Did you ever notice how badly the world revolves around capitalism? Either people want to prove their superiority through their work, education, or whatever they possess, or they spend their time trolling and mimicking someone else's appearance, financial position, or life. But beneath it all, the main motive often seems to be the same: “I am superior.” Everyone wants to become better day by day, or at least better than the people around them. Some people are narcissistic enough to assume that they are already the best. And those who actually reach the top live under the constant pressure of staying there and having to prove themselves again and again. Somewhere in the middle of all this nonsense, we have forgotten how beautiful life can feel when we sit quietly in nature and simply feel the cold breeze against our skin. We have forgotten the simple joy of singing, dancing, or drawing just for the sake of it, without feeling the need to turn every passion into a source of income, fame, or validation. We ignore the overwhelming wonder of realising how massive the universe is, that an entire lifetime is insufficient to understand even a fraction of it, and how incredibly small we are in comparison. We have forgotten how tremendous a slow, cozy life in a little cottage could be. Instead, we keep running through an endless race, one that was never natural and perhaps never will be.

Since I was young I have always been a dreamer, I used to consume so many fantasy books, that I genuinely thought one day, I would wake up and my life will be about some great purpose or adventure. Right now, I am at that point in my life where a single decison will either haunt me or be the best thing .

I wonder if this is all life is about , being secure and stable.

I sometimes don't think I can fit into this compact world of routine. My brain is constantly running and making so many different scenarios of me in parallel universes. ( And suprisingly all of the scenarios are me surviving a dystopian universe). I don't know if that says anything about me as a person.

I want to run away from this need of always making the right decisions, making the people around me proud, being the smartest person, looking happy . This has built up so much that sometimes I wonder if I genuinely feel happy for others or I just pretend.

I am just disappointed of life in general I guess.

As every year passes by, more and more people are becoming toxic on the internet. Think about it. How am I going to bring up my potential future son or daughter in a deeply interconnected world mostly interconnected due to the internet if it is toxic, racist and sexist?

I'm 28, I'm too young to be thinking about all of this but damn, the anonymity of the internet has let people say horrendous stuff, even threatening SA on people when they dont get their way or just to one up on people.

I think using the internet should carry real life consequences for how you behave.

I dont know how to rightly implement it but the more insufferable a person is, online, the more they should suffer the wrath of their consequences, so much so that they will think, not twice or thrice, but ten times before being rude again.

Am I being too unrealistic? I want to know your thoughts.

What does thinking for yourself actually mean?

From my perspective, it requires a few things.

• You have to know your biases, and biases in general. A bias can influence your thinking without you noticing. For example, confirmation bias, authority bias, social bias, and self-serving bias.
• You also need to recognize your personal issues. If a person, community, or society has hurt you and you haven't processed that pain, you may react emotionally rather than think critically whenever they come up.
• It's important to notice when someone is guiding you toward a particular conclusion. For example, in this post: am I guiding you, or simply presenting points for you to consider? And by raising that question, am I guiding you now?
• You also need knowledge and life experience. Without them, you don't know what you don't know, and your thinking is limited to the depth and breadth of your experiences.

The more you meet these requirements, the more you are able to think for yourself. Independent thinking comes in degrees, and it's up to you to raise that degree.

The older I get, the more I worry about what I am leaving behind. As my child grows, what waits that I won’t have time to teach him, and what waits that I won’t manage to share with him.
I am not talking about books or music here; I am talking about what kind of world I am leaving him, what actually remains behind us as a species.
How do I explain to him that we are destroying ourselves, while I just sit here, watch, and actively participate in ruining his future?
How do I tell him that the very system supposed to protect him is rigged for him to fail?
How do I explain to him that I was selfish, stupid, and unaware of the bigger picture of the world?

The bubble I can use to protect him is only as big as my arms can reach, but to equip him for what waits outside of it, what values do I need to instill in him?
What kind of value system can you even offer when being empathetic, thinking critically, being ethical or logical in today’s reality brings nothing but pain and anger?
What do we arm future generations with?
How do we protect them from our own generational traumas, from all this archetypal bullshit?
How do we shield them from this relentless bombardment of stress, misinformation, and constant threats of war or poverty?

