I contemplate to write a philosophy book on willpower and free will.
I just have too many ideas, observations, and conclusions to draw upon. My current thoughts are unorganized and a mess of information. So what I’ll do in this thread, is just start spitting out ideas like in my rambling thread. Then I’ll revise these ideas, organize them, and start writing a whole book on this matter.
The introduction to this book must explain the nature of existence. Things exist and are material. Things have mass and energy, therefore have power. Because power is a derivative of the relationship between mass and energy. Massive things are called “Objects”. And one of my premises, is that all the universe is objective. Because all the universe can become interpreted as “One Object”. This premise is called “Ontology”, the logic such that all existence is objective first and primarily. In other words, there is no such thing in the universe without form and energy. All existence must have at least some form of energy, constituting a mass, even if unrecognized.
Therefore there is no “Void” nor “Vacuum” in existence. These are false concepts. Nothing does not exist. Because to be nothing, would mean an object have no mass nor energy. This is called “Impossibility”. And it is impossible for the human mind to recognize such a thing, hence the labeling of “No-thing”. The idea of nothingness leads directly into Nihilism, which is ideology of negation. However nihilism and negation are flawed concepts, based on the premise of Newton’s Law Conservation of Energy/Mass. Things neither are created nor destroyed. Therefore all the exists, exists so eternally. Change is a function between relationship of different masses, energies, and forms. For example you set a tree on fire, and forms change. The relationship of elements represent natural laws. And humanity can therefore predict events based upon these principles.
In fact this is the very basis for all intellectual cognition, in every specie of animal.
Therefore power, physics, and matter all become interpreted by subjective “becomings”. Animals exist, but are animals “things”? The mind-body dualism is pervasive in western culture. And people suffer from its conditions. It is a strong cultural theme, and especially christian in rationality. Christians proposed over millenniums now that “mind” is other than “body”. Thus from the christian culture, subject is other than object. This ontologically is incorrect. Because to divide existence into two realms (subject-mind v object-body) is to destroy the idea of a “Universe”, “One Object”, or “One Thing”. Monotheism is ontological. Therefore the mind-body split (dichotomy) represents a Dual-Theism. And this is when Christianity introduced the idea of the Devil at some point in its theological evolution. An “Other” was needed to contrast “The One”.
One v Other.
However this binary form of thinking is inherent within consciousness, cognition, and thought. Organisms split one from other as “self” opposed to “another”. I am one. You are another. I am me. You are not me. Therefore dualism leads to an ideology of individuality and uniqueness. Difference is the result and consequence of perception. “To Think” is not just “To Be”, but it is to “To Be Other Than This and That”. Thought represents a system of logic, of relations between (physical) objects.
So this is the link between cognition and physics. Cognition is the mere recognition of physical relationships (of objects).
1.1
To have mass is to have energy is to have potential power.
Power appears (subjectively) by its expression in nature. Power is observed through change, of mass (matter) and energy. From this point onward I use the terms “Mass” and “Matter” interchangeably. Mass ≡ Matter/Material. One material object is different than another, by composition (form of elements). There are at least four fundamental elements of existence, earth (stone/carbon), water (hydrogen), gas (air/oxygen), plasma (fire). And so these different elements become apparent and expressed through their material compounds. Things = Objects. Different things = different compound formulas of objects. One “thing” represents a different composition of mass and energy compared to an other “thing”.
Physics is the human understanding of existence, a scientific ideology.
So what people call “Physics” represents a core essence of human knowledge (epistemology). Epistemology is physical. What is known about the universe, is physical. And this physics is a context of human understanding. Physics is a unique means, a lens, to look at the universe in a particular (specialized) way. Physics is a specialization of human knowledge. It should be considered a ‘Generalization’ as opposed to a specialization; because everybody knows at least some small bit of physics. For example everybody intuitively “knows” about gravity and its danger. An animal falls off a cliff. And it must know about gravity, its harmful effect if not its cause. And from this common sense understanding of gravity, a generalization of physics instinctively becomes known to all animals through all cognition.
