Self-awareness and human coexistence

As I explained in the previous post, people are either seen hostilely as a threat to one's own power or friendly as a complement to it.

If they are seen in the former way, then a person will consciously mimic a reptile in guarding his power, but if they are seen in the latter, then a person cannot consciously mimic a bonobo, for instance.

Now, it is true that people can consciously mimic social animals, but only wolves and only hunting, usually in war.

How then do people co-operate? One way would be in the spirit of an experiment, in which all participants agreed to certain contractual obligations, and, if all went well, still looked back later on it asking themselves why they contributed. But as opposed to hostility, which allows you to treat other people as objects that are subject to your plans, friendliness requires symmetry of relations, hence the constant exchange of opinions.

So, I suppose a friendly person could constantly lend an ear and float his interests, hoping to initiate a mutually beneficial exchange, but that seems awfully time-consuming. Usually the reptiles take the initiative in their desire to eliminate their competition, and then the friendly people recognise that they have only each other to help each other out, but then we're already on the verge of war and consciously mimicking wolves will do. Also, the efficiency of the counter strikes rises and the friendly person, reflecting on his role in life, would be forced to conclude, as I explained in the previous post, that he serves to first put ever more potent forms of coercion into the hands of reptiles who exploit them for personal gain and then to organise in ever shorter intervals ever more efficient revolutions of the existing order, just like the seasons sped up melting the ice and freezing the water, eternal slaves to low entropy energy exploitation one and all.

Now, it's easy to make something seem faster in words than in life, and it's easier to live through something progressing slower rather than faster. But even in its actual pace, can we say that Brahman, creating the world, moves Atman to bring about the constant revolution of the societal order as determined by the second law of thermodynamics? If so, Joe Rogan would be quite right in saying that Atman is a mere larva for something entirely alien to him, for Brahman would lead him to his own demise.

But that is of course not how the union of Atman and Brahman is understood. The union is a spiritual one, and natural law is downstream from spirit, not upstream from it like starships called Enterprise becoming sentient would suggest. So for spirits to touch each other, however this is supposed to be understood, nothing created would be involved, but (the process of) creation might be impacted.

Hence Brahman does not deceive us enslaving us, but allows us to be at home in the world by recognising our spiritual nature, but in this role we are not individuals, but simply spirit processing reality which is one with Brahman, just like in other (though not necessarily all) people, and the grace of the union requires to accept for oneself what one wishes for mankind and hence all who are following this path trusting Brahman to provide are brothers and friends and meet the condition of symmetry imposed on friendship, whereas those who consider themselves servants of a material law can only unite against a common enemy whose defeat requires their co-operation, because all co-operation in the material realm is of this sort.

Well, apart from having listened to Tucker Carlson and Joe Rogan, I've also recently revisited Contact, and this is of course what universities do: They offer a way out for friendly people, who on the one hand make reptiles more dangerous and on the other hope to contribute to their overthrow, a feeble deal, in which something essential is lacking, namely the recognition that this is our world to begin with. By the way, when Jody Foster suggests that we have invented God so as not to feel alone, I'm inclined to respond that we'd rather have invented him as a gauge for creation, that is to say that we judge and predict creation by him, like Plato, when he said that creation should be reasonable and that it is reasonable when in a symmetric configuration of matter forces are also symmetric, in other words that you shouldn't fall off a ball on one point, but not on another when there are no exterior objects around, thus proposing that God created the earth as a ball and not a disc, or Einstein, when he rejected quantum mechanics on the grounds that God doesn't throw dice, which almost describes the truth, only that we didn't invent, but rather named him.