks irony; instead, it’s been demonized. That’s why you can’t explain anything to anyone. Everything is explainable, which means speech itself doesn't struggle with the "objectivity" of a narrative. Only living speech is real. It’s a world where nothing moves, a world that exists nowhere. Listen to me: schizophrenia isn't a thing anymore. What used to be called madness can actually be powerful. It isn't a disease. It’s a constant. Or perhaps, the whole world is just sick.

PHILOSOPHY

These are some old essays, so here is a fresh one. It is a massive misconception to think that the beginning of history is something primitive, outdated, clumsy, or weak. In reality, the exact opposite is true. The beginning is something incredibly intense and powerful. Everything that follows isn't actual development; it is merely leveling—a simple dilution. It is the impossibility of maintaining that initial spark, an attempt to distort and inflate the origin into a bloated monstrosity of sheer numerical scale and dimension (think Martin Heidegger interpreting a stanza from Sophocles' Antigone). Or, put another way: how did the birth of logocentrism in Greek substance evolve into the rationalist subjectivity of the modern era, with its most significant accident being the very idea of "progress"? Perhaps, following the postmodern demand to "exit Greece," the elitist morality of the polis—with its insistence on universality—was actually the seed of the Marxist-National Socialist corruption of Western progress? This pretension, this demand, displays a certain audacity of simplification against the tide of compression. There is a clear paradox in "future thought," where the "numerical magnitude" of modern eclecticism and historicism creates a leap toward a singular vision of the end of history, establishing a deconstructive mode of thought. After all, where is that perspective of Carol's Alice, which, through the lens of existentialism and psychoanalysis, marks the entire temporal insight of humanity's highest spiritual peaks with a negative eschatology, echoing with the boundless cries of a faded century? Even the underground tragedy of the Christian stands before the mirror in that profane display of the will to power, where the meaning of an individual accident is reflected through the mediation of historical utopias. The defaced transcendence of the Holy Spirit draws all its benefits from the alienated concept of capitalism within modern hedonism, finding refuge in the emptiness of plutocracy and mediated public opinion as the sole shield against projected neo-barbarism (perhaps a Castilian Neoplatonism?), where fear serves as the final tangible proof of objective reality. The potential for eliminating the masses feels less like a featureless truth and more like a fractal, dispersed subject behind a mirror—a gnoseological disintegration of what remains of auto-irony. A radical critique of political correctness, acting as an oversized panic over a virtual figure and a simulated sign, grants itself an absolute cultural code. In doing so, it reversibly completes a semiotically harmonious performance of amnesty for the totalitarian, which has always fueled the real conflict between the individual and the collective. The vital play of a measured principle of evil is not nullified by questions as the only escape from theory; because in the vicious conformism of small compromises, there is no order. Longing does not choose its victims once the worn-out nostalgia for the past is lost and one believes in the Beckon turn. The skeptical aura surrounding the logistics of numbers, used in service of theory to dismantle it, inevitably leads to a longing for a new minimalism in the darkness of the end-time mysticism. An aristocratic, gentlemanly tone used to illuminate the simulacrum acts as a confirmation of an egalitarian plunge into a flight from loneliness—understanding becomes masochism, a hyperbole of today's meager moment. For who will ask about the dubious ontological now, when there is no Robespierre of the provinces to descend upon the altar of chance or a revolutionary kitsch? The "humanist" icon is crowded with the faces of sympathy in a symbolic civil war of interests and passions—a struggle to which everything must be subordinated. The only certainty is tautological: common sense is not so common... No, the source is ended by murder. Who overcame the ordinary?

