To put it very simply, the Hegelian Dialectic is G.W.F Hegel’s theory that the progress of cultural views toward truth is anything but linear. Instead, the conventional thesis causes rebellion and, therefore, the birth of an anti-thesis. Belief patterns oscillate between those two extremes, both of which have certain particulars correct but are out of touch with general truth. People are split into those two camps at once until the anti-thesis eventually becomes the new thesis. That causes a new anti-thesis to arise, and the cycle repeats with each new thesis’ being slightly closer to the overarching truth but which may still overcompensate regarding the specifics. Imagine a pendulum swinging where belief is split between one peak of the swing and the other, truth itself is the force of gravity, and as the pendulum slows down, ideally, people should come together in submission of the truth at the pendulum’s resting point in the middle. This process, according to Hegel, takes at least three moves.

There is a political application of this theory — a cultural misinterpretation, in my view — that suggests that this dialectic process begins with a pragmatic agenda (usually control, power, and money), and instead of each step’s getting closer to the truth, it rather gets closer to fulfilling that goal. The problem here is metaphysical: pragmatism alone cannot provide a ground to account for the contents of the theory, nor for the act of theorizing itself. What grounds the goal toward which the dialectic aims? Is it nature? Is it a common value among the participants? Is it their conscious agreement? Each of these is logically unsound, for truth is neither determined by mere survival (naturalistic fallacy) nor by consensus (argumentum ad populum). It still requires we fallen, mortal beings to have faith in something as a grounding for that goal, just as we must appeal to something higher than ourselves in discerning truth. We will leave that here for now, however.

We can certainly observe the Hegelian Dialectic in microcosmic form when we observe the evolution of an individual’s beliefs. It is not our first impulse, when we are confronted with new information that challenges how we think, to simply observe that information and our responses to it — to watch the pendulum swing as well as to be self-aware, that is. No, it is our first impulse to map that information onto our preconditioned pattern of thinking, whether that means to accept and adopt the conventional thesis or to rebel against it. The former is the result of one’s being temperamentally more agreeable, and the latter less agreeable, from a Big-5 trait perspective. So, regardless of our temperament, the same holds true: we tend to ride the pendulum to the other end and back again, repeatedly, as to learn most of life’s lesson’s by trial and error. I don’t intend to commit the composition fallacy here — i.e. that what is true of individual parts should be true of the whole — but rather to draw an analogy between individual psychology on the specific level and the Hegelian Dialectic on the general.

An example of this would be the case of someone’s growing up with an inadequate Christian education or family life, and they overcompensate for that in young adulthood by becoming an atheist, perhaps because they read “The God Delusion” by Dildo Dawkins or something. With growth and wisdom, and after many debates with friends and family members, they eventually evolve into adopting a more stoic mindset and grateful attitude, and they find their way back to a more focused, spiritual (even Christian) perspective on reality and life.

I want to place emphasis on the grateful attitude that is required to see the truth. It is one thing to be able to interpret facts, and even to see higher patterns of truth, correctly. But, in doing so, there is no guarantee that one will know what to do with that information. An authentic, stoic mindset involves gratitude. There is power in indifference, yes. It allows one to remove emotion from the initial analysis and see things clearly. Without gratitude, this will cause apathy, for one can see and understand truth on a mechanistic level yet still feel some desire to correct what is to what one thinks should be the case. This is an interference of the ego. To be grateful is to understand and to consciously, in every necessary moment, control that ego response rather than to act on it in an attempt to control the world. Gratitude, not indifference, allows for true acceptance of that which is out of the individual’s control. From there, one is not bogged down in the negative attitude that the ego would create in reaction to the truth, but rather, a world of higher learning opens up to one.

