Beyond the Realm of Human Being: From Strategic Victimization to Autonomous Protocols

Note that the term the "God" mentioned, if any, in the following discussion refers to that which appears in human recognition as a law that holds true beyond time and space. Note also that whatever is perceived with an interpretation according to one's way of thinking is merely her/his personal perception solely relevant in the context of the social norms s/he follows. This generally holds true of collective perception. No matter what that is, since it is merely an issue that may be raised as such in the context of the social norms as such and since any social norm after all is nothing but a man-made concept, it has nothing to do with the God (See NOTE 1 below for more about this). In other words, whatever is relevant with human being is just about one of the domains that the God rules. Human being is just an existing being among others. The decline and fall of human being, should it happen, may be disastrous for the human and at the same time may be beneficial for other living beings of existence to this date. Given the records, oral or written, about how the human being has done to the other current and then living beings of existence than themselves, we never know if the God will remain to be in favor of the human for years or generations to come.

The discussion below is generally about human issues. If the reader is smart enough to fail to recognize what is what and what else is what else, then the s/he should take the following discussion as merely a fairly tale.

Relations among everything in the realm of human being are determined by the ways the connections among them are defined respectively in their relativity. Some of the basic relations are those that apply to a person and/or a group of people: the one vs. the others; the "we" vs. the "they"; the friend vs. the enemy; the winner vs. the loser; the right vs. the wrong; the strong vs. the weak; etc. Potential enemies to a person are determined, by a criterion defined in relativity to his/her purpose, as those with whom s/he potentially cannot stand for her/his own decision making to be made in a series of efforts toward her/his goals. Anything that can be either determined or defined in relativity in this regard is within the realm of human being. It can mostly be a judgement of a kind with respect to a person's personal point of view. Therefore a statement by Henry John Temple can mostly be safe to be said to hold true that "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow." In the realm of human being, though, there will always be a time at which "we or our" and "interests" may be prompted to be redefined as required in relativity in the process of each event's realization.

In the world of relativity in everything, what matters is exploration and is not achievement: exploration in interpretation, analysis, and classification of what are being and are to be observed by collecting information and/or collecting seemingly established knowledge. Explore anything at anytime. Exploration in interpretation, analysis, and classification may be referred to be exploration of truths for which frameworks and/or structures with respect to the way of thinking based upon observations may be helpful as long as they are defined or determined in relativity according to what are observed. The frameworks and/or structures are ones of the necessary conditions for exploration and at the same time they are the limitations unintentionally set for recognition. Any realizing event may be gone unnoticed or unrecognized without a solid framework and/or structure for exploration while absolutizing the framework and/or structure may lead to pitfalls in which a realized event or what is observed may be dismissed as something trivial in the context of the absolutized framework and/or structure. Any framework and/or structure, therefore, should at times be flexibly modified or updated. The difference should be noted between exploring the truths and having the recognition that "I know the truths." The latter could be self destructive.

Thoughts induced by exploration in this regard are affected and determined by the frameworks and/or structures for exploration and vice versa. A collective recognition that is formed among a group of people leads to a collective way of thinking, which may eventually give rise to a social phenomenon. Such social phenomenon on the other hand may affect such collective way of thinking among a group of people, which may gradually influence the collective recognition. In short, the human thinking and the social phenomenon affect each other. Any model that studies the formation of collective decision making should bear in mind the endogeneity of human recognition to social phenomenon. Human recognition cannot be an exogenous variable in such modelling. This relationship can be a key factor for social certainty or social uncertainty. One may wonder if it is possible to reduce uncertainty in the society of one's interest for the greater good, at least, for the one. Some of the well-established patterns including social norms may be interpreted as such factors that may contribute to reducing social uncertainty (See NOTE 2 for what social uncertainty could actually mean). On the other hand it seems, however, based on the observations for the recent few years that at times uncertainty resulting from either intentionally or unintentionally realized events is amplified by the seemingly well-established patterns that are taken for granted in a society. Why is this the case? It is because the well-established patterns after all are nothing but man-made customs or man-made concepts. This seems to hold true when we witness what is being realized by those who absolutize man-made concepts or man-made items in the name of social justice, who do not seem to be self aware that they are acting merely as idol worshipers in the sense of the old testament. They may blame others anti-"whatever-is-man-made" and they are not aware that they actually are anti-"GOD" instead (See NOTE 3 below for more). Remember Psalm 115 KJV.

