This goes along with Saint Augustine's point that the soul being unable to turn away from the beatific vision in Heaven is not a limit on freedom for the same reason that an inability to trip and fall is not a limit on our freedom to walk, or an inability to crash one's ship is not a limit on our ability to pilot. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Right, and Aquinas in Summa Theologica:

The will is not free to will the opposite of happiness, just as it is not free to will the opposite of beautitude; but is free to will this or that particular good, or to will or not will some particular thing.

If you live in a society that celebrates wisdom and community, you will have different values. — IntrospectionImplosion

What a great society that would be!

You mean, this invented concept you seemed to have pulled out of nowhere (nowhere pleasant, shall I self-censor)? — Outlander

Hahaha. It seems like it, right? When I came up with the term “ethical guardrails” (a somewhat awkward translation from Spanish), I was referring to the principles, policies, and practices we need to put in place to ensure that research in social physics promotes fairness and avoids harm.

Some time ago I read an essay on Le Bon’s work. He argued that, in a crowd, the individual loses his personal identity and becomes a single collective psyche. We later see these ideas developed by Freud and Jung.

As you rightly point out, these ideas form the basis of today’s social physics. Thank you for reminding me of this work; I will read it.

Both are valid concerns, but I'm more inclined to focus on how our predictability is being exploited. I'm not saying social physics isn't useful, but I'd prefer to see applications that go beyond profiting from our behavior.

That confusion is the real threat, not the supposed predictability of human behavior. — Joshs

Thanks Joshs, I agree in that aspect with you. On the matter of freedom and forecasts, I see it this way: a prediction only limits you if you let it become a rule. Sure, an algorithm might tell marketers you’ll click on ads for certain product, but you can still surprise them (and yourself) by buying another one instead. Our freedom lives in the gap between the forecast and what we actually choose.

The interesting question is what makes universal acquiescence impossible — Ludwig V

Is true coexistence between ideologies even possible when they’re wired to see each other as threats to their own legitimacy? Maybe the real obstacle isn’t just disagreement—but the fact that many ideologies survive by creating an ‘us vs. them’ narrative. If you’re only making room for another worldview because you think yours will still win, is that coexistence... or just strategic tolerance?

I lean toward voting being tied to meaningful engagement—like taking part in a social scheme, whether that’s volunteering, community service, or some form of national or civic contribution. It’s not about gatekeeping, but about encouraging participation before decision-making. Voting isn’t just ticking a box—it’s shaping the system. So it makes sense to ask: have you stepped into it before you help steer it?

Nietzsche call to humanity (that few understood) was to wake-up and stop wallowing in self-pity.
20d — Nemo2124

Couldn't agree more. Nietzsche’s Superman was someone who broke through the sludge of herd thinking—someone who became more, not by chance, but through struggle.

Today, we’re drowning in cheap convenience and empty noise. We can hardly hear ourselves think. Mediocrity has become the comfortable way to live. If Nietzsche had something to say to us now, it would be this: wake up. Be your own crafter of thought. Stop borrowing your mind from everyone else.

His idea of the Übermensch still matters.

Reality is Communal

The abhorrent thought of conducting an experiment of such total isolation as described above upon a newborn invokes the condemnation appropriate for a heartless act that equals a crime against humanity.
Nothing existing (and no one) is totally alone. — Moliere

About this part of your essay, I’d like to add: To be is to be among. We are born into relationships before we ever form thoughts. Nothing exists in pure solitude—reality resists isolation. It is a web, not a wall. The dialogue we sustain throughout our journey is not ours alone; it is shared, echoed, and shaped by the experiences of others.

.

Got to be a simpler way to express reality. Not thinking about reality is reality. Existence is reality

Leaves of grass - Walt Whitman

I have read my fair share of classics, and this was definitely the most tedious. It was beautiful but tiresome.
I can't forget the madeleines soaked in tea—they were a powerful element for unlocking emotions

Nice pick!

