Ode to Destruction

[MAGMA17]

I think little attention is paid to the importance of the destructive entity. Destruction is creation. In particular, it is the creation of potential. It is what most expands the horizons of freedom.

What is the future? Let's leave aside the question of whether we have free will or not. Let's focus on our perspective as poor 3D creatures. We all perceive events in a linear way, what happened before and what will happen after. Well, destruction is the maximum expression of freedom, I repeat. Especially the destruction that makes a clean sweep.

When we build, we delimit. Every choice we make increasingly delimits the possibilities and paths that can be taken in future choices. And this, above all, if we implement the concept of coherence. Coherence is in simple words "making a decision based on decisions made in the past". The more decisions are made in the past, the more the potential is demarcated, and the road becomes increasingly narrower.

The same thing happens for human society. The longer the history of civilization, the less possibility of free choice we have. Because we can do nothing but be a response to everything that has happened before and to the current state of things (which is the result of everything that has happened before).

But if we destroy the current state of things, we pulverize it, then pure potentiality rises again. The road becomes wide again, or rather, there is not even a road. You create the road, from the beginning.

Furthermore, in my intuition, it would seem that the Universe is moving towards progress. If we were to humanize the Universe, I would say that "shit, how much it likes progress! It doesn't care whether the novelty brought is good or bad (also because they are human concepts) but only that what is brought is new. This is the only quality that interests it.".

The decisions we humans make are highly conditioned by this desire for progress on the part of the Universe. We can say that our destiny is the line of progress that is delimited by the passage of time.

And I repeat, what establishes what is new or not? the current state of things. Consequently, even the concept of a stage of advancement loses all value. Because if progress is conditioned by the current state of things, and if destruction leads to pure potentiality, it means that to get to a certain stage you don't necessarily have to go through a certain path, but you can get to that point directly from scratch, if you pulverize the current state of things. Or you may reach a certain stage that is totally unimaginable before and that was previously denied to you by past decisions. And that's thanks to destruction.

Now, I come to the most controversial part of this thought of mine: we all know very well the destructive potential of the atomic bomb. In this case, I think like Chekhov: if at the beginning of a story there is a rifle hanging on a wall, sooner or later in the story a character will use it. I think it is inevitable.
And in my mind, in addition to the terror of what could happen, there is also a shred of hope for the living beings of the future, of the post-apocalyptic scenery. Maybe, maybe...by destroying everything we or some other species will finally be able to reach what seems precluded to us at this moment?

 

[Voidmatrix]

I feel like if something is annihilated, then this kinda falls apart. If there are no humans, then humans cannot progress. So, maybe it's about destruction, but not total destruction.

I also think that more than creation and destruction being one in the same that destruction allows for the potential of new creation. They're connected, but not the same.

One love

 

[Physics131]

destruction is everwhere on the world but also in the universe.
buildings are destroyed and build again.
objects in the universe explode leaving behind stardust which form other objects again.
software is dumped and rewritten.
nuclear fusion.
cellurlar or biological processes.
this are just a few examples.

sometimes something has to be destroyed.
sometimes a solid foundation is required in order to build something better on it.
sometimes we can affect what and how we destroy and sometimes not.

the question is what is the impact of the destruction and how is it triggered.
how often do we want to rewrtie history?
how often do we want to rewrite software?

do we want or prefer destruction because of effort or maintenance?
were we not able to create maintainable?
or were we lacking the skills or experience for maintainable solutions?

i like to think in analogies.
in cs we define/architect solutions and then implement them.
at some point, maybe when we want to realise the X feature, we notice that it does not fit.
what then? dump it and realise the same thing again resulting in something where X feature cannot be integrated again?
destruction alone can not be the answer.

most of the time where this solutions get to a point which are unmaintainable is because of applying workarounds instead of fixing them.
and i caught myself on that.
but what was the reason?
less time, stress, lazy, no budget, ...
all this analogies can be applied to different topics imo.