A new word introduced to a given system of language may cause realignment of the language system through the process in which the new word is being incorporated into it. Anything is recognized by a person through the process of wording. Without a proper wording anything is not recognized as what it is supposed to be otherwise, which may result in the thing being not properly recognized. Giving a misleading name is a way to mislead a person or a group of people (See NOTE 4 below for more). Thus a first step for establishing a relevant view with the actual real world is to assign an appropriate name to everything and to correct misleading names. The most fatal situation, however, may be achieved when no name is given to a thing, which may result in it being completely hidden. It is much more difficult to find what is not recognized as a thing than to correct a misleading thing that is at least recognized as a thing (See NOTE 5 below for more).

It is not the stronger who actually wins; it is the winner who is actually stronger. The status regarding strength with respect to competitions of any kind, therefore, should be interpreted as posterior information that ultimately becomes available only after the corresponding series of events in the process of the competition of our interests is realized while still humbly recognizing that reasonable estimations are hopefully derived by the data-driven prior analyses, the approach in recent days increasingly popular especially among those who think highly of the so-called scientific behavior (See NOTE 6 below for details). Otherwise, any prior information should be dismissed as mere speculation until what is to realize is actually realized.

What is strength? What is the status of being as the stronger and who is the stronger? A winner is someone who ultimately leads oneself to a situation in which one's ultimate goals are achieved regardless of the costs for that. The strength, on the other hand, is nothing but a kind of the associated characteristics that support the way leading to the winning. In other words, strength itself cannot be a goal to be achieved for the process of a competition. Those who seek strength alone must fall by dismissing the other characteristics that are equally required for and contributing to the way leading to the winning (See NOTE 7 for more). The true evaluation is not necessarily confirmed at the moment of the actions. It is confirmed and established as such only after some longer period of time in the context of the human history.

An eventual winner, most notably since the middle of the nineteenth century, tends to have been a partially strategical victim who often fully takes advantage of being as the side of the damaged caused by the eventual loser. One can hope to maximize the likelihood of being entitled to enjoy the status as a victim, even with the claim of moral correctness and superiority, if the one decisively wins anyway and/or somehow at the end of the relevant process of conflicts despite tentatively losing most of the time often with severe damages. One could still hope to claim a morally superior, if not victorious, status even when the one is not actually entitled to be a sovereign unit if the one is fortunate enough to have the opportunity to stand with the side of the winners at the very end. Note that it may be still worth attempting for the damaged, regardless of his/her/its victory status, to claim by crying and/or yelling for moral superiority if the damages are caused by the eventual loser and as long as the damaged is not on the side of the eventual loser. In this way, the status of being as the victim may gradually come to imply the status as moral superiority and hence the status as quasi-victory. For moral superiority in some cases one could choose to strategically embrace the status of being as the damaged, which have led to the gradual establishment of an internationally recognized social norm that victims are morally correct and superior than those who damage others.

What would then be possible approaches for a strategic sovereign unit to take in an age with the context of strategic victimization as the way to achieve moral correctness and hence eventual victory or quasi-victory? One could consider a passive approach, an active approach, or the both, whichever is most suitable for the one according to the relative intensity to the one's potential enemy. An easy and straightforward passive approach would be just the strategic victimization for oneself. What would be, on the other hand, an active approach while avoiding to give the others or the potential enemies the privilege to enjoy the status as being the damaged caused by the one? If the one does harm to the others, then the one risks being taken advantage of by them. This raises a serious question especially about the way the conventional conflicts are dealt with where it seems to be inevitable for the participants of a conflict to harm others and possibly to be harmed in return, in which establishing the status as a sole victim may not be theoretically straightforward.  