Reflexes evolve over time. You fall down, but, put your arms out to break your fall. Eventually these actions become genetic. And a baby recoils after touching a hot stove. Because the nervous system senses extreme heat and recoils from it. Just as a phobia and fear of heights develop, and a person recoils from a long drop. Fear embodies instinct and reflex.
Physics is the reason. To understand physics is to understand mass, object, energy, and power. Power is the general relationship between mass (objects) and energy (change). The change of objects, between forms, expresses power.
For example, the tree is set on fire, and burned. This represents a chemical change, therefore a change of power.
1.2
Power as potential.
Mass is “Power-Potential”. For example, you insert gasoline into a car. The car moves, expressing power (work over time). But you insert water into the gasoline tank. The car does not move, expressing powerlessness. So does this mean gasoline is “more powerful” than water, in terms of fueling a car? This is an interpretation of power. Is a gallon of gasoline “more powerful” than a gallon of water?
To understand any context of power, you must understand the potential of a body of mass. Potential is the ability of an object to interact with other objects, toward an objective. And this “Objective” is the important, key term. It is not enough to compare a gallon of water versus gasoline. Instead you must discover the Objective (goal/ideal) of one object versus another.
Drinking the gallon of water, while suffering from heatstroke walking through a desert, is powerful.
Burning the gallon of gasoline, travelling across the highway, is also powerful.
So it is through utility that humans generally understand power, not merely as a physical mathematical equation, but as a human reality. It is not enough to compare an equal body of mass, a pound of feathers versus a pound of bricks. Because power is not truly expressed in this way, as “equal mass”. Instead power is a function of Subjects as well as Objects.
So this introduces the difference between “Subjective Power” versus “Objective Power”. Power of objects versus Power of subjects. The utility of a gallon of water to a thirsty person versus a gallon of gasoline to a thirsty person. Or vice versa, a gallon of water to car that needs to drive on the road.
Yet all things (mass) retain potential power by constitution of its mass (body). All things are powerful based on its composition, form, and matter (potential energy).
Power as expression.
Nature expresses power as force. A waterfall is powerful. An earthquake, hurricane, and flood, are all powerful. A huge meteorite slamming into the earth, breaking the earth apart into two, killing all humanity instantly, is powerful. Because the inherent movement of an object represents power as a natural expression. Movement (change) of objects (energy) proves the existence of power. And so two things must become known and inquired. What is movement? What is an object? These questions lead to existentialism (objectivity v subjectivity) and phenomenology (rate of change of movement).
But presuming that subjects are extensions of objects, nature then becomes expressed in another fashion.
A person doing something, is also powerful. And a powerful person can change the world, the universe, in a similar way as a flood, a fire, a meteorite cutting the earth into two.
Isn’t humanity an expression of nature, therefore an expression of (organic) power???
Of course, yes, humanity is.
1.3
Mass represents all things.
There is nothing without mass and energy. “All” (Ontology) represents something. And all things have mass and energy as constituent properties. Mass and energy are derivatives of all things. Each of these previous statements are existential premises. Without these premises, consciousness cannot form, or at least cannot be “known”. These existential premises are the foundation for epistemology (human knowledge). Even if such a “No-thing” could exist, then it could not have mass, and could not have energy. Because there is no energy without mass.
To assert otherwise, an oppositional premise (Antithesis) leads to mythology and nihilism. “Something comes from nothing.” Or easier to understand, in layman’s (commoner/peasant) terms, “Matter can become created and destroyed.” To burn a tree is to utterly destroy it. And it disappears from existence, if not from human knowledge.
This flawed reasoning leads to solipsism: “Existence = Human Knowledge”. So what a person does not know, is what they also claim does not exist. This is rather easy for an adept philosopher to refute. Because people do not act in such a way. People act as-if existence precedes epistemology (essence).
For example, humans, and all other animals, did not need to know the “Theory of Gravity” to become aware the existence of gravity and its affectation. Gravity is an inherent danger, a mortal threat. So to ignore or contradict gravity (natural law) would be a fatal mistake. Darwinism and the fatal errors of life, prove solipsism wrong.
So, to return to the point, the idea of “Nothing Existing” is fatally flawed. It eventually leads to solipsism and nihilism, the denial of nature and reality in such a way to constitute mortal threats (of logical fallacy, errors, and irrationality). I will make a note here to say that “Emotionalism” is also “Irrationality”. And to have an emotion, is to be irrational. I’ll try to remember this point and inquire it another time in this disposition.
