What does it mean to solve a problem?
We’d have to first understand what is a problem. To solve a mystery we know quite clearly it involves removing the covers to reveal something hidden, the shining of light upon a previous darkness. Curiously, our culture doesn’t have an equivalently obvious model for solving a problem (anything you think up of now doesn’t count). Thus we build from scratch: a problem requires two parts. First, a drive or a desire to move something to some location. This is not technically a given. In mystery there is but one truth; for a problem it matters not which goal you seek. Second, an obstacle which adds difficulty in moving the something to that location. This obstacle has the opposite properties of the one in mystery. In mystery the nature is gradually learned throughout the process, its location is the final piece, and everything afterwards is taken care of; in a problem the obstacle’s inner mechanics are both givens (or almost givens) and the process is utilizing that knowledge and moving it to its proper place, or more simply, out of the way. In a mystery, the goal is knowledge, reached through sorting a mess and following details. In a problem, the goal is displacement, obtained by overcoming stress – either by countering the obstacle’s forces, or by negating them.
To solve a problem is to apply force in the correct manner to obtain equilibrium.
This is why we don’t know what a problem is: we do not apply force. We never stray beyond the first half of the equation, never see the story after the mystery, except through proxies. A decade and a half of school where all you ever do is answer questions on form after form, then a handful of decades of doing nothing but creating form after form according to some other form. You can’t beat up the kid who tried to take your lunch money, the adults will make you suffer tenfold. You can’t build your own trinkets and learn what you want to learn, the adults will label you as having an attention or social disorder. Exact analogies exist for grown-up kids. There are no actions with reality, and the slave religion reinforces that. Turn the other cheek. Let it be. Karma. If you want something, you don’t need to do anything. If you really want something and you aren’t getting it, just watch someone else do it. Need love, go read a romance novel. Need to build stuff, go play Minecraft. Need to do work, play an MMORPG. Need meaning, read philosophy. Need to beat some assholes up, go play Call of Duty. God forbid you try to do any of that stuff in real life. Try to actually go and get a girl, you’re a needy stalker with psychological issues. A mere antisocial hobbyist no matter what your goal in creation is. Type A personality if you want to get things done. Evil right-winger if you seek order. And of course, sociopath madman if you ever decide and kill someone in reality. We believe that problem solving is about ignoring the problem, rather than removing or countering it.
And though we mouth the words to the pledge of peace, it’s clear that proxies aren’t sufficient. Where once GTA and wave-shooting games did perfectly fine to quell male aggression, more and more games are going the way of Assassin’s Creed, where the highest goal is silence, one kill, silence. No more of the splatter and mess that’s so similar to everything else, the “everyday”. People with problems desire a precise application. The one correct application. This desire for correctness is not an abstract number on a spreadsheet. It is qualitative, an understanding that for many things if they are not done right the first time, that is the end. A common complaint for games once was that they were “hard”. Now, the observation for some of them is that they are “realistic” – and the statement has nothing to do with the graphics. The improved visceral depictions of blood and guts has nothing to do with the visceral feelings we get from these kinds of games. It has to do with feeling physically present inside that situation depicted on the screen.
Previously discussed was how people have physical presence because they are capable of high power output. We only see each other as human in relation to our power, but what exactly does that mean? We clearly don’t respect all things that have high power output. Power doesn’t matter to us unless it is directed at us. “At” not “for”, for it is true that we never pay attention to things which exclusively move us towards our goals. It only starts to be of note once it opposes us in some manner, in the instances it has a relative velocity to our frame (We of course also ignore all energy which is not perceived, or are directed elsewhere). Therefore, the more accurate version is “we only respect people if they are capable of directing high power at us”. We have a name specifically for describing energy used by humans at other humans:
Violence is what binds the “us” together, what keeps the “them” away. It is far better understood by all humans than math, music, and love, for violence is understood instinctively while the others require an intellectual structure. Threats or use of violence are seen as “low blows” or dirty methods, but people use these metaphors as if humans should avoid dirt like the plague, as if humans have always sat in chairs, slept in beds, and stood with their backs straights and chins up. If something is “low” and “dirty” because it’s fundamental. Primal. Universal. The original solution to all problems.
And problems we will always have. It goes without saying that people have conflicting interests, but it does not exist in the dandy manner that some of the stories have showed us to be. Infinite diversity does not simply coexist passively, like stoners around a bonfire who thought up this bullshit. The image we get from all tolerance pushers is one of nature, of different animals and plants all “living together”. Yet they fail to recognize that this is only an image, a quantitative observation. The predator wants to kill its prey, to eat it alive or dead, to reproduce so it can continue killing things to keep eating to keep reproducing. They prey wants to run away, not like a girl teasing on a guy at a ball, but like anyone would run from a skidding 18 wheeler. We understand these metaphors because we understand that passive concepts like “coexistence” are full of shit. There are some things that need to get done, and they will get done.
And yet we insist that “violence is never the answer”.