 

[ephedra]

I feel like if something is annihilated, then this kinda falls apart. If there are no humans, then humans cannot progress. So, maybe it's about destruction, but not total destruction.

I also think that more than creation and destruction being one in the same that destruction allows for the potential of new creation. They're connected, but not the same.

One love

oh, in adherence of what you say, this also bring to my mind of the dance of nataraja...

Also, really glad to see you again, friend!

 

[MAGMA17]

I feel like if something is annihilated, then this kinda falls apart. If there are no humans, then humans cannot progress. So, maybe it's about destruction, but not total destruction.

I also think that more than creation and destruction being one in the same that destruction allows for the potential of new creation. They're connected, but not the same.

One love

Yeah, I like to talk in hyperbole. Actually, regarding your first point, while I was writing I thought about making a clarification saying exactly what you said but in the end I let it go.

For the second point, I think they are two sides of the same coin. Especially if we consider the concept of potential.

@Physics131
Thoughts on a micro level (on our creation): I consider trying to find a constructive solution by force in order to preserve what has already been built as a mere act of desperation. Destruction is fundamental because human beings cannot know everything, and therefore they will never be able to get every action right, building something perfect every time. We do not have a mind that can predict so far ahead in time and therefore in any case nothing can be perfect if it is the sum of many decisions taken over time.
Sometimes destruction is the only solution. Trying to keep alive systems that are corrupt at their root means therapeutic obstinacy.

Thoughts on a macro level (on us, as a creation): It is something that cannot be proven and therefore a decision like that will not be taken: but since in my opinion the human race is without any hope (if we continue in coherence with our history) I think that self-destruction is the most responsible choice.
I am not so selfish to want only the good of the human race. If another living being thanks to our sacrifice can get where we could never get, or if the result is the opportunity for every living being to live freely and with dignity (I hope you can agree with me that we are the masters and the rest of the animal world our slaves), I would be more than ready to annihilate myself.

 

[Voidmatrix]

I feel you, though two sides of one thing is still a distinction between two things. It seems we can't have one without the other. But that doesn't make them the same, just connected and necessary.

Also, everything tends towards disorder (entropy) which validates some of your point.

One love

@ephedra it's so good to see you too

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

Human complex language is limited. Its concepts define, but we can only define what is measurable, and we can only measure what we can observe. We can only observe what we fear, desire, or have already archived through senses, perceptions, and thoughts. Additionally, there are language biases within the already subjective human way of communicating. So, how do we define something that is not definable or that is beyond our "partially" rationalizing conceptions while our brains claim to be rational when "measuring"?

Even with a machine, what is measurable depends on the wiring of the one who wants to measure. "Errors" and "genius" aside, you will only see what you are looking for. Even errors will tend to be compared to something definable, archived, similar, past projected, so what is genius is initially erroneous to the norm. Originality is a chimera, a human concept linked to the supposed perfection of thought, but the "insights" have always been there... it's a matter of interconnection, of programming.

Though my opinion may be partially or even completely erroneous:

Destruction and creation are shades of the same process, perhaps "definable" as transformation or dynamism. There is no separation between the two, and they act in synchronicity: a pregnant woman destroys her previous static state to create a fetus, the ashes nourish the soil where a tree is born that absorbs and transforms the soil. So, where is the line of separation? What is creating and what is destroying? The end of this distinction is a matter of temporal perception and observable scales. For example, a supernova destroys a star, but the materials released can give rise to new stars and planets.

Destruction and creation act simultaneously. Every action of one brings parts of the other. We could see every action as a fractal of yin and yang. But we can only conceive a limited scale of causality, linked to change in "time."

Time, as we conceive it, is a human construct useful for describing and understanding change. But, the nature of time and reality could be much more complex and less linear than we perceive. We have made it a force like gravity, but it is the observation and measurement of transformations, nothing more (perhaps). What we see as a temporal process could be perceived in a completely different way by an entity with a different "spatial" perspective.