With malice towards none. This is a golden rule for everything. It follows from the above, however, that any active approach would involve an aspect of strategically chosen self victimization, which itself is the self proclamation of the ultimate malice towards oneself. Then a preferred passive approach, on the other hand, should involve several aspects such as reasonably minimized self victimization, reasonably as minimized as possible harm to the others, reasonably secured freewill, and reasonably secured freedom of choice, all of which leads to reasonably secured ultimate moral correctness. In other words, the best form of winning takes place when the preferred situation is realized with the potential enemies' decision making being both completely voluntary and self-destructive. How can it be achieved?

Let the potential enemies voluntarily ruin themselves according to their own logic. Then they solely are responsible for their own outcomes. How can it be possible? How can it be achieved? Is it realized by an action taken actively toward the potential enemy? Here is an analysis into mutually exclusive view points: (1) The potential enemy either from the earlier or from the later has his/her own specific logic. The logic may include a mechanism in which a certain emotion is collectively aroused as a group of people on the part of the potential enemy; (2) The potential enemy voluntarily follows his/her own logic. The potential enemy at least believes that s/he follows her/his logic out of her/his own freedom of choice and that s/he follows her/his own freewill without being affected, to their recognition, by the prevailing social norms or the like. It is much more effective if the potential enemy's logic is seemingly supported by the then social norms, by the then widely accepted consensus, and/or by the then dominant religions surrounding them; (3) The potential enemy has huge sunk costs because of their actions already taken according to their own logic so that there is no point of return for them without admitting their possible failures due to their actions as outputs of their logic.

Now we are coming back to the point: is the logic, be it ours or theirs, relevant with the laws that hold true beyond time and space? If the logic, be it ours or theirs, is not supported by the laws that hold true beyond time and space, then the group of people who is following such logic must fall. In other words in order for the potential enemies to voluntarily ruin themselves, let them follow a logic that is not supported by the laws that hold true beyond time and space. In other words the so-called idol-worshipers are those people who do not follow the laws that hold true beyond time and space. In this sense the so-called idol-worshipers must fall. Let the potential enemies be idol-worshipers. The so-called idol-worshipers tend to think highly of themselves by absolutizing their man-made concepts or their man-made products, typically in the name of implicitly or explicitly expressed absolute justice. It is easy to distinguish themselves from the others (See NOTE 8 for this). Then the consequence is either a process of autonomous destruction, a process of subservient destruction, or a voluntary sequence of self destruction without such recognitions on their part. Hence Publilius Syrus' famous proverb holds: Stulum facit fortuna, quem vult perdere. Is this a curse? No, it is an outcome derived by the person's own actions according to his/her own specific logic. Then the strategic victimization is no longer meaningful for moral correctness to be on the side of justice in terms of man-made social norms. Our interest is the existence or non-existence of an autonomous protocol for a group of people in terms of the laws that hold true beyond time and space. Our interest lies also in the order of the laws with respect to the prevailing power if some of the laws compete among themselves. My guess would be that there could at best be formally correct one yet with almost no practical information on the part of the human in terms of an active method. As a passive method, in light of the laws that hold true beyond time and space, there could be a self-destructive protocol for a certain group of people that is realized to be as their response to a situation. Thoughtfulness may sometimes be taken as lack of confidence. A person tends to desire a sign and willingly s/he gets her/his mark of vivivi. Tragedies occur in the time of the transition of the prevailing hegemonies and the interconnected transitions of hegemonies occur as well in several fields. This is not a result of implicit plots/projects.This is a result of autonomous protocols (See NOTE 9 for a hypothetical example).