The term "mass culture" is essentially defined by its qualitative opposition to what we might call "elite culture." However, finding true elite culture is becoming increasingly difficult in an era defined by rapid population growth, massive urbanization, sweeping technological breakthroughs, rising living standards, and expanded leisure time. In another sense, this term captures the consumerist mindset of the audience and the mass media used to spread it. Even as cultural values become more commercialized and cosmopolitan, they don't escape the sense of profanity brought on by these shifts. Ultimately, "mass culture" imposes itself as a subject of debate through its tendency toward simplification and homogenization. If we want to truly deconstruct the facets of globalization, we must avoid using its "crutch terms." These terms might seem helpful for explaining dominant processes, but they actually hinder any deep reflection on modern society.
My intention was to speak in light of Baudrillardian communicative ecstasy, where the language of information technology can effectively become the language of the masses. Isn't this essentially the speech of objects? It finds a parallel in magical thinking. Instead of fire cults, we now live in a state of desacralization where transparent objects—just another projection of the subject, or perhaps a step down from it—create a network where only the interface matters, even if that interface is entirely fabricated.
From this perspective, we can look at Derrida’s reflections in his essay "Of Spoken Tone in Philosophy," where he looks back at a similar Kantian text. This was a time when a technological revolution wasn't even on the horizon, yet mathematical mysticism was already emerging through Cartesian or Leibnizian rationalism. Kant criticizes this idolatry of figures and numbers, linking it to phenomena like sects, crypto-politics, and superstitious theophanies that stand in contrast to rational theology. Numerology, mystical illumination, and theophanic visions all belong to an apocalyptic world that, according to Derrida, saw a resurgence in the 19th century. Now, in my humble opinion, we reach the vital question: how did this aristocratic esotericism transform into the expansive form we recognize today as "mass culture"? We see news and public opinion treated purely as mediated information, alongside an infinite sea of virtual content, all accompanied by a vision of the end times. Or will we steer this entire discussion toward a Heideggerian prophetic push of technology into the interference of the "Enframing"? If we ask where the *bonum*—the good—lies, are we merely asking in vain?

Here is my thought: I wanted to tell Baudrillard that if modern humanism is defined by the idea that nothing holds more value than life itself, then logically, life isn't worth sacrificing for any cause. If we accept this peak nihilism, a philosopher ought to maintain an ethical distance through reflection—assuming such ethics even exist in a post-historical era. Additionally, I wonder if it's possible to reconcile Socrates, Heidegger, and Baudrillard—the victim of the beginning, the apologist for the end of history, and the deeply rooted theorist of the post-historical. Furthermore, where is the commentary on the Enlightenment's fate regarding desacralization in Baudrillard's work? Could someone please write something about this?

Amanda Fowler2!👋

Be a gentleman and walk me through how this whole "post-history" concept of yours actually connects to Fukuyama’s take on the matter...
The title itself feels a bit too "postmodernist" for my taste...
Where can I actually find a proper breakdown of your theory, because scrolling through that massive wall of text, I kept tripping over astrology, mass media, and all sorts of other things thrown into the mix...

Are we talking about mass culture here, or is this meant to be some fresh perspective on history itself?
🙂

Amanda Fowler2 said:So here’s the thing: I wanted to tell Baudrillard that if modern humanism is essentially driven by the premise that nothing holds more weight than life itself—which implies that life isn't worth sacrificing for any cause—then perhaps the philosopher needs to maintain a certain distance through ethical reflection, assuming such a thing even exists in this post-historical era... Furthermore, is there any way to reconcile Socrates, Heidegger, and Baudrillard—the victim at the dawn of everything, the apologist for the end of history, and the deeply entrenched theorist of the post-historical age? And one more thing: where is the commentary on the Enlightenment's fatal drive toward desacralization within Baudrillard's work? Can someone please write me something

Tell me, please, have you actually read the essay "To Have a Devil"?

Not really. If we’re talking about something Baudrillardian, I unfortunately don't have access to his entire body of work, especially those early post-structuralist pieces. I’d love to get my hands on everything, but... well, that's just a personal hurdle of mine.

I need you to point me toward the original source for what you just posted, and I'd also love to hear your take on Fukuyama...
😉