On a macroscopic level, a nuclear bomb causes immediate and catastrophic destruction. However, on a microscopic level and in the long term, it could create new molecular systems, new forms of life, and ecosystems adapted to the new conditions. The evaluation of what is destruction or creation depends on the values and needs of the species observing the phenomenon.

We have difficulty measuring sensitivity to initial conditions, as our techniques are reductionist. We see the fire burning, but not the pollution it will generate after 20 years. We tend to reconnect poorly, not seeing the interconnection of all things within a system as large as a planet or as small as a quantum. We do not quickly reconnect that the extinction of a single insect could alter an environment thousands of kilometers away.

We can measure it, true, but based on desires, fears, what we want to look for, what is observable to the eyes, to instruments, and already recorded conceptions.

The transformations observable in a short period may be nothing more than interconnection, elements simultaneously synchronized by a push of information received from a force. This also applies to what we consider destruction and creation.

Man tends to repeat himself. The path he took thousands of years ago, prevailing over others, was a genius error at first, but for which we evolved almost exclusively from a technical point of view. We have become experts in satisfying desires but have fueled dependence on them, reducing them to a morbid and practically conflictual relationship. We have created a dominating society that seeks to control both desires and fears.

Starting from scratch, we would find ourselves again in a state of probability. If the conditions of the environment and causality will lead us back to those paths, it is impossible to know. However, evolving on survival bases and putting down "roots" would theoretically lead to similar variables. The destructions or creations of the kind we have overused are more sudden because they require fewer aligned factors to manifest.

We tend to notice birth and even more death, but almost never life. This also applies at the level of associative thinking: a memory could be considered "dead" and an expectation "nascent." Not to say that this behavior is stupid, but it is reductive, thus becoming obsolete outside of human constructs (or within those built trying to dominate the outside). We begin to destroy ourselves the moment we begin to create ourselves and vice versa; it is only that "I" that is fragmented as i
t is reduced to itself.

 

[MAGMA17]

Very interesting thoughts. I agree with many of them.

What is creating and what is destroying? The end of this distinction is a matter of temporal perception and observable scales.

yes, in general it is something that conditions everything we observe. Perhaps there are things that develop around us that we instead see as a single event without being able to see its multiple nature. In the end it depends from the observer, as always.

On a macroscopic level, a nuclear bomb causes immediate and catastrophic destruction. However, on a microscopic level and in the long term, it could create new molecular systems, new forms of life, and ecosystems adapted to the new conditions. The evaluation of what is destruction or creation depends on the values and needs of the species observing the phenomenon.

Exactly. Destruction for some, can be seen as opportunity/potential for others.

We tend to reconnect poorly, not seeing the interconnection of all things within a system as large as a planet or as small as a quantum. We do not quickly reconnect that the extinction of a single insect could alter an environment thousands of kilometers away.

Yes, I don’t think that the human mind has the possibility to recognize every pattern. There must be a limitation. We tend to call random or chaotic what we can’t recognize as a form.

We tend to notice birth and even more death, but almost never life.

Also because we think, incorrectly, that we understood life while death has that mystery around it, since we can’t have those scientific and experiential proofs that we like so much…

 

[Voidmatrix]

When I create a word document, I'm not sure anything is being destroyed in the process

One love

 

[MAGMA17]

But your pc is consuming energy to operate, right?

I understand your point

 

[Voidmatrix]

I'm enjoying both supporting your position and also contradicting it.

Here's a thread in support of it.

I Am Constantly Dying: I Am Constantly Born

Considering the nested and fractalic nature of the given "moment," I've left and shed a past self too many times to count. With each successive moment, I die; over and over again. Considering the nested fractalic nature of the given "moment," I've grown into and have become something and...

forum.dmt-nexus.me

One love

 

[Physics131]

IMO it is not an easy topic because of its complexity.
There are a lot of ways we can think about this and apply different thinking stretegies or views like root cause analysis, experience, biases, observations and ethical questioning.
We could put all of the strategies aside or use them all at once or selectively apply them one by one but i think that could result in a permutation of different thought routes.
I agree with a lot of statements in this thread but there are also some which i can not agree but also can not disagree with them.
but i can follow and understand all the statements from my bottom of my heart.
and the last thing i will do is to put the statements into some drawers which are ranked in some way.