Community roles and individual relationships are crucial both for development and as a test for one’s true attitude. It is also a product of ego for one to consciously decide “I am grateful.” It is another thing to test that against social pressure. An example would be in letting go of a romantic relationship and being “grateful” that one’s former partner will move on to other things and people that are better suited to them than one is. One can experience a feeling of unhealthy possessiveness over other people as well over their environment. In fact, people are simply part of that environment that the untamed ego seeks to control. They are mere objects — means to one’s end. Regardless of that end, one should not treat others merely as a means, but rather as ends in themselves. True love is expressed, perhaps more often than not, after that relationship is over with. It comes with the acceptance that the former lover has freely moved on — and in being grateful for that. Romantic relationships are the ultimate test of gratitude because they are so muddied by emotion. It is the context in which the line between intuition and emotion is the least clear. Intuition knows that to be grateful is to be free, and that is to be loved. That is true compassion. Emotion, empathy included, is the chemical response that the ego impulsively triggers when it does not accept what is.

To dilate back out to the general, the Hegelian Dialectic is the cultural context for ego expression. It is the natural result of group-based thinking which is, in fact, submission to cultural fashion at the expense of based, critical thinking. It can be consciously and systematically directed by a government entity’s appealing to the pity and emotion of the public, and persuading them that those impulsive, involuntary responses are virtuous. Therefore, it takes one absolutely no work to join the team of “the good”. One must only remain a slave to one’s emotions and be able to call out anyone who does not share that sentiment, no matter how well-reasoned their opponent’s position may be. The reward for this, in today’s technocratic culture, is not personal or spiritual fulfillment, but rather material convenience which one would, in reality, be better off finding a way to provide oneself. Whether Hegel’s claim that there is unity in truth at the end of the road, however, regarding the core things that are near and dear to us as individual, spiritual beings — e.g. what should be normalized regarding family, love, sex, beauty, etc. — remains to be seen.

Welcome to OTUJA which stands for Observe, Think, Understand, Judge, Act. This is a draft of a five-step guide for acting well and intentionally, especially important when there is a high risk of emotional influence on decision-making.

Anger, frustration, excitement, fear, pity, empathy, joy, etc.

Emotions are a matter of the subjective being alone — mere reactions to external stimuli. They are neither indicative of nor serve as evidence for any general reality. In the case that an emotional impulse does seem to reflect general reality, that is merely coincidental and should be accepted humbly. Emotions are not reasonable bases for action in any case. To act on the basis of an emotion is to act in self-interest and to therefore disregard the well-being of others. One’s emotions are one’s own responsibility to control. The more one allows their emotions to flow freely and impact others, the worse that person is, insofar as I can tell.

It should be considered that fully-justified action may be an unattainable ideal. Of course, everyone must act with some degree of self-interest and emotional influence from time to time in order to survive in the world. That still does not justify it, for martyrs can be perfectly justified in their final act. The best one can do in desperate times (while maintaining that survival is necessary) is to act from an unreasonable basis with the intention to prevent that from becoming a general pattern of behavior in future cases. OTUJA is a guide for formulating a good pattern of decision-making and therefore to maximize overall well-being around them in general, despite what exceptions may have to be made for necessary, expedient ends. The more consciously and frequently this process is applied, the purer one’s intentions will be, and the better a person that one will be, quite simply.

If you will notice, as I have mentioned the word a few times already, intention matters. What I mean by this term could also be described as an aim or purpose. This is not to be confused with goal or consequence. In each step of this process, as I will repeat, the intention is to set a foundation for the following step.

1. Observe

Acknowledge that your first intention is to think clearly (the next step). In order to do this, you must observe. Clear your mind. Identify whether or not you have any emotional impulses. If you do, then take deep breath, take a walk around the block, bash your head on a concrete wall — whatever necessary — until those impulses have at least gone dormant (if not, then congratulations: you are not a decision-maker. Go find a wiser, cooler head to depend on). Observe all that you can impartially, without bias for or against the subject(s) involved and for any outcome which might affect you, emotionally or practically. Love blinds in this step. The more you care about the subject, the hotter the lens through which you will perceive it. Whether it is your child who was kidnapped or a random straight white guy being curb-stomped by ANTIFA in the street, don’t let your initial emotional reaction jump to a premature judgment. Simply collect factual data about what you can see — as much of it as possible. Without impartial observation, thinking is not possible.