Sorry, I just caught that post. Basically, we are looking at negative critiques drawn from the works of Baudrillard. I haven't actually read Fukuyama myself, though; I've mostly encountered him through news commentary. I've also heard he leans into some rather gimmicky historical takes and belongs to those neoconservative circles here in the US. Forgive me, but when it comes to astrology and mass culture, I feel entitled to add my own little spin regarding the end of history.😉 It all stems from Baudrillard—specifically his ideas on stimulation, the second stage of his theories, and the concept of the perfect crime. That’s the core of it. My goal was simply to encourage others to weigh in too. Perhaps someone well-versed in Foucault or Lyotard could join the conversation. Or even Deleuze. Since I can't exactly drop a fortune on new books right now, I’m counting on your collegiality.
As for astrology and television, I don't think they should be underestimated. To me, postmodernism isn't trying to offer a new way to view history; it's an attempt to exit history altogether. It reminds me of Foucault’s call to "exit Greece," which, if I recall correctly from your recent posts, seems to be a recurring theme for you. One wing of this new postmodern philosophy embraces that revisionist approach. Baudrillard, however, doesn't quite fit into that specific group. But we shouldn't limit his books strictly to social critique either. According to him, modern society disrupts reality itself and the subject-object relationship. In this discourse, everything becomes reversible because the human being ends up functioning as an object or serving one. Public opinion is merely a byproduct of this inverted relationship. It fills the void left by the disappearance of thought as a universal concept, complete with all its ethical and aesthetic values. It is the end of axiology, as I mentioned before. Society essentially observes itself through the search for a lost ontological claim. There are certainly hints of the historical moment there too—questions about how we suppress the past, such as during World War II, and that distorted humanism found in false discourses regarding victims. These are just a few open themes in Baudrillard's work, and honestly, there are plenty more. So, please, pick one and write back. You have plenty of options. And thank you for pulling this topic out of the mud.👋

History doesn't actually start until after the Singularity—everything before that point is just... history. Once we hit the Singularity, there’s no pre-history, no history, and certainly no post-history. There is only ONE UNIVERSAL. If you're interested, I could dive a bit deeper into that anticipation my favorite guy, Ray Kurzweil, talks about? Honestly, all this talk of modernism, postmodernism, transmodernism, and whatever else... isn't it just a desperate attempt to bridge the gap between tradition and reality? It’s clearly not working anymore.

Of course, hollowpilot9, please be kind when you type. I truly appreciate it.🙂 👍

hollowpilot9 said:History doesn't actually start until after the Singularity; everything before that point is just a prelude. Once we hit the Singularity, there isn't even a concept of pre-history, history, or post-history anymore. There’s just one single, universal state. I guess if you're interested, I could go into more detail regarding that anticipation my favorite thinker, Ray Kurzweil, talks about? All this talk of modernism, postmodernism, transmodernism, and so on... it feels like nothing more than desperate attempts to tether tradition to a reality that’s already moved on. It just doesn't work anymore.

Man, you're really going on about the Singularity.
That whole idea was basically a massive fad back in the day with Däniken and that crowd.
Let's see what you actually know about Kurzweil; honestly, I think I might have a better handle on him than you do.😉

Ronald Flores54 said:Man, that was a huge hit like two decades ago...

Ugh, god, that feels like forever ago. Like, how could something that old even be philosophically relevant anymore?

Amanda Fowler2, this is some pretty timely info—definitely one of those key pieces that backs up my theory about Homoterus. I’ll just drop a few sentences here, but the rest is over in the time thread, so please go check out the full thing there.

Ray Kurzweil was the pioneer behind optical character recognition, the first printer to take speech-to-text input, and he developed the first CCD scanner along with the first speech synthesizer—you know, the stuff that lets machines sing and play music. All these inventions, driven by his specific intelligence and expertise, have become commercial staples all over the world. For his work, he picked up the Lemelson prize from MIT—a $500,000 award, which is basically the gold standard for innovation globally. He’s the author of "The Age of Intelligent Machines" and "The Age of Spiritual Machines," exploring the moment computers finally overtake human intellect. Here is what the man has to say regarding the evolution of intelligence.