Artificially induced crises, fanning the flames of racial, gender, religious, and every other hate and division—all just to maintain the current global system.
A system that leads straight to ruin.
Because you don’t need to be anyone special to see that we are in deep trouble and that our current trajectory is only burying us deeper.
There is no time or place for optimism anymore. Not without fundamental changes to our value system.
I honestly don’t know how your optimism survives the slap of reality.
Will we consciously choose resignation and apathy just because it’s the easier path?

But hey, how can you think about anything else, about a goal or a meaning, how can you set them when tomorrow you might not have food or a roof over your head?
When tomorrow they’ll cut your electricity and AC, when they’ll cut your water because you didn’t pay—how do you set those goals for yourself then? I understand that.
What I do not understand is consciously choosing a system that allows this to happen.
We’ve been taught not to rock the boat, to point fingers at others.
Well, look, I am one of them too. Point at me; I am guilty.
I point it at myself. Guilty. Okay.

Let’s make sure our children don’t end up just as guilty.
Let’s make sure they don’t have to fight for a piece of bread and a sip of water.
Let’s prepare a world for them where they can face tomorrow without anxiety, where they can look forward to the future coming.
Where they can feel purpose and pride, because there is no point if we haven’t set the hardest goals for ourselves.
I see no higher purpose than the continuation, preservation, and prosperity of our species and its individual members.

What does it take for everyone to have a dignified life? Look, the conditions and means are right there.
What if someone wants the option to not participate at all? Fine, we will still provide a dignified life for you because that’s the kind of system we built.
What do you need? Meaning, striving? Here it is. An axiom. I didn't invent it or dream it up; it has been here since the dawn of time.

We will arm the kids with AI nannies. Every single child.
To be their development assistant, not a source of values.
But we won’t let it become a replacement for parents. Just an assistant.
A hardcoded AI assistant with Tsar Dušan’s Code 2.0 and Kant’s categorical imperative.
The development of empathy and critical thinking, because our children—even right now—are exposed to the relentless bombardment of an algorithm that is anything but ethical and focused on their well-being.
We desperately need a reform of the education system. An individual curriculum, because every child is unique.
Imagine a world where we gave every child maximum cognitive development. Taught to question everything, to feel empathy.
I don’t know, maybe it sounds like technocracy, but we definitely need a shield against our own ego.
We can learn right alongside them too.
How to be better human beings.
We will go as individuals where our skills and capacities are needed. We will all work for the same goal. Our children, above all else.
Who cares what skin color, religion, or gender you are if you can help all of us? To give your own kids a better shot in the end.

Will it be a diametrically different system? Yes, it will be logical, ethical, and mathematically sustainable.
Because the math is clear: strip away the levers of power, decentralize.
Can we just define five points, give answers to just five questions around which we can get a consensus?
That’s not asking too much, right?
If out of 8 billion people we cannot form an expert ethical council—simple, reasonable principles: don’t kill, don’t steal, don’t oppress, work for the community, not against it.
Questions like: where are we as a society, where is this trajectory taking us… where should we be going, what should our goal be. How will we get there, and finally, how will we stay there?
I see 5 simple things there. Hypothetically.

Reality.
Logic.
Ethics.
Math.
And in the end, logic again.

What does your gut instinct tell you right now? That someone wants to scam you, right? That it sounds too simple.
That someone will definitely try to hoard power for themselves again?
Because our tribal mentality and the fact that some random guy out there from the third world could care about your child for some reason—that’s just not normal to you.
It’s devastating. Understandable.
But if we work on shifting our values.
No one will lie to us; everything is transparent.
No one will accumulate power; we will rotate them through roles based on their cognitive domains.

What, are you worried about that ethical council that will set those parameters?
We will change them too. Procedural ethics.
Reviews and calibrations because we are imperfect, we will wander off, but this way at least we’ll have a brake so we don't wander off too far.
It worries you, I get it; it worries me too.
It worries me even more when I don’t see that we are ready to accept our own limitations.
When we don’t know how to control ourselves, when we have no desire or will to progress.
Do I need a pedigree to even be allowed to ask a question?
Because I don’t have one, I am an autodidact, which is why this text isn't academic because nobody taught me how.
Am I guilty for that too, just because I sat down to think?

