Thank you posthumously to all members of the military who have lost their lives for public safety, and to all of their loved ones who must deal with the challenges accompanying that honorable sacrifice.
While not a warrior in the militaristic sense, as a responsible artist, I sometimes operate as an informational warrior who understands that sometimes the “pen is mightier than the sword”.
I try to maximally responsibly risk my safety to challenge powerfully dominant conventional wisdom that superficially leads to the image of public safety, while it demonstrates the opposite to primarily serve relatively powerful self-interests.
A key result of my serious path-paving effort spanning a bulk of my life and strongly counting (like working through brutally challenging terrain) is scientific constitutionalism.
Logic (i.e. certainty) is critical, even despite the unpopularity of logic at times, because without logic, there can be no fairness, so no justice.
Scientific constitutionalism is a seed of pure logical truth that, upon growing traction, brings the tried-and-true scientific method leveraged powerfully in technology to the area of constitutional law — so healthily gathering absolute language constructs (e.g. naturally given and unalienable right to liberty) to form just law.
While logic can be abused via the ‘partial truth = whole truth’ scam, and that abuse must obviously be maximally negated, logic is the only path towards a genuinely peaceful mutual understanding. Otherwise, persuasion must be achieved by some form of brute force (euphemized or not). In other words, irrationality is unavoidably the weaponizing of meaning against genuine peace.
When language is unclear, so inevitably too is law, and that is a horrible fundamental problem still being completely publicly ignored, at least for all intents and purposes.
The need to protect honorable members at risk of dying in combat is paramount, and that starts with improving human behavior.
That improvement cannot be coerced by elitists who sometimes launch military efforts to subjectively define risk and harm to form liberty-infringing law; both ostensibly to protect elitist power entrenchment in the guise of public safety.
That improvement comes from a society educating society about the basics of abuse itself, in a manner that sensibly removes the incentive to be abusive to the fullest possible extent.
Those basics are universally anchored to what I call the Rule of Reality (RoR).
As opposed to the similar rule within mystical/philosophical/religious contexts, the RoR is a purely scientific conclusion that matches reality’s need for the balance that is demonstrably inherent within stability.
The RoR is expressed as “The path to power is the path to powerlessness in a balanced reality.”, and it sensibly forces humanity to redefine dominance in a way that ends the aggressive competition for more relative control, and all of the monstrous warfare resulting from that endlessly pressing turmoil.
Reality’s stability is a naturally fundamentally governing force towards correcting abusive behavior — i.e. there can be no free abuse (and no free dominance in general), hardcore scientifically speaking — as opposed to mystical, philosophical, or religious approaches easily dismissed by way of personal disbelief, so not always effective.
Reality is an incorruptible totalitarian that is always paying perfect attention to every dominant pressure (e.g. beating the crap out of someone) within reality to ultimately balance it out.
In other words, if you cannot handle being the tortured, then do not be the torturer, because dominance is always spent and solely fully paid for via being dominated in strict accordance with reality’s need for balance — regardless of any cleverness and/or such.
According to mainstream science, reality is pure energy without any genuinely objective boundary, so any boundary is subjective (even if from a societal perspective), while the physical neurological (and/or computational) processes that form such subjectivity logically remain pure seamless energy.
Pain is ultimately energy.
Pleasure is ultimately energy.
War is ultimately energy.
Peace is ultimately energy.
Domination is ultimately energy.
Reality is supreme alpha reality, so traditional alpha dominance within reality is now and forever beta. The more brutal control you gain, the more brutal control you ultimately brutally lose, so being excessively brutal for control (e.g. greedy) is foolish.
Always spend dominance as wisely as possible, even despite the unavoidably relative nature of that wisdom.
Full mental rest (what too many people erroneously conclude as “ignorance is bliss” in this case) is the meditative sensation of the oneness of reality — the resting of the boundary-drawing part of the brain that identifies words, beings, stuff, and events — so logically the ultimate peace due to the absence of literally any possible opponent.
That enlightening sensation is also synonymous with supreme composure.
That ultimate sensation also demonstrates (while mainstream science only logically confirms) that anyone/anything is objectively supreme alpha reality.
You, for example, are supreme alpha reality. That is demonstrably the new alpha dominance.
Abuse is ironically a compensation mechanism against unhealthy stress (as opposed to healthy stress from a positive workout), and we all engage in abuse (e.g. our vices) due to the inevitable imperfection within reality that serves the sole perfection equal to reality’s stability.
Fortunate people understand the RoR, so understand the need to most promptly responsibly adapt to the fullest possible extent upon their abusive exercise.
Otherwise, the reckless belief in preventing the suffering of abuse payment is like people tragically watching the ocean deeply recede and dancing around happily upon the wet recently exposed land. Meanwhile, the wise understand the looming tidal wave of correction, and conduct their lives in a manner to minimize that correction (immediately seek higher ground).