===========================
        NOTES
===========================

[NOTE 1]
Any concept or social norm implicitly assume the human to be a healthy existence as a life. If the health (especially the immune system) of the human as a life is collectively lost or is being collectively lost in a systematic way as a result of whatever reasons with no exception of human activities, then whatever is human specific is meaningless and useless because the human may not eventually be able to exist as a life. Then the difference in political system, judicial system, economic system, financial system, educational system, or whatever is foundational for a society or a nation will have no meaning. The recent five years have seen the so-called science to be merely consensus-based policies not only with implicit and/or explicit assumptions that lack supports from reality but also with the fabricated "evidence." Examine the data exclusion criteria, the data period, the control group treatment, and the assumptions. Assumptions play ones of the most critical roles: the human is not man-made; there are no people who are exactly the same, which means that in reality there are no experiments with an experimental group vs. a control group unlike those for the case of the man-made products. That is why consensus-based exclusion criteria are always either implicitly or explicitly applied to them without exception. This always leads to a serious fraud. The world will eventually face the reality in which any man-made concept is meaningless and useless. There will be no way but to follow the laws that hold true beyond time and space regardless of one's belief or political stance. The God (or the heaven in some contexts) is impartial.  

[NOTE 2]
Never take any word or concept for granted. What does social uncertainty mean? Whose social uncertainty actually is it? In other words, whose uncertainty? Whose certainty? Social uncertainty for a certain group of people may mean social certainty for some other groups of people. Social certainty for a certain group of people may mean social uncertainty for some other groups of people. Here is how to increase uncertainty for some groups of people: Think in one's own way while retaining doubts on everything; Think in a critical way while not taking certain dogmas or pre-requisite conditions for granted; Understand and reveal the intentions of some groups of people. What does it actually mean? The implicit assumption would be that ignorance on the part of the mass is part of the underlying structure that has been formed through the past generations. Ignorance on the part of a group (class) of people may be thought of as something that achieves "stabilization" for some other groups (classes) of people. Such stabilization, however, could lead to perpetually weakened inner regime in return that cannot stand against the outer competitors. Therefore, such regime may successfully preserve itself against the inner competitors while it may eventually be defeated by the outer competitors. In other words, refusal of inner competitions will most likely end up with forced exit from the power.   

[NOTE 3]
It is wisely said that a poop does not recognize that s/he herself/himself is actually a poop.

[NOTE 4]
We have already witnessed a situation in which a name of opposite meaning is given to what should have been named a "suppressor."  

[NOTE 5]
A language with a larger set of vocabularies, therefore, will always be advantageous. A language with a simpler grammatical structure and a simpler word-forming syntax will always be advantageous. Since there could be several criteria for what such advantages actually are and since such criteria are not necessarily straightforward, it is recommended that one is proficient in multiple languages that are mutually exclusive in terms of the language family. Being proficient in multiple languages form a single language family would not make sense at all for the view points addressed in the main body of the text. What languages would you choose? Me? Obviously the English language from the Indo-European language family. Make a good guess about my choice of other language families and about the corresponding language in each of them. I choose just one language from a language family. Here is a list of some of the largest and most widely spoken language families: Indo-European; Sino-Tibetan; Afro-Asiatic; Niger-Congo; Austronesian; Dravidian; Turkic; Uralic; Altaic; and Austroasiatic. Given the human history and the associated dominant civilizations, a total of three languages from the corresponding three families at large should be reasonably enough.

[NOTE 6]
Ironically enough most of those people who think of themselves thinking highly of scientific behavior have failed to recognize the intentionally and maliciously manipulated experiment with the five times larger number of exclusion in the experimental group than that in the control group. This fact cannot be undone. It follows from this fact that the educational attainment in the sense of the so-called standardized modern education system does not count any more, which is equivalent to saying that the so-called professional qualifications that are based on the so-called standardized modern education system do not count any more, either. The way the wisdom of human being may be assessed has already been changed forever and will never be the same again. The regime has permanently switched and the world will never be the same again. Since the human history may be seen as a process of competitions among civilizations and since the way of wisdom is closely characterized by the relevant civilization, a regime switching for human wisdom may mean a transition of the hegemony from one civilization to another one.