The interpretation today of Sun Tzu’s line “the best victory is won without fighting” is that we should never fight. “If at all possible, discuss the problem and work it out” has been reduced to “Discuss the problem and work it out”; the assumption has been injected that it’s always possible to do things without using energy. Obviously if the best don’t fight, then the best never fight, right? Clearly the best also wave their dicks in each other’s faces every chance they get, because that’s exactly what we find now. Road rage, then flipping to cry wolf for insurance money. Egging people on, then claiming that because they threw the first punch they’re responsible for everything. More broadly, it has lead to general dishonor and the anti-negative approach: claim that you try your best, then when people who are more passionate than you put you down in your place, argue that everyone has faults and other things to do, and point out the things they do wrong as if they were equal to you.
However, proxies in the end are merely proxies. They are soldiers to the officer, army to the commander, slaves to the master. If you use strictly peaceful methods and are incapable of anything else, you are nothing; a king with no army and no mages to control the elements of nature is going to have his golden chair changing users momentarily. The winning without fighting Sun Tzu speaks of is possible only because a king can fight. There is victory without war not because a mathematical proof was done through “pure” reason (there is no such thing), but because the enemy was shown that for whatever his given goal, fighting this land would be one of the worst decisions he could possibly make. Because he would lose what he wanted, by force.
Those who have and practice power use proxies differently from those that do not. Whereas communication, HR, and other related fields are meaningless and circlejerking to us, we recognize how those things could be used in a situation where there are many forces involved. The gang depictions we find most serious and realistic are those which are extremely polite and well-versed in etiquette. The Godfather has a line in common circulation: “I’m going to make him an offer he can’t refuse.” Diplomats and emperors in stories treat each other with respect directly proportional to their power – you do not find the Shogun as the rudest of communicators, but the most pleasant and clean. The most brutish is always some low-ranking commander’s random nephew back in the rural village.
We are that nephew. We are using force without understanding or even perceiving force, and we come to believe that it is possible to move mountains with a single spoken word. Imagine those who run their mouths, except this time they have zero power backing them. No crowd, no police, no national media outrage. What do you think would happen? Would the men who come in to take all the valuables even bat an eye? If he were instead made missing for being enough of an annoyance, do you think anyone would remember or care, much less write about it for contemporary or posterity? Let’s say a couple of people thought it was “too extreme” or that “the punishment didn’t fit the crime”. They have no power at their command either. What would happen?
Would they even bother thinking such a thing?
Fundamentally, all things use force. The laws of physics aren’t something you read about the textbook, they are how this world is coded. Everything that exists has mass, and to move it we use energy. Humans are not greater than the rest of the animal kingdom because we have intangible desires; the mere existence of such a category is arrogant. Though the word itself means “untouchable”, we treat it to mean outside of the domain of reality. Love is something you “feel”, beauty is something you “experience”, happiness is something you “long for”. As if these things were ethereal, or divine. It’s quite clear though that someone had to be there to put your dick in and they had to consume food for however many years they lived up till that point, someone had to obtain paint created in a factory somewhere to paint that picture, and a bunch of people had to do all the things they did right (indicating that they had done it many times prior) to spark your imagination. All of these involved people using energy to apply force in moving things. Desire, appreciation, and inspiration are also all chemically based, and chemistry is simply mechanics on the 10^-9 scale. Even though there is some bigger aesthetic picture that’s greater than the sum of its parts, it is fundamentally undeniable that there are forces at work. (This is somewhat of a misnomer phrase, as there is no work without force.)
We need work to achieve our goals. We are not rocks; there are certain things we need to have to achieve our purposes which aren’t readily available to us, and all the actions we execute can be simplified to applied force displacing an object, be that object ourselves or the fruit on the tree or the spear from our hands. It matters not what stands in our way, we are bound by our existence to achieve that purpose. If it’s a rock, move it. If it’s a rat, move it. Lion, move it. Water, move it. Storm, move it.
People, move it.
Recognize that there is nothing inherently “good” about treating your “fellow” man well. If they are your community, they are not simply homo sapiens, but wielders of material and forces at your command and aid if you so need it (this includes sentimentality, companionship, and a sense of belonging, as discussed previously). Treat them well and act with honor, of course. Same with your foes and enemies, who wield the same things in the opposite manner. But simply being genetically similar to you means absolutely nothing. Why would it? Because your elementary school teacher said so? Because your United Nations representative said so? Better yet, because someone in a book written by someone else copied by yet another guy who referred to a person now dead, said so? If someone has no significant amount of material or forces and they stand between you and something which needs to be done, what does it matter whether or not you are “violent”? Even if they have material and forces, if your objective is on the other side and all other proxies have failed, why would you not use “violence”? What is a man who never stands up, never raises his arms, never points his gun for anything, not his family, not his dreams, not his friends, not his countrymen? Is he a man?
Is something which creates no resistance to outside forces, not even by inertia, something which even exists?
Perhaps this is why people are more respected dead than alive.
Order is displacing things to their proper positions. You can learn to confuse and manipulate the minds of others all you like, but if they don’t learn their place and move there themselves, it is up to you. You must do what is necessary. If victory is not achievable without fighting, then fight. When all other languages fail, you must speak the first. Actually, there’s a better way to put it; this culture does not exactly have the problem of lacking in violence. To be lacking in something you must first have it. Those who are incapable of using energy against others are those who we don’t respect, who have no physical presence, who not only don’t matter, but are not matter. If someone does not exist, their honeyed words by definition cannot exist either. In other words,
If you speak not the first language, you speak naught at all.