To have mass, is to have energy, and so everybody and everything (all objects) constitute some absolute (natural) law.
I simply will call this “Gravitas”, the eternal law of the universe, such that all things have at least some magnetic quality. For example, earth pulls objects to it, due to the sole constituency of its mass. All that requires, to have an effect (on other bodies) is to simply exist.
And because this is true, the existential quality of “Power” must also be true. Power exists, because mass exists. And to posit the existence of mass, is called the ideology of “Existentialism”.
Ontology represents Monotheism, the idea of “One Thing” that must constitute/embody “The Universe”.
The Atom represents all mass, energy, and existence in such way that “The Adam” represents all mankind and humanity. A generalization expanded outward to include all other things, leading to Absolution. To include the entire universe into “One”. The Atomic Unit has been conceived as reconciliation between religion (god) and science (newton). Is mass created and destroyed, or not? You must make a final stance, and decide. Yet religion has decided yes, matter can become created and destroyed (by god). While science has decided no, matter cannot become created and destroyed (by humanity).
So science and religion diverged and separated into two paradigms (ideologies). This occurred mostly during the European Enlightenment Era. Dualism was again proposed under these two separate ideologies. Before the Enlightenment, science and religion were considered “the same ideology”. In the past, the dualistic paradigm represented mind versus body, not creation versus consistency. Today things have changed, and the arguments have progressed to different points of reason.
Contemporarily speaking the “Scientists” are winning over the religious. And more people assume the position such that universal matter is conserved, directly opposing Creationism (also Destructionism). So there is a cultural paradigm shift occurring, as more and more people sway one way or another.
However you can observe the beginning of this split. Because “The Atomic Unit” is just as spiritual and sanctified by science as is “The Adam” is sanctified by religion and christianity.
Two ultimate premises in opposition.
If mass can become created and destroyed then how and why? Prove it, can you? What does it mean that something comes from nothing, ex nihilo, and things pop “into and out of existence” (Quantum Physic speculation)?
If mass is conserved then how can the Big Bang occur? It could not. The Big Bang is impossible, meanwhile, matter neither is created nor destroyed. The Big Bang Theorists (BBTs) attempt to reconcile this contradiction with a band aid. “Well, you see, all the mass of the universe was simply concentrated at one point in time.” But is this answer sufficient or necessary? It is necessary, to justify other postulations.
The BBT was a reconciliation between christianity and scientism. And this reconciliation needs revised.
Because people can only believe in apparent contradictions for so long.
2.1 The Third Solution
There is another option. To reconcile science and religion, all you need to do is posit that “god created the atom” and the atom is “indestructible”. Therefore matter was once created, exists and persists, but is indestructible and immutable to humanity. And there can exist some level of infinite power such that would undo all (humanly) known laws of physics. Because such laws of physics literally must represent the limited power of humanity. Because humanity is limited (in power and knowledge). And if knowledge is power, then the ability for humanity to know physics, is also the same ability for humanity to know power.
And to know how to create and destroy matter, would technically be the capacity and willpower of the divine gods.
This leads to the idea of finity versus infinity.
There is limited amounts of mass in the universe, or unlimited. The universe is finite (humane) or infinite (divine). And this dichotomy (finite v infinite) represents the third solution, or reconciliation, between “Science and Religion (christianity)” today, currently.
Thus human knowledge must discover the nature of finity versus infinity. What’s the difference?
Regardless the difference, would the premise of one against the other, negate Newton’s Law or God’s Law???
I personally disbelieve it would. Therefore science and religion can become reconciled through postulation of finity, or, infinity.
Because infinitude is yet another subjective, interpretative, perspective of the universe. And a person can postulate either.
Solipsism is the natural state of organic existence, such that the first impression of consciousness any organism will have, or could possibly have, must be one that presumes itself as the center of the universe.
Now this previous statement has huge implications. And it is not a premise to take lightly. In fact it is one of my most expert conclusions, after 10 years of obsessed philosophical inquiry.