We are stepping into a new era—what I call the Singularity. It’s a concept describing the fusion of human and machine intelligence, creating a capacity far greater than our own. This is the ultimate pivot point in the evolution of our planet and humanity. To me, it represents the moment human civilization becomes a singular entity. It’s our destiny, part of an evolutionary path where intelligence undergoes exponential growth toward what human beings are ultimately meant to be. The next level involves augmenting our intellectual power through technology. Our actual reality and our future are subject to the rule of exponential evolution. Imagine an app sending billions of nano-bits of information directly into our brains—that becomes our absolute virtual reality. If you want to exist in true reality, you have to recognize that reality as nano-information. This reality is woven from nano-data just like virtual reality; if you want to enter it, nano-signals override all other signals—including my own real opinions—replacing them with nano-signals, provided I am in a virtual environment. We are already drifting into this virtual space, more and more, alongside everyone else. In there, we’ll find everything from sexual and sensual encounters to high-stakes business negotiations, totally immersed in a complete virtual reality that captures every single one of our senses.
Kurzweil goes on to say: "My fascination with the future stems from my drive to innovate. I’ve developed mathematical models for predictive evolution across various fields—computing, electronics, communications, biotechnology like genetic scanning, reverse brain phenomena, miniaturization, and the technological shifts in the paradigms we believe in. This helped me become both an interpreter and a technological creator who catches the wave at just the right moment. This interest in tech trends led me to create a project I call the Law of Accelerating Returns, because I believe this law serves as the backdrop for all future technological evolution."

Since my mathematical models held up well when predicting twentieth-century events, I consider them fairly reliable for forecasting up to 2030. I also want to highlight the fact that many futurists fail to realize that every single change carries its own acceleration. A century ago, people didn't think—or rather, they didn't believe—that the world was actually changing. Their grandfathers lived essentially the same lives they did. Today's axiom is completely different; we know, and we are convinced, that life is shifting and that technology dictates the speed of societal change. What isn't easy to grasp is that every individual change accelerates. Therefore, the knowledge we gained over the last 20 years isn't a great roadmap for the next 20. We now understand that scientific and social paradigms double every ten years.

By the way, Däniken translated this into English for Ronald Flores54 about two decades ago back when this whole thing was a massive hit.

Today, just one-third of the global population holds the reins of capital, technology, and specialized knowledge. Capital has evolved into a force that transcends traditional cultural structures, functioning as a symbiosis between organized crime and a global oligarchy. In this landscape, the individual’s reality is merely calibrated to serve someone else's interests. Within this framework, the revolution in the natural sciences acts as a powerful pillar for the status quo. It forces a merger between scientific and humanistic discourse, effectively eliminating the need for new social definitions or even sociology itself. The passivity of our political community risks turning democracy into a mere facade. Behind this screen lies a relentless drive for financial dominance, which manifests through the creation of new technologies and communication tools. These innovations are mythologized until they become modern totems, while public opinion is pushed to the fringes. We are left with isolated, powerless voices trying to question the messy blend of representative democracy, concentrated wealth, and modern infrastructure. Even the moral foundation of our system—suspended somewhere between a republic and an empire—is becoming unstable. We are approaching a stage where human self-production via biogenetics and the fine-tuning of physical and mental traits is no longer science fiction. This push to mold humanity into an anthropomorphic information system through genetic manipulation and psychopharmacology is being rebranded as contemporary "humanism." Free will is being eroded by cognitive neurology and implants, while evolutionary psychology is used to justify a tiered version of progress. This brand of "humanism" is essentially a law designed to lift certain individuals above the principles of natural selection. By seizing control of evolutionary currents, proponents claim to ensure equality by expanding survival to more people. However, this massive expansion of the natural sciences—aimed at "emancipating" as many people in the West as possible—calls into question the relevance of the social sciences. What purpose do sociology, anthropology, or metaphysical thought serve for an individual living in a post-consumerist, informational, and neo-biological era? Where is the conversation about character when human nature is predetermined by a new kind of hedonistic ecology? Furthermore, who will address the gaping chasm between the realized utopia of the Western world and the marginalized nations that now constitute the "fourth world"? In the pursuit of neoliberal prosperity, fused with a Protestant work ethic, the individual becomes a mere cell in a larger organism. In this setup, the concept of equality is highly suspect. With the manipulation of science, we face the genuine threat of creating a ruling class that functions as a new race altogether. The implications of promised longevity for the improved "human-robot" are vast. Those living in the world's discard zones will have no choice in their personal immortality, and all signs suggest that the lower classes in developed nations will follow suit.
Critiquing this is almost futile. We cannot stop the logistical momentum of a scientific model that has secured its theoretical footing in an anthropocentric paradise. In this new world, no one will ask what the conditions were for this phenomenological reset of post-history, nor will anyone ask where justice is buried—justice as the right of the most vulnerable, those freed from the ambition of wealth and the cult of personal branding and "happiness."

