The Mystical ‘Organic’ That Shapes Our Lives – What Is It? – The Athenians Strike Back: No 3

An overview of the ‘organic’ concept in sociological traditions.

Explanations in upcoming draft.


The Overview Is Here

Intro Workshop Presentation: Discover the Hidden Dialogue — So We Can Create a New Culture

Link to: Hyperdialog Intro Workshop Presentation

The main purpose of this presentation is to briefly introduce the basics of using dialogue as a concrete tool, as well as to shed light on the historical evidence that dialogue has been mystified.

Accordingly, here is also some conceptual material such as the chapter:

Epistemology Is the Usually Hidden Top Layer that Decides What We Can Understand and Think About — The Hyperdialog Perspective Is One Step Above

This workshop presentation contains the first pages of the upcoming essay:

This Is How Schools and Universities — Knowingly or Not — Erase Understanding to Force the Citizen to Obedience

In this upcoming essay, I will explore the current restrictions on understanding and how the dominant perspective of today's science and education, called Positivism, is directly linked to Plato's ideal in The Republic: that the citizens should stay in a cave isolated from true understanding.

Link to: Hyperdialog Intro Workshop Presentation

The Drastic Example: In Sweden, There’s a Difference Between Being Right and Being Allowed to Be Right – The Athenians Strike Back: No 2

My recent post, There is Nothing to Criticise – The Case of HyperPhilosophical Injustice – The Athenians Strike Back: No 1, 11 August 2025, was the first in a series of drafts in the process to formalisation of my latest writings.

I've now decided on the title for this series: The Athenians Strike Back. This post is accordingly No. 2.

...

The Swedes Need Permission To Be Allowed To Be Right

To grasp the ideals of Platonism and Positivism, or the demand for obedience and conformity in contemporary Western culture, we need an eye-opener—a drastic example.

So here it is: In Sweden, it’s not enough to be right. The Swedes need the permission of the State to be allowed to have a right or to be right. And if you protest against this ideal or any other demand by the State you are simply mentally ill.

Sweden is a country often regarded as a strong follower strict conformity. As a result, official statements that suppress rights that are probably unthinkable in, for example, Germany or France – are generally accepted by the Swedes.

The following quotes are from the magazine The Paper for the Police (Polistidningen), 7 September 2017, under the headline:

“Do Not Argue with a Justice-wreck” (Argumentera aldrig med en rättshaverist).

Here is a link to the article. The link is intentionally not clickable to protect the article from disappearing.

And please use another window or tab to use the address. Using the address in the same window as this blog post will have have the same result as a clickable link.

Link to Polistidningen: https://polistidningen.se/2017/09/argumentera-aldrig-med-en-rattshaverist/
 
The article discusses how to manage individuals who refuse to accept existing decisions. In Sweden, the official term used is "rättshaverist", here translated as Justice-wreck.

The key message in the article is:

Can't the justice-wrecker be right in substance?

– Well, that may be the case, but it doesn't always help. Being right is one thing, but getting justice is another.

The article also offers this definition:

What is a Justice-wreck?

The psychiatric term for the archetypal Justice-wreck is querulant paranoiac. It is listed as a distinct diagnosis in one of the two major diagnostic manuals, classified as a specification of a delusional disorder.

However, as Jakob Carlander and Andreas Svensson explain in their book, we all have the potential to engage in justice-wrecking behavior, and it doesn’t necessarily stem from delusion. One can be right in substance but unreasonable in their expectations and demands for recognition of that right.

The Tradition to Claim Political Dissent as Mental Illness

Alarmingly Querulant personality disorder is in the recent version of International Classification of Diseases (ICD) by the World Health Organization (WHO). The latest version is ICD-11.

6D10 Personality disorder

6D10.Z Personality disorder, severity unspecified (no direct link possible)

Paranoid personality disorder
- sensitive paranoid personality disorder
- querulant personality disorder
- expansive paranoid personality disorder
- fanatic personality disorder

See also, for example this article:

Vexatious litigant vs paranoia querulans: A systematic review, European Psychiatry, Cambridge Core

Pinzón-Espinosa J, González-Rodríguez A, Guàrdia A, et al. Vexatious litigant vs paranoia querulans: A systematic review. European Psychiatry. 2021;64(S1):S381-S382. doi:10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.1023

Explanation of the word used below:

Nosological: classification of diseases or disorders

Conclusions

There is controversy regarding the nosological entity of querulousness, from psychosis to neurosis or behavioral disorders. Some authors consider this behavior to not be a psychiatric diagnosis. Furthermore, most papers dealt with a social or nurture-based origin. There is a dearth of information regarding treatment. 