Remember pope Gregory IX declared cats the incarnation of Satan in the 13th century.

Less cats, more rats. Greater spread of the Black Death

Absolutely! Building a sense of community is vital for fostering engagement and driving collective efforts. When individuals feel connected to something bigger than themselves, they're more motivated to dedicate their time and resources to its success.

Volunteering often inspires dedication and personal interest, but making participation mandatory can offer important benefits. It ensures that everyone is involved consistently, which is especially helpful for big tasks that need a dependable and steady team to succeed.

The Peace Corps has shown how voluntary service can bring people together, even with different goals or methods. It's a great model for fostering cultural exchange and community support, and with positive word of mouth, a variation like this could definitely gain traction.

Thanks for your reply! I think it's great if not only American families but also every young man in university could benefit from this. It could really help them build a strong foundation for their future. How do you think we can reach more people with this idea?

And what do you say about the Übermensch? As humans we should aspire to transcend our limits building doctrines beyond current traditions. Love that one!

For secular or non-religious citizens the absence is irrelevant. The Bible's historical context is understood to reflect the geopolitical realities of its time, rather than a limitation on its moral or cultural significance.

Who makes the decision about whether something is nonsense or rubbish? You seem to think that you are entitled to make that decision. — Agree-to-Disagree

You are right. Anything could be rubbish or sublime depending on the observer—it's just like art

definitely one of a kind! Enjoy it

Mi estimado Sándwich, tienes toda la razón, no tiene sentido este cambio radical en lo que es y no políticamente correcto— una influencia más del vecino tan incómodo que tenemos.

Al momento en que celebramos nuestra hispanidad, argentinidad o mexicanidad, estamos celebrando diferencias irrelevantes. Para que queremos seguir marcando ideas de nacionalismo o razas en nuestra y futuras generaciones? Por qué no celebrar a la humanidad como un todo? Por qué no celebrar al planeta?

Pienso que para adaptarnos a un lenguaje más inclusivo y fluido es necesario dedicarnos al estudio del impacto de las palabras. Hay conceptos que son divisivos y que pueden ser sustituidos por unos más inclusivos y tolerantes. No estoy hablando del movimiento de la identidad del género (que admito no comprendo del todo), estoy hablando de no hablar de culturas, pueblos o razas . He ahí el gran reto. Hay que replantearnos como estudiar historia sin utilizar las muletillas de la enseñanza que por largo tiempo hemos utilizado.

I loved your post Frank, It left me thinking about your example. It resonated with what I read years ago when I read House of Leaves. Navidson's house represents our limitation of understanding; the universe is actually like Navidson's house. At times, we all feel like Johnny Truant and struggle to make sense of things.

How are you going to force 100% of the population to be uninterested in power? — Brendan Golledge

What about using education, value-based upbringing, and community engagement? I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but consider how most of the world has become highly consumerist in just a few generations due to deep marketing. Why wouldn't a similar approach work for a noble purpose, rather than just serving selfish or superficial goals?

All else being equal, those who don't seek power will tend to have less of it than those who do. — Brendan Golledge

What if none of us sought power? Is that a possibility in the near future, say, three generations?

Hispanidad es como se refieren a nuestra cultura, identidad e historia en común en nuestros países de habla hispana. Somos casi 500 millones de personas que entramos en esta categoría.

Aquí en México celebrabamos el día de la raza (la raza mestiza) que ahora cambió por hispanidad por ser políticamente más correcto.

Quizás mestizo está ya sobre acaparado, pues un mestizo es un descendiente de razas mezcladas, como lo somos la gran mayoría de latinoamericanos, aunque también lo son los gringos, europeos, asiaticos y el resto del mundo.
Esto claro, si aceptamos que hay tal cosa como "razas" dentro de la raza humana.

En mi opinión la celebración de la hispanidad, la mexicanidad, la argentinidad , etc. No es más que un retroceso en el proyecto de pacificar e incluir a los pueblos del mundo.