The wise responsibly embrace the righteous burden as a priority to minimize the correctional impact of their abusive ways, and learn a valuable lot in the process, while also forming opportunities to earn credibility, which is obviously essential for survival and “thrival”.
Abuse itself never ends, but presents the prime choice for each one of us throughout our lives.
The ‘lemons to lemonade’ approach is my preference, and it matches the righteous need to understand that abuse, relatively speaking, is an opportunity for humanity’s progress — e.g. my abuse inclusively prompts my positive involvement in helping other people better manage abuse throughout posterity.
When it comes to toughness, I draw a firm (albeit subjective) distinction between responsible toughness and thuggery.
The latter opposes civility by fear, while the former understands that civility is logically critical towards at least their line of work.
Civility is needed for science and technology to thrive, and that likely results in better protection for anyone on the front line of violent encounters.
In short, better civility means that more lives are likely saved within military circles and beyond.
Because anyone is objectively supreme alpha reality, death cannot be the end of experiencing reality.
The observable universe demonstrates that you are unimaginably enormously more than your humanity, so when your human life ends, the overwhelming majority of your objective self remains.
Reality is our true base, and it can be returned to from any situation of being lost, simply by understanding (if unable to experience) the ability to rest the boundary-drawing part of the mind.
Energy is not just a resource to power technology, but the entirety of existence from humanity’s perspective and beyond.
Energy efficiency is not limited to technological processes, but literally everything involved in survival and “thrival”.
Abuse is equal to energy inefficiency, so progress becomes tied to energy efficiency — i.e. stress management (for efficient communication, using the physics definition of stress, which is synonymous with change, while importantly noting that change is ultimately energy).
Logically the worst form of abuse due at least to its mainly broad (and sometimes horribly, if not also deadly, deep) scope of destruction is the abuse of law — the form of abuse that our nation was established against, according to our most famous national declaration herein the United States of America.
Yet law abuse is rampant these days, because too many people refuse to acknowledge the serious cost associated with granting our community leaders the authority to judicially manage risk — which is undeniably irreconcilable with a genuinely unalienable right to liberty (i.e. to define risk is unavoidably to define liberty).
At least sensibly speaking, that fundamental right is supposed to be judicially protected via the tragically unpopular ninth constitutional amendment (i.e. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”), even despite the obvious and illegal judicial disarming of that critical catchall amendment.
In short, to judicially define risk is to unavoidably judicially define liberty against the unalienable property of that fundamental right, which is supposed to be judicially unacceptable, nationally speaking.
In honor of that critical fundamental right, risk must remain solely within the area of education, while law is leveraged to address maximally conclusively (not subjectively, nor weakly scientifically) defined harm.
Live and let live is an inherent part of that key right without discrimination, yet the entire duration of our national history is horribly littered with judicially sanctioned discrimination and persecution even upon absurd grounds (e.g. skin color, gender, sexual orientation, recreational drug choice, and whatever non-rights-infringing else that I may be missing offhand).
Yet there is a legitimate need to have traffic laws, for solid example, which are risk-based laws. Our Constitution therefore needs to be amended to introduce societal contexts. There needs to be the personal, private property, and public contexts. The public one allows for risk-based laws that do not intentionally (explicitly nor implicitly) impede upon harmless liberty within the other two contexts.
That sensibly necessary update to our Constitution is unfortunately admittedly imperfect due to the absence of any objective boundary, so leaves us with a challenging grey area.
For solid example, setting a speed limit can arguably hinder the amount of time spent within a private property context, so can be considered liberty-infringing. However, a speed limit undeniably creates safer roadways, so provides the liberty for more people to come home safely. This exemplifies why the word “reasonable” is often used in law, but always remains the “breeding ground” for abusive law and its growth via legal precedence, so that word must be minimized in favor of lingual certainty whenever proper (scientific constitutionalism).
Liberty in one sense is liberty infringement in another.
To basically quote Thomas Sowell… there are no solutions; there are only trade-offs.
As there are no objective boundaries, the boundaries of language and law (nonetheless accountability) are always subjective, and human behavior defines that subjectivity for leverage.
Minimizing the abuse of boundary-drawing to the fullest possible extent genuinely improves public safety (i.e. improves that leverage for us all).
As time is factually a dimension of space (so all time exists as one spatial moment, which is this one), and mental thoughts apparently ripple as energy back inclusively through time (relatively speaking), I offer my best positivity for all of the honorable beings throughout all wars (past, present, and, if tragically needed, future) with the understanding that a reality of pure balanced energy means that they all come (actually, they all are) home safely.
Leave a Reply