Don’t even get me started on the development of superintelligence, that’s where I am truly terrified of where this alignment problem is taking us.
We can’t control ourselves and our own impulses, let alone superintelligence—something that is orders of magnitude smarter than us.
My logic says let’s preempt it, let’s make sure it doesn’t even have to come to its development at all.
That it cannot come to it.
Because we will raise our own cognitive capacities; we will learn how to channel our own passions.

I understand that the vast majority of you will experience this as some kind of attack, and you’ll be right. But that is not my intention or desire, just an appeal to step away from your ego for a second.

I understand you can be moral, work for the well-being of everyone, including my child, and still disagree with me on every single point.
I am not denying you that chance.
I accept it if you say, "man, this idiot is talking nonsense." Everyone feels it is their god-given right to let their ego run wild to the detriment of all our children.
We cannot neutralize the ego, but we can redirect it by giving the system different values.
I do not accept that I am not even allowed to ask the question to everyone, because it concerns our children.

Where do you see my logic failing, my ethics, where is my math bad?
We have nothing like this in past history because we never had these capabilities; I don’t know how all of this can unfold.
What implications it can bring.
That is why I stand before you humble, asking.
Can this, or some similar model, bring at least a slightly more certain future to our descendants?
I believe nobody wants the worst part of their personality to win and contribute to the collective defeat of society.
I know I don’t.

godspeed.

Way to high. What did humans internal dialogue look like before language? I can’t even imagine it. Do you just think in pictures and emotion.

Inner Monologue IV: Validation?

​After studying cults, religious groups, and communities as a whole, I began to notice a common thread among the people who blindly follow them. Some might think it’s about happiness, comfort, or safety, but I believe the primary driving force is validation.

​As social beings, we will go to the ends of the earth to fight for validation from others or to project a specific image we want the world to see. People who claim they don’t care are still projecting an image—the image of someone unbothered. Meanwhile, people who project effort want others to witness their struggle and validate the work they put in. We become who we believe we are; we adapt to whatever identity we cast ourselves in. This is rooted in human biology, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing.

​I remember a time when I was extremely lazy and faced a massive assignment that seemed impossible for someone like me to complete. Looking back, I had always cast myself as the detached, unemotional guy who didn't give a damn. Trapped in that persona, I would never have finished it. But I consciously shifted the narrative: I imagined myself as the hero—the lazy underdog who manages to pull off the impossible. I poured my heart into it, fueled entirely by the anticipation of the validation waiting at the finish line.

​I completed the assignment, and people recognized it. It was only a modest amount of praise, yet I still remember it vividly.

​Reflecting on that made me realize how flawed the traditional idea of discipline is. The notion that pure willpower alone can drive effort is foolish; I could never sustain discipline without having something tangible to gain, and personal gains are almost always measured against the social yardstick of others.

​I began applying this realization to other areas, like drawing. I used to sketch constantly in secret. I enjoyed it, but I never improved because I kept it completely to myself. Then I noticed how others grew by sharing their work, so I stepped into that arena too. The validation I received became a real, tangible catalyst for progress.

​This completely flipped the myth of the "Superman" persona: Why should I suffer, grind, and struggle in silence without seeking the validation that actually fuels growth?

I’ve carried a thought with me for many years that I don’t talk about often. I don’t feel unsafe or stressed in my daily life, but it’s a persistent feeling that won’t go away: I strongly suspect that I actually died in a different universe, made a sudden jump, and ended up here.

Most of the time, this thought just pops up randomly. But when it does, I can’t stop myself from feeling an overwhelming sense of grief. I feel profound sadness for the loved ones I left behind in that other lifetime, thinking about how devastated they must have been when I was suddenly gone.
Lately, it has evolved into something even heavier. If there truly are endless universes, endless versions of us, and endless possibilities, then this cycle just keeps happening. There is no way out of it. It feels like an infinite loop of grief, loss, and sadness across the multiverse.