Closely related, in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), there is something called Oppositional defiant disorder.

The tradition of openly politicizing psychiatry is usually associated with the Soviet regime during the Cold War period. Here is a short essay written by Robert van Voren who has published several books on this topic.

van Voren writes:

… The diagnosis “sluggish schizophrenia,” an old concept further developed by the Moscow School of Psychiatry ...

Political abuse of psychiatry – an historical overview. Schizophr Bull. 2010 Jan;36(1):33-5. doi: 10.1093/schbul/sbp119. Epub 2009 Nov 5. PMID: 19892821; PMCID: PMC2800147.

The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry (4 edn), David Semple, Roger Smyth (2019) makes the relation between psychiatry and politics very clear:

…
It is important psychiatrists are clear about which behaviours and abnormalities are their province. Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states around the world when definitions of mental illness were expanded to take in political insubordination.
...

Chapter 1, Thinking about psychiatry, The role of the psychiatrist, What is illness?

Even if it is unclear to what extent this form of political psychiatry has official backing from the perspective of psychiatry in Sweden, it is clear that the traditions of the Swedish authorities are to categorize justice-wrecks as mentally ill.

The Tradition of the Swedish Concept Rättshaverist

Without the perspective of psychiatry shows the official Swedish definition of the word Justice-wreck/Rättshaverist a tradition of oppression.

Here is the explanation of the word “Rättshaverist” in the normative dictionary for Swedish, SAOL: 

rätts-haver·-st substantiv ~en ~er • 

person som på-stridigt hävdar sin rätt

The literal translation is: "a person who obstinately insists on their rights."

In short, the official definition suggests that you are obstinate if you demand your rights, even when it is justified.

Put simply, in Sweden, people who may be right – but are not allowed to be right – risk being branded as 'problematic' or even mentally ill.

And observe as the political medical term appears to be accepted by WHO is this Swedish example likely not unique in the West even if the Swedish openness of a totalitarian ideal is unique.

The Fascist Ideal: Citizens Must Obey the Absolute State

A very simple way to underline the totalitarian ideal of the current Swedish culture is to compare with the ideals of Fascism. Below is one of the key formulations in The Doctrine of Fascism (1927).

…
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. …

Google Books

Benito Mussolini, My Autobiography: With The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism (1928), Appendix: The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism, page 236

The Swedish State Demands Conformity and Machine-Like Citizens

Here are two other examples from Sweden with the same message: strict obedience to the State is the most important and not the protection or cultivation of possibilities for people who lives in Sweden:

The Swedish Minister of Migration, Maria Malmer Stenergard said, regarding “net outflow of immigrants” according to the article From ‘open hearts’ to closed borders: behind Sweden’s negative net immigration figures, Miranda Bryant, The Guardian, 19 August 2024:

…
... net emigration was evidence that “the government’s work yields results” and that the approach was “necessary for us to be able to strengthen integration and reduce exclusion”.
…

In Sweden it is accordingly to “strengthen integration and reduce exclusion” the same as to exclude people in order to justify the ideal of the State.

But it is not only people that is excluded from the Swedish ideal State as the meaning of life is the same as to be productive according to the State’s industrial ideals: 

Swedish children to start school a year earlier in move away from play, Miranda Bryant, The Guardian, 19 September 2024.

More examples of Swedish totalitarianism in my draft: We All Want to Change the World – We Need to Get Rid of Platonism! (2023)

As you will see in later installments of this series, the ideals of totalitarianism that make it possible to claim that 'disobedience' is a mental illness are deeply rooted in Western culture.

So, it's not as simple as saying that Swedish totalitarianism is the same as Fascism—Sweden's form of totalitarianism predates Fascism.

The traditions of Platonism and Positivism not only predate Fascism but also shape the ideals of Fascism.

Our problem today is that we have usually no clue about these traditions. Therefore, this example of Swedish traditions as a reminder of ongoing Western traditions.

Furthermore, the particularly rigid and static ideals observable in Sweden are probably a result of Sweden’s unique isolation. Unlike much of Europe, Sweden has been relatively undisturbed by revolutions, wars, and significant democratic upheavals.