2. Think

Now that you have a basis of observations, acknowledge that your next intention is to understand what is going on. This means that you must first think critically about your observations as well as continuing to think about your own mental states during that process. The most important thing here is not to compile and organize all of your data in the construction of a viewpoint, but rather to filter out all of the useless information which, by the way, will be the majority of it. To develop a good filter, it is necessary to have knowledge of, and preferably also a cultivated sixth sense for, logical fallacies. These are errors of relevance and inference that hinder good reasoning. Once you have sifted through all fallacious data, look for patterns in the observations that are left over (there may be nothing left over, which is often the case during political unrest for example, in which case you should remain neutral and walk away from the situation entirely). Consider as many different interpretations of that remaining data, real or hypothetical, as you can. Without critical, analytical thinking, understanding is not possible.

3. Understand

Take your reasoned analysis and acknowledge that your next intention is to formulate a judgment on which to base your action. What is the most reasonable and least self-interested interpretation you can possibly make as a result of the thinking you have just done? Do you actually understand what is going on here on all levels? Do you sympathize with the local case and have a bird’s eye understanding of the greater conceptual patterns if any? Has this happened before, and are there any lessons from history to be learned here that you can draw understanding from? Without understanding to the highest, broadest, and most detailed degree conceivable, valid judgment is not possible.

4. Judge

Judgment is not bad. Judgment is necessary for action. Judgment without observation, thought, and understanding is bad and often leads to poor and destructive action. Acknowledge now that your intention is to act. In order for your action to be well-intended, the conclusion you have drawn from the first three steps must be valid. For a judgment to be valid, by logical definition, the truth of its conclusion must follow from the truth of its evidence. No matter how carefully you have completed the first three steps, you may not be comfortable with making a judgment at all. That is OK. Feel free to go back to any of the steps to analyze whether you missed a crucial bit of information or overlooked an interpretation that could have led to a more confident and reasonable judgment. Know that you are under no obligation whatsoever to have an opinion on anything or to act if you do not think that your judgment is true. Let your intuition be the final judge. An opinion can be based on as much as nothing, so it is better to have reasonable disbelief than to have unreasonable belief. At least reasonable disbelief will yield well-intended actions.

5. Act

In the case that you have formulated a well-reasoned judgment, acknowledge now that your intention is to accept the consequences of the action that you are about to produce. Act confidently and without apology. Apologies are not about actions themselves but rather about having done JA without OTU, and sometimes about having done A without OTUJ!

X. Intuit

The final bullet point and x-factor I would like to mention is intuition. Intuition, I must make clear, has no basis whatsoever in one’s personal emotions, beliefs, or conditioning, although those things can be partially based on it and will often overlap with it to some degree, blurring the line between intuition and personal baggage. It is our connection to the universal unconscious, to speak in Jungian terms, and is intrinsic to our nature. It is our spiritual and truth-guiding force, and it by its very nature cannot be wrong. In the case that an intuitive decision is wrong, it is because of interference of the ego, emotions, or a value structure that needs reform. This is to “trust your gut instinct” with regards to what is true. The more naturally emotional one is, the more difficult it will be, I suspect, for them to rely on their intuitive instinct, for the greater the risk that their intuition will be hindered by emotion. Cultivating intuition takes a lot of fine-tuning. As everyone’s is buried underneath layers upon layers of emotional and conditioned influence, I cannot give any general advice on how to do that. That is your personal duty and obligation to yourself and to the world.

The OTUJA process should be repeated as needed. You will make mistakes. That’s OK as long as it is your ongoing intention to act in accordance with truth — i.e. to do good for the sake of itself and to accept the consequences of that humbly — rather than to act in order to produce a consequence to begin with. This is what it means to be an authentic, moral being.