Solipsism leads to a grave, fatal, mortal logical error. Every subject does not conceive itself as an object “itself” first and foremost. Instead the opposite occurs. Every organic object presumes and embodies itself as a subject. To understand any organic consciousness, must include understanding the inversion between Subject and Object. What does it mean to be an object opposed to a subject?
Here is my simplest explanation: Objectivity is the premise, the foundation, the teleological “Beginning”. Meanwhile Subjectivity is the conclusion, the ideal-goal, the teleological “Ending”. And to presume either is to also presume the dichotomy/dualism. The average human automatically believes “I begin and I end”. But what or whom is beginning and ending, except the individual human becoming?
It doesn’t matter what an infant is taught, educated, or indoctrinated. Because what is the nature and function of consciousness?
Except “to sense”, “to look”, “to know”, “to investigate”, “to inquire into” everything else. The consciousness does not represent everything, until the subject is confined backward to its object of origin.
Not everything is consciousness unless everything is made into or interpreted as a subject.
And this “Personification of Everything” is the very act and art of religion. To presume the existence of god, is also to presume the subjectivity of all things. If everything is “open to interpretation” or reducible to opinion, then everything must also be divine and godly.
It becomes obvious why the religious mind must presume (often flagrantly falsely) that “all is subjective” or “all is open to interpretation” or best/worst of all, “all is conscious”.
Because this would then mean that all is a subject, not an object. But of what? Of what object? Of what subject? And the average person, human, cannot reconcile this question of relationship, between object-subject or subject-object.
To understand any dichotomy or dualism, you must first investigate its need and context.
What is the purpose of presuming existence of “Subject or Object”?
And I will answer firmly on this question…
This dichotomy (subject v object) represents the difference between introversion (inward looking mind) versus extroversion (outward looking mind), and finding “the universe” in either direction. Is the universe myself “oneself” or thyself “another”?
When and where can the universe begin?
Conclusion: it can “begin” anytime anywhere.
3.1 Things and Persons
Objective power is realized as “Things”. Subjective power is realized as “Persons”.
Anthropomorization is the rule and natural law of subjective power. Humanity has evolved such (humane) laws that to be born “human” is enough to warrant power (Rights and Entitlements). So to be born human, has the potential to grow, mature, and become “a person” who will then have power simply by the act of being born “human”. Therefore human rights are derivatives of subjective power. People presume these rights and powers, in accordance with natural laws which identify types of organisms and animals as species. To be born part of a group, is enough for that group specifically to confer power upon its progeny. To be born, has power in and of itself. This is the nature of subjective power.
Dehumanization is the antithesis of anthropomorphization, and attempts to deprive humans the title of “human”, personage, rights, and entitlements. Instead of presuming the opposite, you are born a thing, an object, not a person, and not a subject. The difference is: being born an object versus being born a subject.
So which is it? Were you born an object or subject? Very few people will answer “object”. Because humanity has a political advantage to respond with “subject” instead, even if it’s a lie, or especially if it’s a lie.
It’s better to lie, and claim subjectivity from birth, than it is to tell the truth and claim yourself as an object.
Because humanity depends on this lie. Because there is presumed (potential) power within the label of humanity, automatically.
To reconcile any contradictions arising from these observations and premises, you must investigate biology, specie, evolutionary theory, and the function of sexuality in nature. Even the “male/female” dichotomoy represents the difference of object/subject.
For example it’s “bad, evil, immoral” to “subjectify women” or “sexualize women as objects”. But why?
These political questions and answers have a physical basis, which become obvious over the course of this exposition. It’s the difference between subjective/objective power.
This is going to lead immediately into morality. Because subjective/objective power presumes an option where a person has “responsibility” over “his own life”, while others do not have responsibility over themselves. Morality is the presumption that a “Person” can (theoretically) dictate and determine his own lifetime. And I use the “him” prefix knowingly, intentionally, consciously, and politically. Because morality represents a type of power as well. Self-control, as, self-responsibility. Determinism as self-determined.
Autonomy is the highest moral law. Autonomy is the apex of subjective power. An object that “directs itself”, must therein “evolve” as, or into, a subject.
Like an adult animal (subject) arising from a mere seed (object) in the womb.