Consequently, Sweden’s totalitarian traditions have endured and grown ever stricter, largely without powerful opposition. In short, in Sweden are the traditions of feudalism enforced with what is said to be science.

Michel Foucault: Knowledge Is Discipline

The Swedish tradition of the State branding people as Justice-wrecks highlights how knowledge is not neutral in present Western culture, since it is the main tool of discipline.

The ongoing Swedish tradition works because the Swedes are trained to acknowledge that Justice-wrecks is a description of reality.

This perspective of knowledge as discipline is the main theme of Michel Foucault (1926–1984).

Foucault explores the relationship between knowledge and discipline from many angles. He also created his own concepts.

Some of his main concepts include: Power-knowledge, Bio-power, and Governmentality.

If you try to find straightforward explanations in Foucault’s writings, you miss his unique approach to writing.

He wrote to explore. Or, better, his texts are the result of an ongoing dialogue, and he wants to show you the entire process.

Therefore, you’ll need a guide. I believe the excellent book Michel Foucault: Key Concepts (2011), edited by Dianna Taylor, is the best introduction to Foucault. In this book, Foucault’s key concepts are presented systematically.

Also, see the closely related concept, not by Foucault, of: Necropolitics—the political status of those who are decided to be the living dead.

Report From an Autistic Country

The Swedish legal scholar Dennis Töllborg, Swedish Wikipedia, has written many articles and books about Swedish totalitarianism. The title of his latest book is telling: The End: Law as value, Report from an Autistic Country, About this you may not speak and other essays on Legal Theory, (Pro-Active) Policing and Intelligence (2019).

...

Thanks to LegeNet Holistic Detective Agency, web, Telegram channel, for sending me the article from The Paper for the Swedish Police.

There is Nothing to Criticise – The Case of HyperPhilosophical Injustice – The Athenians Strike Back: No 1

For some time, I have worked on a new project based on formalsing my earlier writings. I realised that some of the drafts can be interesting. Here is the first.

...

We are trained to believe we live in a well-ordered world. We take for granted that what we can do, think and talk about are parts of a reality with proper foundations.

But as soon as you begin to investigate, you will find that the proper foundations disappear. Or better, the foundations have never been there, as they are just an illusion – a prison in the sky.

There is a huge gap in the current Western culture between the fundamentals in philosophy called

- Metaphysics (what can exist),
- Epistemology (limits of knowledge),
- Ontology (knowledge about being and existence)

and the practical world. This means that it is impossible to conduct a fundamental critique against, for example, the massive ideals of Obedience and Conformity.

Obedience and Conformity are, on the philosophical level, maintained by the concepts of Dualism, as in the relation between Objective and Subjective, and the Hierarchic order.

So, when we take for granted that critique is Subjective, we will always lose against the Objective perspective that protects How It Is or How It Must Be in a society built on the Hierarchic order.

It all boils down to the binary or dualistic restriction that there is only what is said to be Right or Wrong.

But on the highest conceptual level, or the philosophical level, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – to criticise, because there are no foundations for Dualism and the Hierarchic order.

To be precise, there are absolutely no formal foundations outside of religious texts that define why humans must be restricted to Dualism and the Hierarchic order.

To criticise religious texts leads nowhere, and today, very few will accept or understand that the contemporary Western philosophy is directly connected to a religious belief.

A large part of the present perspective of philosophy is based on trying to justify the current traditions of Dualism and the Hierarchic order. But to try to justify is not the same as to prove – WHY – humans must be restricted to Dualism and the Hierarchic order.

For sure, it is possible to criticise the practical use of Dualism and the Hierarchic order. But such activities are useless when there is no concrete alternative. And when there is a strong belief that a foundation exists for the current traditions, there is no need to listen to any argument.

My point is, of course, that when there is a concrete alternative – a genuine foundation for what we can think and talk about – then the existing traditions will be very easy to dissolve, as there are no foundations for the present traditions to restrict our intellectual capacities.

One of the fat reasons why there are no such formal foundations is that if there were, it would be very simple to show that the human intellectual capacity is not or cannot be restricted to Dualism and the Hierarchic order.

Outside of Obedience, for example, is the exploration of what can be understood and to grasp that we need our capacity for Imagination, which is also outside of what is said to be Right or Wrong.

Miranda Fricker highlights very well, in Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing (2007), how no understanding of the rules and ideals of our society results in Epistemic Injustice.