[NOTE 7]
The human history has seen a case in which a group of people, who were hiding themselves away from their enemies, were running into the deep mountains without engaging major fights, and were successfully preserving their military power, eventually recovered and gained their land. This is not a shame at all. The human history also has a case, on the other hand, in which a mighty power, who is beating a less mighty power, is beaten by a mightier power, losing all of the exterior territories and 90% of its total assets earned in the previous some 70 years. What is the goal? Is the goal achievable in a reasonably feasible way? How can the goal be achieved? One cannot rely solely on the temporary strength that happens to be relatively mightier at the time of the competition. One has to always remember that the God (or the heaven in some contexts) is impartial.

[NOTE 8]
Remember those people who are following the "consensus-based science" without noticing the inherent contradiction in the terminology. Democracy, yet another man-made concept, is a political regime in which collective decisions are made respecting the results of the voting by majority while also respecting an individual's freewill. If an individual's freewill is violated or infringed upon, however, then the decision making process as a collective unit is no longer democratic at all. The so-called democracy is easily betrayed in the name of "justice." Whose justice is it? In many cases the consensus itself is achieved based on another consensus about what is acceptable and what is not for those who have the social, political, or religious power to form the consensus. The consensus-forming process itself is a serious fraud.

[NOTE 9]
Let us consider a hypothetical example. Do not take this seriously. This hypothetical example is about a non-offender or non-aggressor strategy and may be taken as an applied strategy derived from strategic victimization. As long as one is not an offender or an aggressor, then the one is OK. Let the potential enemies be offenders or aggressors solely to themselves.

Let a pathogen be Josephine; a protein Christine; a laboratory Michael; the viral interference Jennifer; a dangerous artificial or natural Josephine Logan; a less dangerous Josephine that works reasonably well to achieve Jennifer Susan; an antigen Mary; an antibody Lucy; an artificial product to let people obtain Lucies by a Mary of Logan be Donald; the natural immunity Charlie; and the acquired immunity Katie. Then the following sentence may make sense as a statement: More than 80% of the population have been Donalded for a Michael-made Susan without being fully accounted for about the exclusion criterion of five times difference between the experimental and control groups. If the vast majority of infants who have no Katies but Charlies have either no or mild symptoms against a Josephine, then it simply implies that the human can handle it in general only with Charlies. This also implies that the Josephine, even if it is made in Michael, is not a Logan. How is such Susan possible? This is simple. When a human body does not need Lucies for a Josephine, it is either a situation where the Josephine is less or not toxic to the human or a situation where some of the Christines that form the Josephine are too similar to the ones that form the human body. Such Josephines may easily become microbiomes. Donald for microbiomes is a stupid idea for most cases.

Theoretically, a Logan may be Jennifered by a Josephine if both of the Josephines are contracted through the same receptors and if the Josephine is more attractive than the Logan is to the receptors. Then such Josephine is a Susan. For a Michael-made Logan, one could prepare a corresponding Susan in advance by genetically modifying the Logan so that the Susan may work as a bacteriophage. This will reinforce the Susan as a means to achieve Jennifer. In other words, a Logan can always be neutralized by a Susan. Since a Susan is a Josephine designed to be handled only with Charlies by the human, nothing is needed to be done for a Susan on the part of the human. This is what is induced as an interpretation according to science.

Here is the point. If there is a group of people who absolutize Donald for any Josephine, then one can lead them to self-destruction using a Susan. This may be regarded as an autonomous protocol.

See "A Modest Hypothesis" dated Saturday, April 16, 2022 available at https://www.charliehanabuchi.com/2022/04/a-modest-hypothesis.html.