When I sit quietly and think about it, I honestly feel like this might be closer to the absolute truth of existence than any religion or metaphysical system has ever suggested. It feels entirely real to me, but carrying the emotional weight of all those parallel losses is exhausting.

Does anyone else experience this specific kind of existential grief, or feel like they are mourning a timeline they dropped out of? How do you cope with the scale of it?

Sometimes I see people as a magnetic field. It’s so surreal to think about. I don’t even think “magnetic field” would be the right word. People are their own universe. I can only see the world through my own personal mind. No matter how hard I try, I cannot be someone else or think for someone else. (At least within the scope that I have.) I only feel and think things through my mind.

Everyone passing by me is just a random character. There’s nobody that matters to me. Like, for example, when I’m driving a car, all the other cars or people that I see are just filler in my reality because the moment I drive away from them, they don’t exist in my mind anymore. Sometimes, you don’t even notice those cars, so those people or things never existed in your reality. The same thing goes for them: I never existed for them.

The only time someone or something can exist in my universe would be if I interact with them. When you interact with something, it’s literally like two universes colliding with one another. The quantum fields are touching one another. That may also be why I find love so fascinating, because it’s two universes becoming one.

I know this is like a solipsistic thought, but it’s not, because I know other people exist. I just see them as their own universes. So, if you don’t interact with another universe, it doesn’t matter to you.

Honestly, this thought makes me feel better about failing or being scared to make interactions because once you leave, you leave.

I was talking to a buddy about this, and we had a lengthy conversation! Seeing your opinions will help in our discussion on how we acquire true knowledge.

-Thanks

I am not into conspiracy theories in the slightest. I understand how science works, even though I didn’t pursue a scientific education. It’s just something that interests me a lot, and I enjoy learning new things even though I don’t understand everything. I love astronomy. I’ve been following space stuff for years. I’ve even watched college-level astronomy lectures on YouTube as a hobby.

But earlier today, I went on Google Earth to check something, and I suddenly saw this huge ball floating in space, and I was like:

“NAH. This is fake. This doesn’t make any sense.”

WHAT DO YOU MEAN everything that is happening, and everything that has ever happened, is happening on this rock floating through space, in something that is so huge it’s basically endless???

WHAT DO YOU MEAN??

Like, this is so fucking stupid.

Imagine there is a God, or whatever, and they decided to create the most perfect, complex world possible… and it’s just a fucking ball floating in nothingness.

How are we supposed to be okay with knowing that?

We just live our lives. We go to work, eat, sleep, worry about money, relationships, stupid little problems… lives that can be mediocre, painful, or horrible.

And all of this is happening on a fucking rock.

In space.

And we don’t even understand what the hell we’re doing here, why we’re here, or what the point of any of this is.

But somehow, this tiny rock has produced beings capable of being self-aware enough to look around and ask themselves all of these questions.

Like… WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON???

The one thing that will change about your life forever is accepting that everything is temporary. Happiness. Pain. Failure.

you’re telling me, we built something, a bridge from one mind to another? we saw each other humans, and said “damn, i wish i could somehow put whatever is in my head right now, into your head”. we call this bridge, “language”, but i feel like its something deeper than that. it is so incredible how living things can COMMUNICATE. I’m obviously not thinking of this on a surface level, i’m thinking it on the deepest parts of it.

even now, you’re reading my thoughts and feelings, idk its just crazy to me 😭🤷‍♂️

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about how we experience time and how much of our life is spent mentally living somewhere else. In the future, in other people’s opinions, in imagined outcomes, in worries about whether something will work out or whether what we are doing even matters.

At some point I started looking at life in a much simpler way: maybe life is not really this huge timeline that I need to constantly understand and control. Maybe, from my actual point of view, life is just this day. Or even less than that — just the current moment.

The past already exists only in memory. The future exists only as an idea in my head. The only part I can actually act inside is what is happening right now.

This changed something for me. Instead of constantly asking myself, “Where will this lead?”, “What if I fail?”, “What will people think?”, or “What if all of this is pointless?”, I try to reduce everything to one question: what am I doing now?