I also thought about this topic several times and it can get even more controversal.
Never wrote my thoughts down because I do not know how it could impact others and they could be visible/available for everyone.
And I always ask myself where will this lead to what can we achieve?
Does it have an impact on my mindset which could have an impact on others?
It is far more easier to think about this topic if we think about how the reality would be affected with the absence of humanity instead of thinking in terms of destruction.

i want to start with some facts.
humans are the only species who are actively destroying their little peace of soil and water they live on at an enourmous rate.
how would that behaviour be viewed from outside of this bubble of oxigen we/everyone is living in?

when dschingis khan conquered the world it had a lot of good and bad impact.
to make it clear I distance myself from agreeing or disagreeing with what he did, i rather want to communicate objective thoughts.
he eliminated 10% of humanity and caused lots of trauma, suffer and pain.
but his importance for power resulted also in restoration and regeneration of land, reduced carbon emissions.
is this a proof/fact that we were at that time overpopulated?
but does that justify genocide?
I can not and do not want to answer this questions.
and i think at this point everyone can imagine how controversal it could get.

we could view the whole earth as a single system.
but systems are usually composed by smaller sub-systems (eg. contries).
when 70% of the sub-systems are corrupt is the whole system then considered corrupt?
There are places in the world where corruption was successfully fighted.
The question is for how long will that remain like that?
what are some stressors which could result in getting it worse again?
Is it the surrounding of a non currupt environment or sub-system?
Are it a few individuals who seek power and want to fill their pockets resulting in corruption from top-down?
Or are it a few individuals spreading "mindsets" and infecting the society from bottom-up?
To name a few references: Lee Hsien Loong in Singapur, Narendra Modi in India, John Magufuli in Tansania, Paul Kagame in Ruanda, Muhammadu Buhari in Nigeria, Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan
Yet this countries but not only them have to fight external corruption as well.
People should work together inside a system but also should work together across systems.

While some of these countries fought internal corruption, they are still poising their environment by dumping toxicity into the rivers for example.
It is interesting how some countries are able to fight specific aspects easier then other countries.
The questions I have at this point is if there is no exchange between these countries?
If something works somewhere why is it not applied somewhere else?
Because it would not get accepted because of biases, religion and how and where people are headed there?
Would it be intelligent or unintelligent to force something which works somewhere but would probably not been accepted by their sub-system?

Would it be ignorant as a single individual or as a small group to decide for the whole humanity to be erased?
Would it be ignorant, would support corruption and would be unethical for animals (as humans destroy the home of the animals) to not erase humanity?
(Lets ignore or not ignore the fact that earth is also the home of humanity)
I can not answer any of the two questions.

Where all of this should definetly not lead to is to create a mindset which results in "theres no hope so we can make everything even worse as it already is".
Because that will make everything even more difficult for everyone as it already is.
I am writing this not because I think that anyone interacting with this thread thinks this way.
Instead I communicate this because I see this on a daily basis.
Where people are just ignorant and not open minded do different aspects of thinking.
Where they want to force something resulting in the opposite of collaboration and contribution.
Which makes teamwork as hard as it possibly can get.

But life is not only about rainbows and flowers.
IMO every single thought is important.
How can we get further when we do not speak, think, brainstorm, philosophy or theorize about it?

This are my thoughts.
But I am also only just a peace of startdust compared to the size of the universe.

 

[MAGMA17]

Thank you for your honest and deep thoughts.

It is far more easier to think about this topic if we think about how the reality would be affected with the absence of humanity instead of thinking in terms of destruction.

