Konflikt - as a root philosophy.

Wow that’s interesting. I can’t imagine you as the sort of chap who would get a reaction like that, but there you go eh. Perhaps it is something like how the police get bricks thrown at them for interfering, or on the opposite side of the coin, like how civilians in new Orleans kinda looked at the cops as the enemy, because they didn’t feel they got the same help as if it were an upper-class white neighborhood. Sometimes cops can seem like an invading army, and act like it too. That’s a power thing, same as why american prisons are so full and why entrapment is used.

The group-think phenomenon is perhaps a measure of how much reaction/effect your force or pushing gets - even when it is an attempt to help.

Very cool writing Amorphos

I might have to read Nietzsche after I finish with Hume.

I am wondering here whether you are saying the world is pulling in both equal and opposite directions at the same time. Essentially meaning the end result of your pushing could go either way. Either the way you wanted it or the opposite.

Deep stuff. Do you think the inner conflict is always present? I have an idea that it is.

I am interested in seeing “Konflikt” as a root philosophy. I agree with pilgrim-seeker_tom on this one:

. . . and like I said to begin with:

Very cool writing Amorphos

It sounds an awful lot like Hegel’s thesis/antithesis process to me

If I understand Hegel correctly … just finished the 20 minute google tour … Hegel proposed the thesis/antithesis process would lead to a higher consciousness.

About 2 centuries have passed … how do you assess the “higher consciousness” of today versus the “consciousness” of Hagel’s day?

Suppose many would argue that substantial progress in consciousness/awareness is self evident … requiring no further comment.

OTH … a cursory glance at Hegel’s world … Napoleon et al … and a cursory glance at recent geopolitics … suggests not much has changed … seems Hegel’s notion of higher consciousness fails to translate into higher/heightened social harmony … certainly not at a global level.

Let’s hope Amorphos et al are headed in a different direction than Hegel.

I’m no fan of Hegel, and his philosophy of polar opposition has been at the political root of many of the most destructive governments of the 20th century. But by what terms or metrics are we no further than societies then? Literacy, life expectancy, global awareness, social mobility, equality, risk of death from war, disease, childbirth… I’ll take today, thank you.

If you push [too much or too fast] in any direction…
Or if you push against life itself, life will push you back.
It is an issue of Impedance Mismatching.

There can be no universe at all without difference. Absolute homogeneity is physically and logically impossible. The “fundament” of existence is difference (hence “konflikt”].

Readers … seems the term “Root Philosophy” has tickled my curiosity. My memory coughed up the Biblical myth in Genesis. In particular the first two people … portrayed in the myth … post Garden of Eden.

The two brothers Cain and Abel … the first two people in the ‘real’ world … again post the Garden of Eden … the non ‘real’ world … part of the myth.

Abel tried to do good … triggered a conflict with his brother Cain … cost Abel his life.

Also reminds me of something my Greek friend told me many years ago … something to the effect that according to the Greeks … there is “truth” embodied in myth …ergo: myths are not solely for entertainment.

Perhaps there is a “message” embodied in the Cain and Abel myth.

I find the parallels to the notions introduced by Amorphos astonishing.

That was a story about sheparding people (mild usury) vs farming people (total usury) and the consequences.

Readers … the implications in James’s above comment may embody a fascinating revelation.

How so?

James implies that myth’s are born of a priori human experience … rather than being the fruit of someone’s armchair psychology or imagination.

Perhaps Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey are good examples … for the longest time they were considered pure myth … by some people at least … of late some scholars suggest they include some historical fact.

Back to Jame’s post:

[b]

[/b]

What exactly was the a priori human experience embodied in the above statement? Where did this human history occur … what geography?

My memory coughed up some recent stuff I read claiming the Biblical Genesis myth was written by a woman.

If true, my guess would be the human history embodied in the myth took place in Egypt.

Plausible enough.

What about the theory of “The Process of Biotic Homogenization” applied to the human species?

I am wondering here whether you are saying the world is pulling in both equal and opposite directions at the same time. Essentially meaning the end result of your pushing could go either way. Either the way you wanted it or the opposite.

well it was more like newtons third law, but I mostly agree. at least the principle exist by which said law and the prometheus effect both work. Same in the Tao where you have the dragon as masculine and the serpent as feminine, this represents an eternal duality constantly churning things up, to wit there will be a flow of the Tao like winds through everything.

Absolutely.

What a good question! I think people were relatively duller in the past - on the whole. Well we came from monkey consciousness. The greater knowledge makes a more intelligent person imho. Equally the greater the experience and so on and so forth. I digress; the greater the pool of information, means that a greater duality has occurred. Said duality is the engine of creation, ergo if the repertoire is expanded we are simply increased in some way by that volume.

• consider why Alexander could build factories making pipes, and yet an industrial revolution didn’t follow. You simply need a whole ton of inventions and ideas which may then culminate as the explosion that has occurred over the last two centuries. The blast furnace for example.

Conflict is a >fundamental >>principle<<<. whereas reality is the ‘stone’ being acted upon.

Hmm yes ok I suppose that both are involved equally means fundamental to that is still Konflikt/duality. …but why then can we not say that there can be oneness and there cannot be oneness and both be true?

_

Words

I have been waiting to hear for a long time.