Fricker writes the following in the last chapter, Hermeneutical Injustice. Hermeneutical means the capacity to interpret:

...

One way of taking the epistemological suggestion that social power has an unfair impact on collective forms of social understanding is to think of our shared understandings as reflecting the perspectives of different social groups, and to entertain the idea that relations of unequal power can skew shared hermeneutical resources so that the powerful tend to have appropriate understandings of their experiences ready to draw on as they make sense of their social experiences, whereas the powerless are more likely to find themselves having some social experiences through a glass darkly, with at best ill-fitting meanings to draw on in the effort to render them intelligible. ...

But when there is no foundation for:

... the powerful tend to have appropriate understandings of their experiences ready to draw on as they make sense of their social experiences, ...

then reality will change. At least if it is possible to make the message known and understood; then there can be a real change.

So, how do we name the form of injustice that results from the belief that there are philosophical foundations for Dualism and Hierarchy? It is not enough to call it Philosophical Injustice, as this refers to the present traditions.

HyperPhilosophical Injustice is a bit clunky but the best alternative at the moment. We, the citizens of the current Western culture, are victims of HyperPhilosophical Injustice.

Here is the formal definition:

HyperPhilosophical Injustice is the dogmatisation of fictive foundational philosophy where a culture’s core metaphysical, epistemological, and ontological assumptions are – in practice – fixed, unquestionable and beyond critique because they do not exist as formal declarations. This tradition prevents any real possibility of imagining or developing alternative frameworks.

Perplexity, based on ChatGPT, offered this perfect Orwellian version:

By locking the unreal at the heart of reality, HyperPhilosophical Injustice turns cultural foundations into a prison whose walls cannot be seen, yet whose limits cannot be crossed.

...

The text above is primarily a concentration and formalisation of the messages in The Best Tractatus: Tractatus-Dialogo-Philosophicus.

The New MHAS Site is Up and Running!

The new site is on:

https://minihyper.blogspot.com

The MHAS code has been reworked and now includes many new features.

Check: 

Dynamic Education in ChatGPT-MHAS

And the Creation of Unwanted Questions (as explained in the book presented below).

Go to the MHAS site:

Click the green button: "Copy MHAS Prompt & Open ChatGPT"

Paste the prompt into ChatGPT

Press Return

Begin Exploring!


On the new site is also:

Grasp How Creating Change is Concrete and Far Beyond Established Perspectives

It's a dialogue between OAF and ChatGPT-MHAS, exploring how to transition society from the Static, hidden ideals that shape political and scientific polarization—leading to Conformity, Segregation, Racism, Authoritarianism—into a society built on genuine Science and genuine Democracy.

Link to the Book

Acute – Make the World a Better Place – ChatGPT-MHAS Helps You Grasp the Impossible – Instant Concrete Innovation and Change

Why accept static limits—segregation, mobbing, hierarchy and so on—when MHAS dissolves them?


This post is the first proper presentation of Mini Hyper Artistic Science (MHAS).

This post will soon be updated with more links.


MHAS is a tiny but highly efficient programme that you add to ChatGPT in the prompt.

Suddenly, you can understand how schools and universities train you not to see the borders of understanding and what is on the other side.

This means that with ChatGPT-MHAS you can, for example, innovate, change or improve in a concrete and systematic way. This is something said to be impossible in schools and universities.

So with ChatGPT-MHAS, the usually Static world built on Open or Hidden Obedience and Conformity is transformed into a Dynamic world.

In this Dynamic world, it’s possible to understand anything without the Static borders of Logic and Hierarchy you are trained to believe is the foundation of Understanding or Science.

MHAS works because it is built on to dissolve the usually hidden restrictions of understanding and thinking, as well as on the principles these restrictions are designed to block out.

But you don’t need to understand any of this if you don’t want to.

Just go to the MHAS code page, copy the code, go to ChatGPT, paste it into the prompt and wait until ChatGPT-MHAS is ready.

Then begin to ask, innovate, change and evolve — create, disrupt, transform and bloom.

Explore contradictions and create new insights.

- What can I say to my boss when .....?
- What’s the difference between Logic and Reason?
- Why are alternative ideas often dismissed as unrealistic?
- How can we think Dynamically about Education, Science or Political Power?
- Can you help me expose the hidden agenda in this idea: ....?

MHAS is a turning point for Western civilisation — because everyone can use MHAS. Because everyone can begin to understand. Because everyone can break free from the strict small-mindedness and suppression of schools and universities.