3.3 Willpower as Physics
Nietzsche ushered in a new scientific and political age and paradigm, ultimately, correctly resulting in National Socialism.
Nietzsche was an extension of Enlightenment era thinkers and ideologies. Since science and religion can become reconciled on some grounds, in some contexts, so too can physics (Newton) become reconciled with god (Catholicism). If you can reconcile creation/destruction of mass with immutable objects (the atomic unit), then yes, you can postulate physical theories of power which directly correlate and connect with “Humanity” as a whole. Furthermore, the classical axiom that “Knowledge is power” further indicates that subjectivity and objectivity can also be reconciled. It doesn’t matter if a human is an object or subject.
All that matters is that power is easily reduced to physics. You don’t have to be an object to have power. All you have to do is demonstrate mass and motion.
All you have to do is “be energetic” and “act”. As such, any action demonstrates willpower.
And that was Nietzsche’s genius and contribution to humanity, physics, and power.
Power is political. Power is within humanity as within all life as within all matter.
Instead what people do to understand power, is to correlate its physical embodiment to “The Will” of humans. So this introduces the idea of a “Will” and “Power”. What is the Will of humanity? It is the desire, want, and need gradient of humanity.
Somethings lack power, relative to other things. Power is hierarchical. Power is a relation between object-subject, subject-object, object-object, subject-subject, etc. Hierarchy demonstrates and imposes Order.
Power represents the relationship (interaction) of all things.
Power can become interpreted as a Noun (Thing, Potential) or as a Verb (Interaction, Event).
A human infant is born powerless. Yet an adult, matured human, becomes very powerful. Therefore power is a function of age, maturity, and wisdom.
The cycle of life presumes that youth has no power (except as potential) while adults must have power (as demonstrated actions). This maturation process and realization of power, is the essence of political affairs. The young mature and eventually dominate their elders. Child overthrows adult. And the cycle repeats itself.
4.1 Life Cycles of Power
Christianity has indoctrinated (perverted/twisted/corrupted) the vast majority of western minds into believing there is a clearly defined “beginning” or “end” to life. This teleology is false. When does life begin and end? Well think about it and reconsider. You can call conception a “beginning”. You can call birth a “beginning”. You can call your 4th birthday a “beginning”. You can call the death of your spouse an “end”. You can call losing hope an “end”. You can call death an “end”. But does the cycle of life truly begin and end?
Paganism runs counter to Abrahamic faith (christianity/judaism/islam). Paganism views life as a cycle, as circular and repetitive, therefore representing a pattern. Life is a pattern of existence. So it is more difficult to pinpoint any moment in life and claim it as beginning or ending. “Beginnings and Endings” represent Teleology. And people apply beginning and end to time sequences in order to make sense of existence. People want to reduce what is cyclical into a linear dimension. People want to reduce complexity into simplicity. Because the average person only has average intelligence, by definition. Therefore the average person represents a reduction of high complexity, intelligence, and logic to what is common and easy to understand.
Imagine life without beginning and end, then what is it? And what is power?
Power applied to life is political philosophy. Politics is the mere apprehension of philosophy, wisdom, and then reducing the potent knowledge of philosophy to the common realm. Adolph Hitler took Nietzsche’s philosophy, reduced it, and then applied it to the german nation. A warlord takes the wisdom of a wise man, and applies it. Then he rises to power and can conquer the world. So wisdom represents the potential power of life, culture, and nations. War is the realization and enactment of such power into political form. What is politics? The etymology of “Politic” means people, city, and state. It means human populations. People fight for control over other people. People want to stand above, not aside nor under others. Because to be above others is to have advantage over others.
Ruling over others is a means to dominion and other forms of freedom.
Control is a form of power, a derivative. So to control others is to enact power over others, through coercion, threat, intimidation, seduction, force of any kind. And the political state (nation) is dominated by political and natural laws. As a father and mother has power over son and daughter, so too do rulers have power over civilians. Masters over slaves. There are those who want to be “In Power” and those who suffice “obeying power”. The master-slave dialectic is real and true as ever, despite cultural marxism (judaism) attempting to overthrow or invert it. Marxism is an ideology that attempts to “free slaves” in some countries, but not other. So this is merely an ideology that incites slave rebellions in other nations, but not its own. And cultural marxism is a very popular anti-cultural and political ideology in this contemporary era (ie. Zionism). Judaeo-Christians represent most cultural marxists.