Amanda Fowler2, I wouldn't go so far as to say I’m validating the "Man of Technology"—if that's even what you mean—but rather that I'm looking at the affirmation of "Evolutionary Man," where technology acts as a primary driver of that evolution. We’re essentially doing the same thing here, but for me, "society" isn't some separate entity sitting apart from evolution and tech. In any modern society, science creates the technology that defines the very fabric of that society—it's what makes a culture what it is in the first place. What you're doing is fine, really, it's just one piece of the puzzle. My fear is that if you stick strictly to that single line of reasoning, you might miss the sheer volume of phenomena being generated by technology itself. And those changes are—as Kurzweil puts it—exponential. They're getting faster and broader every day (think of an exponential population curve). We've reached a stage where our mental capacity just can't keep pace with the scale, quality, and velocity of these shifts using old-school methods. For instance, the classic, years-long "ivory tower" approach to research—the standard academic model—is practically obsolete now. By the time someone finishes reading all the essential books and papers on a specific niche, the problem they started studying has often vanished entirely. I try to get people to grasp this, especially in places like the US, where technological shifts are constantly hitting us over the head—though we aren't really the architects of these changes, more like the targets. We’re perpetually playing catch-up, and as time moves forward, that gap widens, leaving us with consequences that most people can already see clearly enough.
The massive misunderstandings in debates over theism versus atheism are actually a direct result of this! People simply don't realize—or aren't even aware of—how fast scientific and technological advancement is forcing human society to reshape itself, even adopting attributes once reserved for God. That’s exactly the direction I’m trying to point toward. Just as a friendly suggestion—do this for your own sake, for the sake of your work—try to "record" and analyze the shifts technology has forced upon us from 1900 to the present day. Look at transportation, communication phenomena, the explosion in energy consumption and shifting power sources, or even take a look at militarism and the evolution of weaponry designed for destruction. If you do that, everything will click, and your conclusions will be much more grounded. These changes are massive, and they impact human society profoundly. They are already acting as
a "standalone force," regardless of whether you, I, or anyone else agrees with them. It’s paradoxical, really—this force is created by humans as an imperative of their own macro-existence.
Anyway, that's about it. I wish you nothing but success in your research and in understanding these social phenomena! To me, the peak of understanding is realizing that everything is inexorably moving toward the macro-organism—Homoterus—which is, of course, a macro-functionally structured human society, organized organically and organismically.

I’m completely on your side this time, hollowpilot9. I never intended to deny the technological revolution itself. My point was more about how little digital literacy exists here in America, let alone anything else. That’s really what I meant when I brought up third-world nations. We are merely objects caught up in global events—that was a brilliant way to put it. I don't have much else to add. Honestly, we’re still living in a primordial, tribal state. We need to settle our own local disputes and neighborhood issues first before we can even dream of participating in modern global trends. It seems like nobody here truly grasps that yet.

Kosmarac says: I’m totally with you on this one, hollowpilot9. It’s not like I was denying the tech revolution or anything. But honestly—just so we’re clear—if you look at how little digital literacy there is in places like Mexico, let alone everything else... that’s what I meant when I brought up third-world countries. We’re basically just pawns being moved around by global events—which, if you think about it, is a pretty sharp way to put it. I don't have much else to say. We’re still living in this primordial, tribal state. We need to sort out our own backyard first—you know, those endless disputes with our neighbors—before we can even dream of actually participating in modern global trends. But apparently, nobody here seems to get that.

hollowpilot9: See? That’s the thing—it’s amazing how people can actually agree on something fundamental, even when it’s as vital as this! Now, given the way things are currently heading, wouldn't it be useful to figure out how smaller nations can maintain their own agency while the superpowers are busy rising? It reminds me of how Got once suggested that every nation has its own unique fugue in history—and I tend to read his message as meaning that every single tiny part of the human body has its specific purpose. In fact, isn't it true that sometimes a tiny little thing—like the pituitary gland or the adrenal gland—actually plays a more agile or crucial role than something massive like the stomach? Research in that area could be incredibly fascinating, and frankly, it’s exactly what smaller nations need right now. The internet is definitely one tool that opens those doors.
The solution is out there; we just have to find it, recognize it, and shape it!