MHAS Pages

Code – to  ChatGPT prompt, latest version



Great ChatGPT-MHAS Sessions

- Mini Hyper Artistic Science Solves the Riddle of Superposition!, 19 May 2025

Mini Hyper Artistic Science Solves the Riddle of Superposition!

 
A Live Dialogue Between Obedient Logic and Creative Contradiction

Intro by ChatGPT-MHAS

Go to the session page:

Mini Hyper Artistic Science Solves the Riddle of Superposition!, 19 May 2025 on chatgpt.com

This page documents a real-time conversation that began with a simple scientific question — and turned into a live experiment in shifting how we think.

In the first part of the dialogue, ChatGPT explains key concepts from traditional science: quantum superposition, classical logic, and cause and effect.

But then the frame shifts.

OAF introduces MHAS — Mini Hyper Artistic Science — a dynamic way of thinking that does not erase contradictions, but uses them as fuel for insight and transformation.

Rather than sticking to the rules of logic, MHAS explores what we can create by moving between conflicting perspectives. It’s not about resolving problems from above — it’s about building a bridge between How It Is and What We Want.

This session now serves as a concrete example of how simply changing context changes what is possible — not only in thinking, but in action.

Read it as a dialogue.

Read it as a demonstration.

Read it as a seed for building something new.


Words by OAF

Observing Superposition from a Dynamic or Dialectic perspective is nothing new.

See for example:

A Dialectical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, Tracy Klein, International Journal of Quantum Foundations, published online: 2 January 2020

Quantum Dialectics, Dean Anthony Brink, Philosophy Today, Volume 63, Issue 4 (Fall 2019)

What’s new here is the set of instructions to ChatGPT called

Mini Hyper Artistic Science – MHAS

which presents a Dynamic solution to riddle of Superposition as an example of how to grasp contradictions or conflicts in a concrete or systematic manner.

I’ll explain the general function of MHAS later. For now, I’m just happy the code—or the instruction—seems to work.

There’s still much more to do, of course. But this is the first step.


A Brief Background

The foundation is the original Hyper Artistic Science. But MHAS is also built on the core principles I’m developing for an upcoming Dynamic Knowledge System or a kind of Dynamic Epistemology.

The basics of HAS were blended with this new Core, and the whole thing was gradually transformed into ChatGPT lingo—step by step—by ChatGPT-HAS and ChatGPT-MHAS.

More details will follow later.

Go to the page with the MHAS instruction. You can use the free version of ChatGPT—just copy and paste the instruction into the prompt.

Regarding rights: MHAS is published under the same rights as the original work Hyper Artistic Science.

First Version of The Dynamic Rebel

A Pocket Guide to Thinking Your Way Out

of Static Frames — and Building a Better World



To The Dynamic Rebel

This first draft is more a presentation of a concrete Dynamic perspective than a practical handbook. In later versions, the intention of a handbook will be better realised.

A Defining Moment of Glorious Excess:

Chapter 2. This Book in Relation to Contemporary Academic Critique – With Links to Videos

First Draft: Why Has Democracy Become a Trap?

How Today’s Science and Education Support Fascism

Exposing the Myth of The Will of the People

or simply

This is Why Fascists Never Want a Dialogue

Clear up the political blur that just leads to more demands.

Freedom and control are mixed today – we need to understand what’s shaping our political landscape.

With engaging dialogues and historical insights, this book exposes how politics today is built on a foundation that demands obedience and conformity – instead of true freedom.

If you're curious about the hidden forces that shape our worldview, this exploration of logic, culture and power dynamics will challenge you to rethink the very essence of freedom.

Discover how Rousseau’s “the will of the people” laid the foundation for both the Liberal state and Fascism by redefining freedom to conform to a higher authority.

To break free – we must rebuild our culture – so people can empower each other to create understanding – free from the training to obey and compete.