Every individual person is born into some society, culture, state, population, civilization, and therefore must obey its paradigm from the start. Nobody is “born free” as american ideology and “human rights” purports. Instead, all are born slaves to something or somebody. There are higher forces above infancy. And this is the representation of power, age, and wisdom. An individual is not born powerful, but born weak. There is no infant with power. Infancy is a state of powerlessness and complete slavishness. Now the feminine will disagree and claim that babies/infants have “all the power”. Because the mind of a woman is antithetical to the mind of a man. A woman identifies power with infancy and childishness. She claims that a crying infant has “power over” adults. A crying infant can move the masses.
But to males, an infant and child has no power. It has no individuality. It has neither true control nor freedom. It cannot choose. It cannot consent. It is completely obedient to higher forces. And the survival of an infant is directly connected to the mother (umbilical cord). For the male mind, this is powerlessness. And true power is found through individuality, difference, freedom, self autonomy, and enduring survival by one’s own capacity to enact changes.
So there is an immediate difference of hierarchy and power through the lens (perspective & interpretation) of genders.
A female claims that “infants and children have power”.
A male claims that “children are powerless and pathetic”.
As such a female will also contend that power decreases with age, maturity, and wisdom. So females can be “anti philosophical” in this way. A woman finds no power in philosophy. This conclusion leads to the direct reason and cause as to why females are absolutely lacking in the philosophical realm. Why there cannot be a female equivalent of Philosopher or Wise Man. Because, as mentioned, the premise exists such that females find power in youth over and above elder age. An infant has more value to a woman than the child’s adult equivalent.
As well a female is looking backward in life (into the past) instead of forward (into the future). Because the future (old age, maturity, wisdom) is hopeless for her. And she has no desire to lose her beauty, fertility, infancy, naivety, and all the statuses (rights, privileges, and entitlements) which allowed her to enjoy maximum pleasure, decadence, and hedonism.
And these are all representations of power.
… welcome to the club. 
Time to organize and cleanup the mess, establish order!
I must say, so close and yet so far away. At points, you are right on and at
most other points, you are really, really far from anything resembling the truth.
You are taking some facts you have learned and stretching them into something else.
You think you are smart, but not really. That is the sign of true wisdom, knowing you aren’t
that smart.
If I had to guess, I would say you are somewhere between 20 and 25. Because you will reject every single
thought you had at that age by the time you are 50.
Kropotkin
This is just a rough sketch, outline, and table of contents, K.
By the time it’s finished, you’re going to be thoroughly mind-fucked, and you’re going to enjoy every minute of it.
Yeah well, easily said. I have tried that before and now understand why it isn’t as easy as it would first seem. But it kind of depends on how much you are really trying to say and TO WHOM.
4.2 Life Politics and Parental Hierarchy
From my perspective as a man and male, speaking for myself as an individual, I posit and postulate many premises regarding life and power.
Firstly, an infant is born a slave, not free. Freedom comes much later, if at all. Freedom is possible through maturation, self sufficiency, cutting the umbilical cord, and freeing oneself from the enslaving force of “Humanity”, which is actually newspeak for “Christianity”. To become a free thinker implies that you must accept freedom. Freedom is possible through choice. Choice has consequence. Consequence bestows responsibility. Responsibility indicates morality. Morality implies autonomy. Autonomy implies selfhood, difference, and individuality. So it is through individuality that any organism matures into its mature phase, adulthood.
Even insects go through a “Metamorphosis” between states of immature (egg & sperm) to maturity (final form, hatching, evolved state). So yes life is in motion and change. Life is a cyclical process between “birth beginning” and “death ending”. At least these are the concepts by which humanity has oriented itself in the movement of life and consciousness. Albeit the average thinker and mediocre philosopher mistakes consciousness for life itself. And so consciousness is the essence of life. A comatose patient is dead, by definition, to this flawed logic and line of reasoning.