I must emphasize once more that OTUJA is intended toward an ideal, for one cannot and should not attempt to control external variables. That is not the point. The point is to focus on oneself, one’s own thinking. Every step of this process is extremely difficult. Even the first, to simply observe without emotional or self-interested bias, often requires monk-like meditation in the face of emotion-stirring crises. Sometimes it will seem impossible. When it does, inaction alone will show good character.

Under the condition that you apply OTUJA as consciously and frequently as possible, and that you get a wee bit better every time you do, you will probably start to think critically about some popular false beliefs. The following truths (any of which I would be happy to defend at length) are just a few that may arise:

1. Very few people (including most who claim to love you) care about you, and they like you even less when you speak the truth.
2. Almost all information is meaningless and must be sifted through for truth nuggets to be found.
3. To have knowledge of the logical fallacies is to have taken the intellectual red pill. This is one of the greatest transcendental values as well as the greatest personal dangers of formally studying philosophy. Your bullshit filter will be flawless, and you will never see the world the same again. This will either thicken your skin beyond what you thought was possible or send you spiraling down a well of crippling depression. Either way, you will be forced to find solace in isolation (see 1).
4. Non-defense-based violence is never justified, no matter how useful.
5. “Eye-for-an-eye” is a counterproductive approach to justice, personally and generally.
6. “Moral relativism” — the philosophy in which you believe that shit doesn’t stink just because your shit doesn’t stink to you — is false.
7. People are mostly good, albeit reckless, self-centered, and ignorant.
8. There is no connection whatsoever between being smart and being wise. An equal degree of good and evil is intrinsic to us all, and one uses one’s available tools to intend good rather than evil precisely to the degree that one is self-aware.
9. Self-awareness is the foundation of being a genuinely good and authentic person. It is a endless struggle. It never ends.
10. Activism — the belief that action trumps the other prerequisite steps in the OTUJA process so that it is perfectly acceptable, regardless the ideology on which it is founded, to act without proper justification or civility — is irrational animal behavior against which forceful defense is always permitted.

Good luck.

Almost three years ago, I started wearing a ring on my left middle finger because I found it in a box while I was moving, and I thought it looked cool. After a bit of research on ring symbolism, however, I found that the left middle finger represents order, structure, and personal responsibility. In astrology, it represents Saturn which coincidentally is the dominant planet in my natal chart. Saturn governs restraint, the ability to set boundaries based on logical principles, and it often results in rather conservative social viewpoints. I was like “sweet, that sounds like me”, so I kept wearing it and still do.

One of those viewpoints is that you should not get involved in someone else’s life until you have yourself somewhat figured out. I didn’t date in high school, nor did I have much of an active interest in women until I was in my mid-twenties. As a young observer not totally blinded by my testosterone drive, it seemed to me that people couldn’t set proper boundaries for themselves when it came to relationships. They couldn’t help deferring to others in the face of their own problems, sometimes at huge costs. As a Saturnian, I just didn’t understand that lack of self-restraint.

Most relationships seem unhealthy to me; most people, in my rather psychoanalytical view, seem to enter them on the basis of a deep personal and potentially clinical issues that absolutely must be dealt with. The individuals are pawns during each other’s healing, making a dramatic demise inevitable. There is plenty of folk psychology meowadays, unknowingly based on immature social-constructivist philosophy, that says that this is “totally OK” (emphasize with an annoyingly feminine tone of nurturing approval) – that we should learn to heal in the context of a relationship because that’s just how people naturally evolve as social creatures. We cannot have the foresight to avoid having to learn from our mistakes, so we attract those who are roughly as emotionally fucked up as we are, and the goal of a relationship is to grow out of that fucked-up-ness together.