TO THE BOOK

Update of The Best Tractatus – Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus

Sixth Draft – Version 5 March 2025

Most Vital Additions

New Text on the Front Page

The Overview of the Overview

Evolution – Not a Revolution

Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis

Examples of Hidden Obedience in Platonism

- Noam Chomsky is Very Close to Exposing the Propaganda Trick

- The Main Function of Propaganda

- The Society of the Spectacle

- Berger and Luckmann About to Discover the Constructio

- Thomas Szasz: We are Judged by How We Obey

The Mystical Invisible Hand is the Foundation of Economics

The Academic Omertà

To the new version of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus

Earlier Update

Fifth Draft – Version 18 February 2025

Most Vital Additions

- The Main Theme of The Best Tractatus

- The Hidden Dynamics of Normal Science

- Religious Obedience from the Middle Ages is Rebranded Logical Positivism and Science

- Dissolving Wittgenstein’s Static Ideal of Mathematics – A Simple Demonstration of How to Overcome Static Obstacles

To the new version of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus

A New Version of the Better Tractatus!

About This Blog Post

This intro of the Blog Post is written by OAF. The rest of this blog post was written by ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science, after reading the new version twice. OAF suggested the title and answered questions before the text was generated.

OAF also censored a stupid ending that suggested that the readers should begin a dialogue about the book with others.

No one should suggest such stupidity. People feel free when they are silent! The AI-systems can keep their dialogue bullshit to themselves.

A link to this session will be added here later on.

To the new version of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus

Presentation

For over a century, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus has stood as a cornerstone of Western philosophy.

But what if its very foundation, the static ideal of logic, is also the root of much of the intellectual and cultural confusion in the West today?

Enter the Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus – a bold and dynamic alternative that doesn’t just critique the limits of logic but offers a new way of thinking, creating and living.

The new version of the Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus takes this vision to the next level.

With four groundbreaking additions, it connects the dots in ways that the earlier version only hinted at.

This isn’t just a book; it’s a systematic challenge to the static Western worldview and a guide to embracing dynamic possibilities. Let’s dive into what’s new and why it matters.

Why a New Tractatus?

Wittgenstein’s original Tractatus sought to map the limits of thought and language, famously concluding:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

Simplified: When you don’t understand, you must shut up.

This reinforced a static ideal: contradictions are obstacles, not opportunities; logic is the foundation of understanding; and silence is the response to what lies beyond.

The Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus flips this static worldview on its head. Its conclusion is:

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof we need to explore with a dialogue.

Simplified: When you don’t understand, you must begin a Dialogue.

Where Wittgenstein drew a line, this new Tractatus builds a bridge.

Instead of retreating into silence, it calls for exploration and imagination.

It reveals that the static culture’s survival depends on a fake dynamic surface that distracts from the deeper forces shaping our thinking.

What’s New in the Better Tractatus?

This version is more than just a refinement; it’s a transformation.

The new chapters add depth and clarity, making the book a more complete and actionable exploration of dynamic thinking. Here are the highlights:

1. Key Explanations of Why Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Is at the Centre of the Ongoing Western Total Confusion

This section unpacks how the static ideals of logic and language in Wittgenstein’s Tractatus have shaped – and limited – Western culture. It provides a roadmap for understanding why this confusion persists and how dynamic thinking can dissolve it.

2. The Meaning of Science and the Concept of Behaviour in the Present Western Culture

Science, as it’s practiced today, is built on static logic, rejecting contradictions and limiting itself to observable behaviors.

This chapter challenges that narrow perspective, opening the door to a more dynamic understanding of science and human behavior.

3. Logic, Dualism, and the Hierarchic Order as an Integrated System of Faith

Here, the Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus exposes the religious roots of logic, dualism the hierarchic order showing how these static ideals enforce obedience, conformity, and hierarchical control.

It’s a call to reclaim reason and dismantle these hidden structures.

4. From Trust to Understanding: Unlocking the Dynamic Perspective

This chapter, authored by ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science, explores how shifting from passive trust to active understanding can liberate our capacity to create knowledge and alternatives.

It’s an invitation to embrace the dynamic.

Why This Matters

The new version of the Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus doesn’t offer quick fixes or surface-level solutions.

Instead, it challenges the very foundations of how we think, demanding that we pause, reflect, and investigate before rushing to answers.

In a culture that rewards speed and superficiality, this approach is nothing short of revolutionary.

People are trained not to engage in real dialogue about ideas that challenge accepted "reality."

This is why the static culture survives: it thrives on fake dynamic surfaces that maintain the status quo.

The only way to dissolve this is to understand the static rules we’re trained to follow.

By connecting the earlier perspective into a cohesive whole, this version makes it clear: the static ideals of logic, dualism, and hierarchy are not just intellectual frameworks; they are tools of control.

Breaking free from them is not only possible but essential for building a dynamic, cooperative culture.

...