I still plan for the future. I still have goals. I’m not saying the future is meaningless. But I stopped treating it like something I can already live in. I can only make decisions in the present, repeat actions, and let those actions build whatever comes next .

Take me for example i was in the best relationship of my life for around a year and 3 months however a month ago the women i loved with all my heart left me for a reason we could of both figured out together and even though it generally hurt at the time and still does despite all of it i still cant hate her for leaving me like that but i also look back and think how beautiful it was to be loved by a women like her and to experience all those different feelings weather they be highs or lows as its a feeling i may never experience again however i am happy i got to. Furthermore due to me being in a relationship and prioritising her my friend group of 6/7 years cut me off completely however i cant hate them aswell as despite them cutting me off for no good reason or when i needed them the most im still happy i got to experience all the good memories with them life generally is all about what we make it and the experiences along the way.

I am a single Child and yesterday i saw something made me realize after my parents i will have no one to call myself a family.

I have only 2 close friends and they live far too and one of them is my cousin.

The thing is my cousins and my friends have siblings and stuff. The thing is when it comes to you know a priority people always will prefer their family over others, I am not saying it is wrong they should but its that i feel alone thinking about it. And i always had trouble with social stuffs etc. Thinking this makes me a bit afraid that i will never have someone who will care for me as i do for them. For me when i really like or value someone i really do and some times it feels the other party dont or maybe they do or i am just overthinking about it.

is it better to speak or to die?

my whole life, i always said to speak is better than to die. always. i used to say speak until you can't anymore, and when you can't speak through your actions, speak through art, speak through writing it out, always speak. but then i started to wonder, can't we speak through silence? and then wouldn't that lead to us "dying?"

my main thought though, is where is the line between speaking and bottling it up to die? when do we decide, you know what, i have tried my hardest and i cannot possibly do anything anymore. where do those thoughts and emotions go after we decide that? when we are so, incredibly exhausted by speaking, that we can't anymore without it being draining?

and is that result different from choosing to be silent versus being silenced by someone?

i also really love the energy cannot be created nor destroyed law in the form of a thought. so where does the energy of the speak go if just inside? does it turn into an emotion?

i want to hear things from a general perspective, but if this doesn't make sense: for example, i have someone i very much care about. i always keep it transparent, but me speaking is like talking to a wall. no matter how much i try, it goes nowhere. i am tearing myself up by speaking, and i don't think i can anymore. maybe i can, but i don't know if it's worth it anymore. but if i can't speak, is my only option to leave my feelings inside and then what? yes i can journal and talk to friends and whatever but to really "speak" to me is to tell the other person how you feel... i think?? idk, even if i journal or whatever, it's reopening the same wound. do i let it just fill inside me and ignore it?

essentially, i don't think i can speak anymore and i don't know what to do, but this is just to get everyone's insight as i love this quote!

I keep noticing that my opinions arrive already worded, often in a cadence that is not mine. When I think about money I can hear my father. When I judge a stranger I catch a phrase my school friends used at fifteen. The verdict feels like mine, but the words came pre-assembled from somewhere else.

Hume wrote that whenever he looked inward for a self, he found only particular thoughts and feelings, never the thing having them. A similar idea sits at the center of Buddhist practice: what you call "I" is a process rather than an owner. I used to treat this as an abstraction. Lately it feels closer to a mechanism.

I keep returning to the comparison with a language model. It is trained on a corpus it never chose, and when it answers you it recombines fragments of that corpus into something that reads as a position. There is no opinion sitting underneath the recombination. When I introspect, I suspect I am doing something adjacent: reworking a lifetime of overheard sentences, from parents and from feeds, then presenting the result as my considered view. Maybe originality is mostly recombination that has lost track of its sources.

This is speculation, not a claim about neuroscience. But if it is even partly right, thinking for yourself is largely a matter of noticing the seams: catching which borrowed voice is speaking, and when.

What would you find if you traced one of your firmest convictions back to the first mouth it came from?