Let's say that the problem is that you can't say everything, unless you're writing a mathematical treatise. It wasn't a topic that I opened to talk about the total destruction of a subject (like man) but the thought can be extended to every micro or macro component. If the solution to get out of this shitty spiral is the destruction of some microcomponent without resorting to the total elimination of the whole subject I am more than happy!

humans are the only species who are actively destroying their little peace of soil and water they live on at an enourmous rate.
how would that behaviour be viewed from outside of this bubble of oxigen we/everyone is living in?

We also destroy that small percentage that we have not yet invaded...for example by stealing resources and destroying the habitat of other animals.
Hard to say, but it could be interpreted as the action of a virus.

when 70% of the sub-systems are corrupt is the whole system then considered corrupt?

Very difficult to answer. What I think is that if we talk about politics, the mere fact of having systems that command in society will always lead to corruption, since power is what most corrupt human beings. We are too weak spiritually to resist it. Lord of the Rings is a great piece of art on that.

There are places in the world where corruption was successfully fighted.
The question is for how long will that remain like that?

I don't think it's possible to eliminate it 100 percent. All systems are corrupt. As long as there are positions of power, corruption will exist. But surely there are more corrupt and less corrupt systems.

Would it be intelligent or unintelligent to force something which works somewhere but would probably not been accepted by their sub-system?

The problem is that you don't know if the person who is forcing is really doing it for that purpose or for secondary purposes. Plus what works in one place may not work in another. Human cultures are very different from each other.

Would it be ignorant as a single individual or as a small group to decide for the whole humanity to be erased?
Would it be ignorant, would support corruption and would be unethical for animals (as humans destroy the home of the animals) to not erase humanity?
(Lets ignore or not ignore the fact that earth is also the home of humanity)
I can not answer any of the two questions.

Obviously we can't answer all of that, I understand your point. The problem is also that we still don't understand what this life means and whether it has a meaning or not... we also don't know what death is and what consequences it has. So we don't have a correct vision of what it means to do something like that. It may also be that if we really knew the nature of this life and death, and what comes after, we would make this decision in a very natural way.

Where all of this should definetly not lead to is to create a mindset which results in "theres no hope so we can make everything even worse as it already is".
Because that will make everything even more difficult for everyone as it already is.

For sure.

How can we get further when we do not speak, think, brainstorm, philosophy or theorize about it?

That's why I think these kinds of conversations are very important. Even if we talk bullshit, the important thing is to talk. Even if we're not right, that's okay. The point is not to be right, but to understand and grow together.

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

Also because we think, incorrectly, that we understood life while death has that mystery around it, since we can’t have those scientific and experiential proofs that we like so much…

I agree, and I would add that, beyond the mystery, it is the fear of non-existence that drives most humans to reflect on death. This fear causes biases regarding the ego and fuels attempts to "escape" from a life that, by association, leads to death or suffering. Since suffering always leads to death (and vice versa), this phenomenon manifests on various levels. For example, the feeling that a static and habitual life equates to non-existence, confused with "unimportance" according to cultural and social norms.

Or the suffering due to not achieving a life goal (pre-packaged) is aggravated by our misunderstanding of life itself (as you mentioned) and the perception of personal failure, which is largely constructed within a context of common conventionality.

However, it would not be correct to say that this fear is stupid, but it is certainly rendered obsolete. Perhaps, unconsciously, this fear is driven by the need to follow (in a misguided way) the dynamism of the cosmos (if that is the case) or to realign with an ignored flow.

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

I'm enjoying both supporting your position and also contradicting it.

Here's a thread in support of it.

I Am Constantly Dying: I Am Constantly Born
Considering the nested and fractalic nature of the given "moment," I've left and shed a past self too many times to count. With each successive moment, I die; over and over again. Considering the nested fractalic nature of the given "moment," I've grown into and have become something and...
forum.dmt-nexus.me forum.dmt-nexus.me

One love

Thank you, the thread fits perfectly (I will explore the conversations at my own pace). "I exist in a state of paradox," which is a state of probability and, as we discussed, also a state of potentiality. More than a state, it is a quality, a colored smoke of various shades, all existing, all "right and wrong."