While I see value in that, for we do attract and deserve no better those who are as emotionally as fucked up as we are, it is far from ideal and totally preventable to enter a relationship on this basis. We can cultivate our intuition and develop foresight to not always learn the hard way.

Perhaps I am not much of a social creature, and maybe my sex drive is lower than that of the average near-prime male, but a good person to me is self-aware, identifies and deals with their problems alone, and goes to great lengths to avoid involving others in that process. If you cannot stand to be alone, then you should practice by getting your own place, and get comfortable with the fact that when you’re left alone staring at a wall on a Saturday night with no one to entertain you, your subconscious mind will bring some very dark and disturbing things to you consciousness. You should learn and accept that these are very real parts of yourself which, if not meditated on, will eventually control your behavior without your conscious consent, at which point you will be so ego-controlled that you still may not learn from those mistakes. So, do that before you involve yourself with others, or else those others will be collateral, helpless while you sloppily come to terms with yourself because you couldn’t just sit down and meditate without having a screen of useless, dopamine-triggering bullshit in front of your face for five minutes.

At least for me, being with someone else is for mutual enjoyment and for nothing else. The last thing I would want is for them to make their problems mine (at least without the intention to improve – I’m more than happy to help someone who needs and wants that) and for me to burden them with my problems. I have my faults, but I am very well-adjusted in at least this way. I have a perfect track record of having had no relationship drama as a result of this principle. I can honestly say that I have seriously burdened not a single soul with my troubles. How generous of me.

In my years of maturation, have grown obsessed with being alone. It all started… well, from birth of course. This is in large part a natural proclivity. My parents sometimes recall my waking up in my crib and happily entertaining myself with my toy cars for any length of time until my parents decided it was time to take me out. Later on, I remember going to sleepovers and on camping trips with other kids (on the rare occasions that my parents were able to convince me to), playing variations of hide-and-seek, and feeling most at peace while I was by myself, hiding, especially in stark contrast to the social context of being with other kids minutes before which epitomized ‘unpeaceful’. My thoughts were finally able to flow without distraction. My mind and body were finally able to rest. It reminds me of how a married man with kids says he only has time alone while he is in the bathroom taking a shit, and he cherishes that time sweetly. Being the “old soul” that I am, I was so relaxed in those moments of hiding that I felt my bowels move too, and I do recall once or twice actually shitting my pants. So, even as a very young child I felt alone, but I was was at home in that state. At home, alone, with a shitpie in my pants.

I have had roommates over the years who certainly did not understand the concept of healthy solitude, so they couldn’t respect that in me or in anyone else. I would spend an unhealthy majority of my day mulling over how imprisoned I felt from having to live with them. They simply didn’t understand what I thought were common social rules: having the basic decency to avoid bothering the people they lived with unless they really needed something, keeping their shit out of the common areas and cleaning the kitchen after use, turning the handle before opening and closing a door in the morning and at night when they weren’t sure if their roommates were sleeping, etc. These are basic things, no? Unfortunately, one or two of them were good friends of mine, but it was still not worth keeping them in the house even if that meant ending those friendships. My mental health was at serious risk. I had to kick multiple out for “disturbing the peace”.

“Home” is a sanctuary – a place for peace – regardless of how poor or well-off you are. Those who don’t define ‘home’ in this way are not peaceful, and they seem to lack awareness of others and of themselves. I’ll pay the extra money to live alone no matter how bad things get, always. The point is, though, that these people also had serious problems in their relationships if they were able to have one at all. Their inability to be alone made it difficult for them to pair-bond intimately. I didn’t really have a problem with finding a relationship. Looking back, I just didn’t want it. I just saw it as the only way to explore sexuality in a safe and consistent way — a trap many fall into (I’ll eventually write another piece on why that norm should be destroyed for the sexual well-being of all).

I remember telling my girlfriend at the time, who conveniently lived over an hour away, that I could not wait to have my own place and that I foresaw my wanting to live alone for the majority of my life. It was then that certain adult values started to surface for me, and coming home to peaceful solitude everyday was one of the main ones. She of course was bothered by this as it didn’t line up with her scheme.