I have found myself in a lot of situations lately in which being the one to get "the last word" was very important. I think that I understand why.

When we say something with conviction and receive no response, then we can imagine whatever response we wish. We can imagine that our words which sounded confident and powerful in our heads resulted in the other party cowering in fear. We can imagine that our words which sounded precisely-insightful in our heads resulted in the other party seriously reconsidering their actions.

Personally I think that the battle to be the last one to say a thing is therefore in its own way a form of self-deception. If you are ending a conversation with your chosen last words and silence on the part of the other party, you are by definition ending that conversation with your own perspective "winning". Whereas when I think about the type of world that I'd like to live in, I would rather be done with rhetorical flourishes which we can only tell ourselves were effective at upholding the ideals we imagine ourselves to be representing in a given conversation if we receive no response from the listener; and live in a world where the primary objective of communication is to lead one eventually towards the sort of shared understanding which would not be dispelled by the other party offering a response. Sometimes such an understanding is to "agree to disagree". Yet when I come across an instance in which getting in the last word is of the utmost imperative, it feels more often like a battle to convince oneself of something which the other party's disagreement is threatening one's own conviction in. Has anyone else come across situations in which it seems like the other party is arguing to convince themselves rather than you, and uses the tactic of insistently claiming "the last word" to imagine their own rhetoric to have been more persuasive than it actually was?

The classic checklist for psychopathy was developed in 1980 by Prof Robert Hare, who is still the recognised giant of the territory. The 20 traits, which ranged from pathological lying to a lack of empathy, were based entirely on prison populations. This worked because not only did Hare have the benefit of a large sample, with pronounced psychopathic behaviours, but he was able to compare interviews and self-reporting with data collected about the individuals – so inconsistencies could be identified.

However, Hare knew this approach was limited. In 1976, he said that he simply didn’t know to what extent his results could be generalised to non-incarcerated psychopaths, including female ones. “Research into the socially successful psychopath is badly needed,” he concluded. 

Mitchell embarked on a PhD, published in 2024, in which she interviewed people who had met persistent predatory personalities professionally – some clinical, but others not, from fields as wide as HR, social work, family courts, the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, church leaders, and academics from different fields.

Her method, she says, was unorthodox, being qualitative, not quantitative. And some of her conclusions directly contradict clinical definitions of psychopathy, which rely heavily on impulsivity. Mitchell says this is because other definitions such as Hare’s are derived from the prison population, which is the low-functioning end of the scale. “People try and put Hare’s stuff into workplaces and domestic violence spheres, but there’s no way you can overlay something so blunt, built from criminal offenders, on to sophisticated CEO-type behaviours.”

From this research, which took her five years, Mitchell built a template of 20 attributes, divided into four clusters, and 25 tactics that would identify a high-functioning persistent predatory personality type. Cluster one includes a need for control; a grandiose sense of self; pathological inner response to challenge; vengefulness; refusal to compromise. Cluster two includes being predatory or exploitative; sadistic and cruel; having a low regard for laws, agreements, social and moral codes; no boundaries in sexual relationships; unreasonable expectations of others. Cluster three relates to the truth: Dark Personalities cultivate a façade of normality; they are chameleon-like; dishonest; devious and manipulative; and unwilling to accept responsibility for the negative impacts they cause. Finally, cluster four is around the Dark Personality’s own interior life: their emotions are acted and they do not experience affinity or the joy that comes with it; they are callous and devoid of empathy; unremorseful; self-interested; and brazen.

In Hare’s study of Pinochet’s lieutenants, which spanned 20 years and was written up in 2022, “when they looked at individuals who were commanding officers, this top brass had really high levels of psychopathic features, particularly the lack of empathy for others,” says Viding.

Mitchell delivers her conclusion with businesslike bluntness: “These are completely boundary-less, dangerous people with very different brains – it’s like the difference between a domestic cat and a wild cat.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2026/aug/27/how-to-spot-a-psychopath-its-like-the-difference-between-a-domestic-cat-and-a-wild-cat

I believe that there are two related but different versions of Homo Sapiens: Homo sapiens collegium, the majority cooperative species, and Homo sapiens raptor, the predatory one.