[b]

[/b]

Hmmm!

reminds me of the Egyptian Civilization at it’s peak. Apparently not only the construction of the pyramids is held in awe by modern engineers … the alignment of them even more so.

What happened to the reservoir of “inventions and ideas” that empowered this particular feat?

Perhaps that is what James was referring to with his comment:

[b]

[/b]

… particularly the words … “and the consequences”

Difference,
division,
interaction,
trade,…

are all necessary to existence. But “Conflict” is only an aberrant emergent consequence of such necessary elements, although extremely difficult to avoid. The more one understands trade, impedance matching, and life, the less conflict arises. War is only the consequence of naivety and lust.

[b]

[/b]

Awesome insight James

Even supports … though I suspect unintentionally … the thesis Amorphos posits.

A domestic dispute is war.

Making “naivety and lust” … ergo: war … as necessary a component of human life as food and water.

Ergo: Konflict - as a root philosophy.

I think people like the ancient Greeks, Chinese, Indian, Persians and Egyptians etc, done as much as could be done at that time, and with the instruments they had. There was no concept of mass production, machine tools etc, but in later times they had colored glass, so must have had some manner of blast furnace. The geometry is I think an art-form, much like how many cultures mapped the sky to roads and hilltops. Maybe they tune into magnetism too, I can’t think of any other way they could do it [aside from magic]. druids I think used divining rods for example.
Point is though, there are around 98% more things in the modern world - if we go by the invention count since the industrial revolution.

Consider that in simplest form all I am saying is that; more does equal more, and that will be mathematically cumulative.

War is also the consequence of not being naive about the realities of the world. …but I didn’t mention that konflikt meant that, I was trying to state that everything is in juxtaposition like a balance. This is not on the periphery but is at the core of anything one cares to put up against it. All physical things, all info and all meaning contains a duality, even the meaning of oneness.

_

Something extremely difficult to solve with logic alone - I make no attempt to solve it here - I more or less just accept it.

The fundament is oneness - the duality is oneness - this itself is even a rather contrary intuition. Without the said duality there is simply nothing to compare and with a simple extension “no life”. You need a contrast for anything to exist - You are you and everything else is “not-you” and therefore the “YOU” is dependent on the “not-you”; oneness and twoness - twoness is oneness. I think it is safe to assume that Konflikt does make a good root philosophy. I think a grounding philosphy is going to contain a lot more than just Konflikt but I think Konflikt serves as the prop for the rest of a grounding philosophy.

I hope what I write is making sense - I had to deal with a lot of interruptions whilst writing this post.

The duality is a principle acting upon the oneness! 2 cannot be the origins, it has to be 1 [or 0].

If each self has a oneness at root, that’s a multiplicity - which is a contradiction. The emptiness the self begins with may well be universal [almost certainly is], in other words its all the same thing in beginnings. What I [person x] began with and what you [person y] began with is the same thing, the same oneness which gradually gains focus and comes into being as an individual at birth.

We are all rabbits pulled out of the same hat.

What if all the required oneness is there to begin with? There would be no multiplicity just things that take part in the oneness. Couldnt the oneness be infinite?

If duality is a principle then it could be that it is the oneness that is contrasting each thing.

I am not necessarily disagreeing - just trying to understand.

So if I say instead that all totality is; is a fundamental substance(lets call the substance “strings”); when there is nothing but strings then the full state of oneness is zero; because no matter how many times you add zero you still get zero. Then when something is configured with strings then it becomes a contrasting figure against the rest of totality. Duality enters the picture to begin with through this first creation. If this is to be true then there are other principles that have to be for things to configure in the first place - maybe attraction of strings.

Maybe the primordial principles(strings) are consuming and producing. I know the cosmic blender is just a device to present an idea as are some of the devices I have created in this post but it does make me wonder how it can be that the fundament became separated from the rest of totality in the first place. Are you saying the blender sits inside nothing? and you have taken everything inside the said nothing and put it inside a blender. Where did the blender come from?

This is more a curiosity than anything.

Indeed it would be without measure. Existence itself is not like that though. This is why most ancients considered a spiritual origin and that material existence comes after that, and is an illusion ~ because what is one is not multiple amd what is multiple is divided and not whole.

Interesting. comparison would then perhaps manifest existence. Makes sense.
Kind of like when you contrast things in your mind it highlights them, makes one distinct from another.

Yes, we could say with respect to your outlined idea above, that the blender is the act of comparison, contrast, an observer observing an observer who exists because an observer is observing another element in the comparative/contrast.

Perhaps if you do that once it then explodes as a myriad of iterations of that process and you get universe.

There has to be the faculty or property of observing, which itself requires an act of duality. One of splitting the oneness in two such to gain the given perspective needed to observe.

Well, as above, but yes there has to be a duality to begin with. Thinking about this I can only conceive that reality itself at its most fundamental, is observation. This would explain why existence and eternal repetition of universe. if something is ‘looking’, then by default it has to be looking at something. Then it just so happens that everything is there to be looked at.

So in a way we have to reverse the whole blender thing, then imagine that everything is already blended, then that the observer makes a contrast simply by virtue of being an observer, and things then begin to exist [get observed].

Thereafter is relativity and qm, an act of observing itself changes that which it observes.

Can you imagine if the whole of existence is a misperception. The observer looks at nothing, sees something, and then something else exists lol

_