Piénsalo, el lenguaje está dejando de ser una barrera, la cultura está mezclandose (aunque tristemente prevalece la cultura superflua y consumidora de los norteamericanos). Pronto estás alusiones a naciones y "culturas" va a ser un pequeño párrafo en el gran libro de historia humano.

Saludos

Consider the Holocaust. — Questioner

What do you think is more beneficial, if we had to choose, teaching young people about the Holocaust or teaching them, for example, about the efforts being made to include diverse cultures from around the world? I understand your point and why, but I believe that this way of educating by revisiting horrors is not the most effective way to create a change in mindset. Peace out!

The sad truth is that new celebrations are at the present are advanced by commercial interests and by consumption. — ssu

We definitely need to repell celebrations of that type

understand the urge some have to memorialize events (such as wars) they have a connection to, but that isn't for me. We also seem to be living in an era where every second day is set aside for some banal celebration, a pseudo event, which to me feel tokenistic and superfluous. Tomorrow, for instance, is International Mountain Day... — Tom Storm

It's true, we have many mundane anniversaries and important dates. What I'm referring to is that we need to think about the children and young people who are more impressionable, and give them dates that make them realize that harmony is the solution to many of our problems.

@ToothyMaw Thank you for your kind words.

I believe reducing complex geopolitical issues to simplistic 'us vs. them' dichotomies can be misleading and ignores the nuances of international relations. It's essential to consider the multifaceted nature of global conflicts and the various stakeholders involved, don't you think?

. Oh, say, photography, radio, the airplane, the auto, x-rays, discoveries in science, great artistic achievements, agricultural achievements, etc.
20h — BC

Thank you for the welcome! I really appreciate your idea of focusing on achievements as a valuable teaching tool for our kids. Additionally, I think it's wonderful to celebrate meaningful holidays like Thanksgiving, emphasizing their true significance and values rather than just their commercial aspects. It's a great way to instill a sense of gratitude, appreciation, and social responsibility in our children.

I don't have the answer, but this might help:

Article 1 of the UN Charter:

- "The purposes of the United Nations are... to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples..."

Self-determination is something that some nations seem to appreciate differently.

Individuals have the right to choose what they want to know and not. Revealing the truth without their consent would be an infringement on their autonomy. Ignorance, in many cases, can be a blessing.

Indeed, it is. However, I'm not a Buddhist scholar, so I can't make definitive assertions. To the best of my understanding, attachment - whether to family, things or oneself - binds one to what Buddhists call the illusion (Maya). Yet, enjoying family, surroundings and beings without attachment is a form of Nirvana. Being aware in the present moment is key.

AI doesn't pose a threat. We must understand that the threat to our continuity is historically ourselves. We should decentralize AI technology and allow it to develop in a free environment. We must believe that for every one person planning to misuse AI, there are ten already working on productive and beneficial ways to utilize it. We don't fear AI; we fear what we're capable of doing with it. Therefore, AI awareness needs to be incorporated into classrooms and offices, and ethical agreements must be reached.

I hardly doubt that family values exist in Buddhism, as this leads to creating concepts in our minds. However, there are some core values that can apply to family - such as understanding that the pain family causes is a consequence of our attachment to ideas. I don't believe family is necessary for happiness, but I advocate for the family institution since it's the primordial link in the broader social fabric.

From the standpoint of Buddhism, love would be the act of mindfulness—the inner peace and interconnectedness we reach when we momentarily touch Nirvana. In a more mundane sense, loving kindness in our thoughts, words, and deeds is a consequence of love. I would say it's not necessary to "know" the person or thing that receives love; simply being aware makes it possible to express and share this mind state.

I find comfort in soft determinism. As for what is ultimately true, that's something beyond our comprehension. Or worse, it's subjective and vulnerable to personal opinion. Soft determinism suggests that:
Our choices are influenced by prior causes, yet we still possess agency.
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive.
Human decisions are shaped by a complex interplay of factors, including environment, genetics, and experience.
.