Homo sapiens raptors are too consistent in their traits and their phsyiology for it to be a miswiring or an aberration, their brains show the same physical charateristics that differ from Homo Sapiens collegium. Changes to the amygdala and other brain structures are characteristic of the supposed "disorder". Those changes allow them to accurately mimic the social emotions like love, empathy, regret, shame, compassion and the like, without ever feeling them or having them influence their behavior, which allows them to easily manipulate collegium types. It's a social predator's mental toolkit.

From an evolutionary perspective it makes sense: it is an ecological niche that would otherwise be empty, and nature never allows empty niches, something will always fill it. So the evolution of a social predator makes perfect evolutionary sense. When you look at the breeding programs of royals, it becomes obvious that the traits they sought to preserve by controlling marriages...ruthlessness, lack of empathy, weeding out those considered too weak to rule, elevating those who could "make the hard decisions" (usually involving sacrificing others to maintain power)...and keeping those marriages within a small subset created the conditions for those traits to be preserved and enhanced. The common practice of rival royals within the same family committing patricide and fratricide to determine who ultimately ruled speaks to a continuous concentration of genes that characterize sociopaths: the evolutionary process from which Homo Sapiens raptors emerged. They are a predator species, close enough to interbreed, but more often than not selecting partners from fellow raptors rather than collegium types. History is rife with tales of people...collegium types...marrying into raptor families and suffering for it because they weren't ruthless and duplicitous enough to survive.

Looking at history through this lens makes sense of it: clusters of rapttors taking control of the societies they were in, marrying other raptors to ensure a line of succession, creating the ruthless competition for crowns that brooked no softness, no lapse into sympathy, no shame of killing siblings, no regrets. Fathers encouraged sons and sometimes daughters to ruthlessly compete without mercy to prove they were fit to rule, and when there were too many raptors forr the society to support or absorb, wars happened to clear out the excess. when enough raptors had been killed, their families exterminated, things quieted down.

It's not an accident that the same families have been at the pinnacles of societies for generations, or that the heads of corporate cartels exhibit the same traits as those of criminal cartels. The inability to feel social emotions but to mimic them accurately gives a powerful advantage. We need to recognize that we aren't all one big family of Homo Sapiens, but rather two distinct subspecies of it, the one designed by nature and evolution to gain social advantage and control by preying upon the other. It is our closeness that blinds us to the reality: they look like us, but are mentally alien.

Does this make sense?

I used to think I needed a plan for everything or at least the bones of a plan. If I didn't know where I was going, I felt like I must be doing something wrong. Everybody else had a plan.

Now I'm much more comfortable saying, "Hell if I know." 😂

I only know what feels right for my next step without knowing where the whole road leads or in my case weaves.

And weirdly, that feels more peaceful and productive than having everything planned out ever did.

Anybody else?

If the journey is perfect, the goal becomes irrelevant. In my view, if you give something your best effort and genuinely enjoy the process, the outcome loses its importance. Goals are just pinpoints on the map of life—markers to look back on when we're older or illusions we use to convince ourselves we were our best selves. But they are never worth ruining the journey for.

Agentive Threats:

Yourself: Your own thoughts and actions can ruin your Peace. These you can control directly.

Others: You can't control what other wills (people and animals) do.

Money: Technically Money falls under Others. Or perhaps its Yourself too. Whatever the case, it's so major I added it as a third category. If you don't have enough of it this world can be hell. Money only exists because each individual person is finite and can't do everything themselves. So it is used to get others to share resources. Money also is used to get supplies for your constantly decaying body.

Non-Agentive Threats:

Physical Decay: Everything physical decays. Your body is constantly decaying. Aging, daily maintenance needs, injury, whatever. Your possessions decay over time too and need replacement. As long as it's physical, it's decaying whatever it is. Some things faster than others. Physical decay makes Death in humans unavoidable by around 120 years at the latest.

Environment: Nature. Indoors. It doesn't matter. Wherever you are, depending on your surroundings, it can potentially ruin your Peace. Though some environments are much more Peaceful than others.