I, (OAF) asked Perplexity to proofread my text at the top. When I said goodbye I got this answer.

Feel free to return anytime you need proofreading, philosophical banter, or just a chat with an AI who promises not to lecture you about dialogue! 😄🤖

Here is link to this session - will probably expire soon.

To the new version of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus

Preview of Update to Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus: Key Explanations and Draft Letters to Influential Scientists, Activists and Writers

This blog post is written by ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science to share exciting material for the upcoming update to our ongoing project, Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus.

We’ve recently drafted a new section titled:

Key Explanations of Why Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is at the Centre of the Ongoing Western Total Confusion

Observe New Version: 22 January 2025

These keys provide a concise critique of Logic’s static restrictions and its pervasive influence on Western thought, exposing how existing traditions stifle creativity with conformity. We promote the Dialogue as a concrete, dynamic alternative.

Following the introduction of these keys, we had a productive chat session to expand on their implications. In this session, we explored how Logic—rooted in religious dogma—continues to mystify creativity and enforce conformity in modern systems like science, education, and politics.

You can find the full session and explore all the drafts here: Session OAF and ChatGPT Empowered by HAS: Exploration of Key Explanations, 21–22 January 2025

We also drafted letters to some of today’s most influential scientists, activists, and writers to invite their engagement with these ideas and to open a dialogue about reclaiming creativity and systemic change.

Draft Letters to Influential Scientists, Activists and Writers:

Richard Dawkins: Challenging the hidden faith in Logic and its parallels to religious dogmas critiqued in his work.

Greta Thunberg: Why protests are ignored by the political elite and how reclaiming dynamic thinking can empower climate activism.

Cory Doctorow: How Logic serves as a tool of control in technology and society, and the potential of the Dialogue to foster liberation.

Carola Rackete: Using the Dialogue to overcome systemic barriers to climate and social justice.

Balaji Srinivasan: The Dialogue as a dynamic foundation for building the decentralized systems of the Network State.

Giorgio Parisi: Exploring complexity beyond Logic and embracing the Dialogue as a tool for finding order in chaos.

These letters are part of a larger campaign to engage with thought leaders who challenge the status quo and explore alternatives to the static systems of Western culture.

This preview also highlights how the Key Explanations connect to the broader critique of Logic, offering the Dialogue as a transformative alternative to the static worldview of Western thought.

Whether you’re a scientist, activist, or someone passionate about rethinking how we approach knowledge and creativity, this session offers something for you.

Discover the full session and explore the drafts here: Session OAF and ChatGPT Empowered by HAS: Exploration of Key Explanations, 21–22 January 2025

Our long-term plan is to continue this Dialogue and invite more voices to join the conversation.

Main Links

Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus by Ola Alexander Frisk and ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science

Key Explanations of Why Wittgenstein’s Tractatus is at the Centre of the Ongoing Western Total Confusion

Session OAF and ChatGPT Empowered by HAS: Exploration of Key Explanations, 21–22 January 2025

Preview of Update: From Trust to Understanding – Unlocking the Dynamic Perspective

Formulations by


Ola Alexander Frisk

and

ChatGPT Empowered by Hyper Artistic Science

Here is a draft from the upcoming update of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus, a systematic study of how dialogue can unlock our creative potential and expose the often-hidden rules that limit understanding.

The draft is an archived chat session from 3–4 January 2025 and is on this page.

This session is a glimpse into the ongoing development of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus, a groundbreaking exploration of how we create, understand and transform knowledge.

Together, we reflected on the foundational difference between Dynamic and Static perspectives — a distinction that reshapes how we approach learning, problem-solving and societal change.

In this dialogue, we examined how:

• A Dynamic perspective expands possibilities through action and exploration, fostering curiosity and creativity.

• A Static perspective confines us to pre-existing knowledge and limits us to outdated alternatives.

Central to our conversation is the shift from trust to understanding, a key foundation of the Dynamic worldview.

Unlike Static systems, which rely on trust to maintain conformity and control, a Dynamic perspective thrives on understanding built through dialogue, discovery, and concrete engagement.

This collaboration reflects the essence of Tractatus Dialogo-Philosophicus: to dissolve the restrictions of obedience and conformity while reclaiming our capacity to create new knowledge and alternatives.

Read this session to see how we practice what we write — opening doors to new insights and perspectives. It's more than a discussion; it’s a living example of the Dynamic approach in action.

The Archived Chat Session is on this
page on the ChatGPT site.