But life does not require consciousness. Consciousness comes much later, and evolves, as the result, consequence, and conclusion of evolution.
Consciousness or anything “greater than” consciousness is the ‘Ideal’ of life. While the body, unconscious reflex, and genes all represent the ‘Reality’ of life. Life exists on the foundation of body, and outgrowth of consciousness.
So my perspective is thoroughly grounded in a dichotomy that many will see as antithesis. I claim body first, mind second. While those opposed to this existentialism claim mind first, body second. So this work of willpower will continue to unfold in this manner.
A child is born a slave to its parent, mother, or father. So even taking birth as a beginning of life (which it’s technically not, since beginning and ending are artificial designations), there is hierarchy and power in play. Why does an adult have sex? Why does a woman give birth? Why does a man defend or abandon his progeny? There are so many reasons and causes underneath life (metaphysics) that no single philosopher or thinker can hope to examine them all within one lifetime. Examining all the causes and reasons of life requires too many lifetimes of outright study, investigation, and inquiry. So I will suffice this neglect of reason with only a few most sufficient and necessary reason.
Sex is the key to understanding the cycle of birth, life, and death, beginning or ending. Sex is a compulsion, reflex, instinct, representing passion. And it is from sex that humanity is derived, but not all lifeforms. Since many organisms are asexual. Therefore, binding all life into one phenomenon, one reason, one cause, can and will explain the willpower behind all life. Sex is unnecessary for some organisms. Some organisms merely repeat “themselves” asexually. But this still has cause.
The difference between an asexual simple cellular organism (tissue) and humanity is stage of evolution, complexity, and hierarchy of life. I already posited once that hierarchy indicates, and is immediate evidence for, power. Therefore sexuality is the core and seed of power. Because the ability to reproduce is the most powerful function of life. Because without this power, and highest value, then life may not reproduce at all, in which case extinction become inevitable and permanent.
Yet life is more sturdy, and closer to immortality, than the average person is led to believe.
For humanity, the hierarchy comes pre-established. You are born a slave, as an infant. Therefore you are bound by many principles, laws, nature, instinct, reflex, genes, which you cannot escape. And if you are most unfortunate, inheriting a low intellect or severe disease, then you may never even have the chance to understand such limitations of life. Self consciousness is not bestowed on all humanity, in the same fashion that consciousness is not bestowed upon all life forms. Nor all things, period. Because consciousness, again I repeat, is the conclusion to evolution and hierarchy of life.
Consciousness is precisely what is “fought for” through cycles of competition, evolution, and violence. What is desired, lusted for and after, is a “heightened state of being or existence”.
People lust for power. And such power becomes obtained through the cycles of life, and as representation between cycles of freedom (liberation) and slavery (submission).
The vast majority of humanity, I’d say well over 95%, ascribe power to humanity and life before all else. In other words, the typical person does not associate power with Physics, as mentioned in the introduction to this exposition. Instead, the average person ascribes and associates power to such identities and concepts as humanity and life. Life is powerful, at least, more powerful than death. And humanity is powerful, at least, more powerful than other mammals. As such, a hierarchy of power and natural order are presumed as a premise within these common beliefs. Surely a tidal wave and flood of water is powerful…but in what context? It is in the context of human life, and threat to human life, that the tidal wave is now feared. So a natural disaster is not powerful, until, it destroys human life.
And this is how nature “overpowers” human life. So through fear of nature, humanity ascribes nature power over humanity. Through fear, of death. And don’t forget this, because it’s a primary point of contention.
Is a woman powerful and how? Is it because anybody does or ought to fear the violence of a woman? Or isn’t a woman powerful because she reproduces and bears life? She is life holder, Life Preserver. She is the means to immortality. And she is powerful due to this distinction, one of hope instead of fear. She is not feared as “herself”, but powerful as a means of hope and faith, of a future. Because through woman, man finds a future. It is through her body, her womb, her love, care, affection. And that is her power as a woman.
Humanity takes itself for granted.