The direction something takes depends on intentions, but even more so on the awareness on which they are based. Neither intentions nor awareness necessarily have to bend one way or the other. Let's say that perhaps (I cannot know for sure) the universe allows for manifestations. If our "goal" is to flow within them with a precise "vision," we must respect the factors that should lead to it. However, if we want to force the universe to bend to our will regardless of the factors, it is natural for things to go as they must. We fail to realize that we are aligning the factors leading to a different outcome than what we have actually set for ourselves.

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

humans are the only species who are actively destroying their little peace of soil and water they live on at an enourmous rate.
how would that behaviour be viewed from outside of this bubble of oxigen we/everyone is living in?

It is also impossible to say that other species in our position wouldn't exhibit the same behavior. In the end, we don't consider this possibility because we dominate everything (or believe we do).

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

when dschingis khan conquered the world it had a lot of good and bad impact.
to make it clear I distance myself from agreeing or disagreeing with what he did, i rather want to communicate objective thoughts.
he eliminated 10% of humanity and caused lots of trauma, suffer and pain.
but his importance for power resulted also in restoration and regeneration of land, reduced carbon emissions.
is this a proof/fact that we were at that time overpopulated?
but does that justify genocide?
I can not and do not want to answer this questions.
and i think at this point everyone can imagine how controversal it could get.

If we cannot open up doubt for judgment, we have no judgment, exactly as in all fields, for example, in scientific processes. 'Controversial' is a curious word, don't you think? In its intrinsic sense, isn't it a negation of a state of probability? Isn't it perhaps pushing questions, answers, and thus actions in only one direction?

Many of us have personally observed in different fields (but the rhythms of macro and micro are interdependent) that it is necessary to be controversial to oneself (considering the death of the ego).

This is also what I meant when talking about human language. Not only are there biases (positive and negative regarding what we think these two are), but we have built concepts and words upon these biases, overused in contexts in which they lose their meaning, at least objectively.

Therefore, while we talk and explore, we must also keep this in mind, because without clarity it is difficult to reach even a superficial level of awar
eness.

 

[आदिमतत्त्वम्]

we could view the whole earth as a single system.
but systems are usually composed by smaller sub-systems (eg. contries).
when 70% of the sub-systems are corrupt is the whole system then considered corrupt?
There are places in the world where corruption was successfully fighted.
The question is for how long will that remain like that?
what are some stressors which could result in getting it worse again?
Is it the surrounding of a non currupt environment or sub-system?
Are it a few individuals who seek power and want to fill their pockets resulting in corruption from top-down?
Or are it a few individuals spreading "mindsets" and infecting the society from bottom-up?
To name a few references: Lee Hsien Loong in Singapur, Narendra Modi in India, John Magufuli in Tansania, Paul Kagame in Ruanda, Muhammadu Buhari in Nigeria, Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan
Yet this countries but not only them have to fight external corruption as well.
People should work together inside a system but also should work together across systems.

While some of these countries fought internal corruption, they are still poising their environment by dumping toxicity into the rivers for example.
It is interesting how some countries are able to fight specific aspects easier then other countries.
The questions I have at this point is if there is no exchange between these countries?
If something works somewhere why is it not applied somewhere else?
Because it would not get accepted because of biases, religion and how and where people are headed there?
Would it be intelligent or unintelligent to force something which works somewhere but would probably not been accepted by their sub-system?

Would it be ignorant as a single individual or as a small group to decide for the whole humanity to be erased?
Would it be ignorant, would support corruption and would be unethical for animals (as humans destroy the home of the animals) to not erase humanity?
(Lets ignore or not ignore the fact that earth is also the home of humanity)
I can not answer any of the two questions.