At 20ish years old, I suppose she didn’t have the foresight to know that it wouldn’t work out in the long-run. Maybe I should have been more clear that it was never my intention for it to, but that is difficult to realize and articulate when taking it day-to-day is the natural approach. Genuinely taking it day-to-day, in practice, does not entail that kind of discussion to begin with. Does that make sense? Like, you can’t tell a quality woman (and I do consider all women of my past to be quality women. I picked them, after all) “Look, this is day-to-day. I live for myself. I’m here for our mutual enjoyment and for no other reason. No marriage, no kids. When one of us loses interest, we’re done. That could be tomorrow or ten years from now. Got it?” She’ll simply leave for a situation that that has more promise for the future no matter how deluded that promise is. I suppose I showed that enough. She would often say “I know that if you didn’t want to be with me, then you wouldn’t be.” That was correct, and it extended my interest in her. The breakup was eventually mutual and peaceful.

When I finally did get my own place immediately after college, it proved to be a necessary move. It was quite a lazy time though. I didn’t feel that I had the energy to be as creative and productive as I was hoping, but at least I spent much needed time resting, catching up from literally years of sleep lost and mental restraint due to living with others prior to that.

Relationships that followed further solidified my desire to remain single and alone. I successfully stuck to my strict no-cohabitation rule. This worked out so well for me that it made me question further why people pair-bond at all – i.e. why they don’t value themselves above shared goals such as family, and seeing other people, that require so much self-sacrifice. I don’t get it. What is in that deal for me? How would that do anything but hold me back, not to mention exhaust the hell out of me? I suppose that not everyone is a radical individualist like I am. Some people actually put social interaction, sex, nurturing, etc. above themselves in their value structures. Confusing still.

My confusion about this goes deeper, though. It spills into my confusion about love itself. People who pair-bond, move in together prematurely and sacrifice large parts of themselves for shared goals that don’t seem worth it, also claim to love each other. I cannot accept love as a virtue or a goal in itself at all if this is what love is.

Love to me should be freeing, liberating. It should be a deep understanding, acceptance, and enjoyment of the fact that I am one individual, she is another, and that there is nothing we can or should do to interfere with that. Maybe it will last one night, or maybe it will last a lifetime. Either way, it should be nourishing. It must not be a prison. It must not be a context for judgment or accountability, for that is one’s own responsibility. It must not involve overwhelming feelings of jealousy or possessiveness. It must be devoid of ego, fear, and expectation that the other will change to serve you. It must be peaceful. It must be vulnerable and open. It must allow for as much solitude as is needed. It must be intentional, however, and unconditional if true. It should be virtually effortless. If all of these things are in place, only then, maybe, shared goals could be seen as worth it and at all possible. Maybe then could self-bonding and pair-bonding coexist. If that is not to be, then love is not for me. That is fine. The right people will come and go.

To conclude, and maybe this is a bit Saturnian of me to say, but self-bonding should be a prerequisite for pair-bonding in every case so that the relationship will entail principles that will originate from and nourish the individual. Done right, one might find that he or she is not monogamous at all and that a pair isn’t necessarily the best structure for their romantic and sexual fulfillment. Regardless, I think that only a person who can truly be alone can also truly love another, given the deeper albeit more idealistic definition of ‘love’ that I have proposed. Only the loner can truly accept and enjoy another with intention and without expectation. Otherwise, there is a great probability that the love is simply ego-serving, validation-seeking, or the like. So, if you have never lived alone, I highly suggest that you do for a while before you go out and completely ruin someone’s life, because that clock is probably ticking. Seriously. Stare at your wall, and let your repressed dark thoughts pass. If you don’t, you may not get what you want from love, and you definitely won’t get what you need for yourself, for your conception of love will be conditional on some greater force unconsciously ruling you.