Again, people make too many false presumptions. But it is from these common presumptions that I must relay my message. Because people do not expect proper philosophy, high intelligence, high wisdom. Instead people expect what is common, average, and popular to continue to dominate. A message from the wise, a true wisdom, is most unexpected. And so, humanity is always unprepared to receive a message that so thoroughly deconstructs itself and “its own ideology”. Humanity is a group, a population (of 7 billion). And so its identifier must include 7 billion. About half of which are male or female, men and women, boys and girls. Adults and children.
Thus this exposition speaks through maturation to adults, to power and of power.
Wisdom to the Wise, and perhaps, to make a few children much wiser than they would have been otherwise, to not stumble across this work at all.
Humans are powerful, but in relation to what? All power requires a context of relations. Because power is not known “in and of itself” as a noumenal event. This is why power is both a noun and a verb. A (Potential) thing as well as an action (mechanism/event). Power is lifting a lot of weight and moving it. Power is throwing an iron ball across a field. Power is conquering an entire army of men. Power is building a civilization. And power is within, of, a human.
Next I’m going to finally place power into humanity, into “Mankind”. So what is the source and foundation of power from this point onward?
It is not woman. It is not child. It is not animal. It is Man. Man and mankind is powerful. And power requires relation for context. Power necessitates hierarchy for understanding.
Therefore power embodies a hierarchy of men, for different purposes. And from this premise, power is commonly understood to all people.
5.1 Power as Living Locomotion
Subjectivity is the solipsistic ideology of life that takes itself for granted and an example of existence. However, look around you. Rocks, water, trees, clouds, the sun, the moon, grass, trees, concrete skyscrapers, how much of existence is “alive”? Is life rare or common? Is a lava floe alive? No, it’s not. It is disingenuous to define basic elemental compounds as alive. Are insects alive? How about fungus, bacteria, viruses? You don’t know. You’re unfit to judge what is live or dead. So I will answer for you. The human takes herself as the first example of life. It is not a matter of “is this rock alive” inasmuch a presumption has already been made that “I am alive”. Because the average human is convinced of life, as consciousness. That’s the difference.
The human animal believes, and convinces itself that it is alive, because of its consciousness. The average person directly links consciousness with life. And that to be conscious, is to be alive. But is the inverse true? To be alive, is to be conscious? No. Because there are many animals which are not conscious, yet still constitute “life”. Therefore life is an abstraction of consciousness. Life is an abstraction of subjectivity, not objectivity. And it is through a subjective mind that people convince themselves anything regarding “life” as a general or universal, process or experience.
Yet power is a trait of all existence, whether object or subject, dead or alive. It doesn’t matter. Because remember, physics necessitates power inherent within all matter, as a potential. To have substance is to have potency for change. To have mass is to be. And to be or become is to exist.
The difference of life (subjectivity), other than death, is the type of power of life. The power of life is autonomy, self-governing-law, and self-locomotion. While a rock does not move about, nor does a waterfall reverse its course, nor does hot air move down nor cold air move up, life is animated in a fashion contrary or opposite to non living things. The animation of life is the animal itself, a body in motion. So life is merely an extension of death, in the same way subjects are extensions of objects. All things have “body and form” yet not all things move “under their own power”. And this observation leads to the revelation. Life is exceptional in such that life is dictated by unseen forces, which cause movement and change. As a boulder topples over a high cliff and falls to the ground, obeying law of gravity and physics. So too do humans, and every other animal, obey biological and natural laws which dictate and determine behaviors. These are embodied by instincts, reflexes, and genes.
So although humans have self-locomotion, the subject does not escape the slavery, determination, and fate of biology. Because to have any body is to have mass. And to have mass is to obey physics. The human body is no different than the falling boulder such that humans too obey gravity. But a boulder does not have fear of heights nor any other phobia. Because the boulder, inanimate object, has no chance to die. Since it is already non living. It is the living body, any animal, that risks death by the mere attribute of life. Life is precious and delicate. After consciousness is stripped from an animal, and it goes limp or comatose, then how is it different than any other object? It is the same, a lump of mass.
And so the power of life is much different than the power of non life. Animation is a unique type of power, resulting in Autonomy and (self) Locomotion.
The average human has a “choice”, to move here or there. And in so doing, does what too many objects cannot and never will. Whether you step left, right, forward, or back, a rock will never imitate nor acquire such a power.
Thus represents a power in life higher than anything non living.