Where all of this should definetly not lead to is to create a mindset which results in "theres no hope so we can make everything even worse as it already is".
Because that will make everything even more difficult for everyone as it already is.
I am writing this not because I think that anyone interacting with this thread thinks this way.
Instead I communicate this because I see this on a daily basis.
Where people are just ignorant and not open minded do different aspects of thinking.
Where they want to force something resulting in the opposite of collaboration and contribution.
Which makes teamwork as hard as it possibly can get.

But life is not only about rainbows and flowers.
IMO every single thought is important.
How can we get further when we do not speak, think, brainstorm, philosophy or theorize about it?

This are my thoughts.
But I am also only just a peace of startdust compared to the size of the universe.

It is just my thought, I could be wrong:

Corruption in human systems is an intrinsic phenomenon that exists regardless of its apparent absence. Called corruption in contrast to what is not, it is actually a matter of convenience. There are levels of corruption that we often ignore, especially at the social level.

There has never been a civilized system completely free of corruption, nor one that does not ultimately end up like those entirely corrupt in the long term. There is a vast difference between the publicly announced concept of corruption and what leaders actually think, akin to the difference between projects, programs, and "the grand work." The actions we are taking towards ecosystems, including ourselves, stem from following dictates whose real causalities we ignore, while we believe we are pursuing positive goals. Propaganda.

This goes beyond the simple matter of human thought and touches on the manipulation of thought itself. Just as trauma can cause effects seemingly unrelated to the original cause, the same happens with larger systems like societies, nations, and the global community. This manipulation is ancient, even if the most evident manifestations are recent, dating back a few centuries or at most a thousand years ago. But its mechanism is automatic, with the airtight nature of various compartments and the ignored exploitation of natural flows (from which behavior patterns derive) ensuring its invisibility, at least conventionally.

We have always had the possibility to choose between dependence and interdependence, domination, and the nurturing of relationships. The prevalence of one choice over the other is often linked to environmental changes and the need to extend the state of survival beyond its efficiency. In situations of extreme survival, reductionism and individuality take over, damaging the interconnection necessary for ecosystem balance.

Originally (so to speak), individuality was not what it is today but was considered a part of the whole, not an ultimate goal. For instance, a mother would kill to feed her child (taking energy that had already been taken), who would then contribute to the tribe and the balance of the ecosystem. Balance was not the goal (nor is it correct to speak of balance as it wasn't really balance, but our way of seeing that "balance"), but rather a transient result (again just a means) of collective actions, perhaps a bit like the fact that drinking water is taken for granted, automatic.

It is essential to be aware of the roots, as it is equally essential to be aware of how automatic reflexes from trauma influence present and future actions. Naturally, there is no right way, I don't want to be misunderstood.

An interesting example is the theory of invasions by livestock herding peoples into mutual, animistic, and animatistic indigenous populations. This comparison shows how the worldview has been altered by completely different cultural practices.

Originally, in mutual animistic and animatistic tribes, natural forces were interconnected with every element, including ourselves; it was our way of seeing, our "overview effect." These forces were an integral part of daily life and were not seen as separate entities; separation as we understand it is a "civilized" concept (not limited to modern times). With the emergence of stratified social structures around 12,000 years ago, these forces gradually transformed into deities and castes "in their image." In the modern era, these deities have been replaced by the market, money, and elites, including scientific ones. This has led to a new form of domination and dependence deeply rooted in our cultural and social history.

No "civilized" society in the last five thousand years has been free of corruption, as we mentioned, of individual or group convenience. Even societies considered more equitable or just still had a certain degree of "corruption." Ignoring the presence of the root perpetuates the repetition of human errors, as the problem's roots are never addressed, only the surface (we only prune the plant's dead and diseased branches, curing its diseases, thereby fortifying it).

To achieve overall sustainability, we must avoid compromises that lead to the same results. The nature of artificial systems created by our minds must be radically changed. Revolutions must take into account global interconnections and the need to avoid adapting to a corrupt system.

Psychedelics are seen by some as a solution, but their role is merely a means, not an end. Even if they can heal personal traumas, integration into a sick system limits their potential. For example, esoteric practices, historically reserved for a few, have never had a significant positive impact on the overall social structure; on the contrary, they have often had the opposite effect. For instance, the Eleusinian mysteries (as much as I like the topic) were privileged access for society's elites while there was difficulty in access for the lower social strata (it's just an example, but every form of esotericism not aimed at the survival of dominating cultures and thus hidden from the elites leaned in this direction).

Corruption and manipulation are intrinsic to human systems if they are based on scarcity, necessary to generate power (and power, understood as individual, can only exist if there are those who do not have it). To truly address these issues, a radical change in the roots on which our societies are based is necessary. Awareness of historical roots and current manipulations is fundamental (albeit a superficial first step) to understanding and effectively addressing modern problems, which are not so modern; it is their "clothes" that are.

 

[Physics131]

Again a bit offtopic as it does not refer to a macro level of destruction but I like to share my thoughts with you all.
When we view at the incident of "viewing things from different views/positions/aspects" I think that destruction also plays a role.
Whenever we view something from a different angle we would have to drop our thoughts in some way or in other words destruct/destroy its composition.
Then view the things again from that perspective, unbiased as much as possible.

The conclusion I came to after the replies and talking with different people, is that this can not be viewed in an absolute manner.
What is good or bad is not defined only by the action but maybe also by its context and content.

 

[SpiceCowboy]

I think little attention is paid to the importance of the destructive entity. Destruction is creation. In particular, it is the creation of potential. It is what most expands the horizons of freedom.

What is the future? Let's leave aside the question of whether we have free will or not. Let's focus on our perspective as poor 3D creatures. We all perceive events in a linear way, what happened before and what will happen after. Well, destruction is the maximum expression of freedom, I repeat. Especially the destruction that makes a clean sweep.

When we build, we delimit. Every choice we make increasingly delimits the possibilities and paths that can be taken in future choices. And this, above all, if we implement the concept of coherence. Coherence is in simple words "making a decision based on decisions made in the past". The more decisions are made in the past, the more the potential is demarcated, and the road becomes increasingly narrower.

The same thing happens for human society. The longer the history of civilization, the less possibility of free choice we have. Because we can do nothing but be a response to everything that has happened before and to the current state of things (which is the result of everything that has happened before).

But if we destroy the current state of things, we pulverize it, then pure potentiality rises again. The road becomes wide again, or rather, there is not even a road. You create the road, from the beginning.

Furthermore, in my intuition, it would seem that the Universe is moving towards progress. If we were to humanize the Universe, I would say that "shit, how much it likes progress! It doesn't care whether the novelty brought is good or bad (also because they are human concepts) but only that what is brought is new. This is the only quality that interests it.".

The decisions we humans make are highly conditioned by this desire for progress on the part of the Universe. We can say that our destiny is the line of progress that is delimited by the passage of time.

And I repeat, what establishes what is new or not? the current state of things. Consequently, even the concept of a stage of advancement loses all value. Because if progress is conditioned by the current state of things, and if destruction leads to pure potentiality, it means that to get to a certain stage you don't necessarily have to go through a certain path, but you can get to that point directly from scratch, if you pulverize the current state of things. Or you may reach a certain stage that is totally unimaginable before and that was previously denied to you by past decisions. And that's thanks to destruction.

Now, I come to the most controversial part of this thought of mine: we all know very well the destructive potential of the atomic bomb. In this case, I think like Chekhov: if at the beginning of a story there is a rifle hanging on a wall, sooner or later in the story a character will use it. I think it is inevitable.
And in my mind, in addition to the terror of what could happen, there is also a shred of hope for the living beings of the future, of the post-apocalyptic scenery. Maybe, maybe...by destroying everything we or some other species will finally be able to reach what seems precluded to us at this moment?

real drainer shit, 1:1 loss and gain are the same.