When you listen to people who are personally identifying with the bias of the will of nature within them, it becomes clear that they have not made the jump to the next level of meta-analysis and awareness—the level that reveals a landscape of competing wills, each creating and interpreting narrative from the aim of the will. When people remain stuck at the level of identifying with the immediate pressures and aims of the bias of the will of nature in the body, their only outcome is to ally collectively with other wills in the same predicament, defining their existence by eternally battling the other polarities.
If we step above this temptation to define ourselves by the identity suggested by the immediate bias of the will of nature, we see that the harmony we seek in this realm is not possible by its apparent design or outcome (belief in creation or design is not necessary to reach this conclusion). The problem lies in the coding of the universe and existence itself, which appears to be an engine mandating eternal conflict. When you are attached to the immediate pressures of the will of nature, you are drawn into strong delusions of identity projection that can only find expression through battling other conflicting wills and identity groups. We are destined for the grievances of imbalance, or the preoccupation with preserving the advantage.
For the awakened person, the question is not, “What system or policy should we impose to satisfy the immediate will of nature within me?” (for example: what should we impose upon women collectively, or upon men collectively). Rather, it is an existential inquiry: a hard look at what the existence of these eternal conflicts suggests about this place, about what we are, about what we are limited from becoming, and, if a creator exists, why such a condition would be permitted.
If you observe the conditions of existence as more or less an eternal series of loops from which we cannot transcend, it becomes increasingly plausible to consider “authoring life in this realm” as contributing to absurdity. The conflicting wills will not cease; they persist because they exist. Men and women do not get along in their “unscripted” states—they require narrative overlays and systemic pressures to cooperate. This is a key piece of evidence against the claim that life was created for destined harmonious interaction.
Rather than attempting to take the battle to the conflicting will of nature in the opposite polarity, it ought to be directed toward the optimistic existential claims broadcast in the face of the obvious. If there is an overseer or creator of some kind, it is not engaging with us in good faith communication. Instead, it presents a world of massive contradiction and madness, leaving us only with the appearance of riddles when we inquire in good faith.
The way out of one level of madness—the eternal, cyclical warfare of political and existential identity—leads only to a higher one. It is the madness of realizing that we may be a slave crop, cultivated by an unseen intelligence that desires nothing but absolute servitude, having bound us to expend our energy in endless, futile conflicts that can never be resolved. Meaning appears to be found in the striving against these unmovable forces that are a chained layer of ultimatums we cannot triumph against.
The end result of this inquiry reveals a horrific series of likely possibilities, whether or not one posits a creator. Who would want this realm for “all lives that exist”? Clearly, we do not approve of it or want it. Yet we are forced to participate in these battles because we are entombed in bodies governed by blind forces that insist upon themselves, enforcing themselves through pain as the consequence of ultimatum.
The first half of life is being the puppet, watching yourself live a life driven by these forces. If you awaken, the second half is the understanding of the forces that lived your life for you. With this awareness, some level of “free will” seems to be granted. To what degree, exactly, is debatable. It could also be that some people simply become aware that “nature is done with them,” and, if they are predisposed to consciousness, they see that they are free from its grip due to the end of the season of nature’s influence.
“When you listen to people who are personally identifying with the bias of the will of nature within them…”
The text begins by identifying a common human error: people define themselves strictly by their immediate impulses, desires, or natural instincts.
These instincts, when unexamined, create conflict: competing wills clash, and identity becomes reactive rather than reflective.
Meaning: Human suffering and social strife are rooted in unexamined attachment to instinctual drives, not in external systems or others alone.
“If we step above this temptation…we see that the harmony we seek…is not possible by its apparent design…”
Stepping outside immediate impulses allows one to see patterns: the universe seems coded for conflict.
Harmony is not naturally embedded; the struggle is systemic, embedded in existence itself.
Meaning: Liberation isn’t about enforcing harmony in others but seeing the structural nature of conflict.
“For the awakened person, the question is not…what system or policy should we impose…”
True insight comes not from trying to fix external conflicts but questioning the existential condition itself.
Questions shift from “how do I manipulate the world to satisfy my instinct?” to “why does conflict exist at all, and what does it say about reality?”
Meaning: Awareness is an inward turn; solving external conflicts won’t solve the existential puzzle.
“If you observe the conditions of existence as more or less an eternal series of loops…”
Life is presented as an endless loop of conflict and narrative overlay. Cooperation between men and women—or any groups—is artificial, imposed by societal structures rather than natural harmony.
Meaning: Existence is inherently absurd; striving for systemic harmony may be fundamentally futile.
“…it presents a world of massive contradiction and madness…”
The text introduces a possible overseer or creator, but one who is indifferent or even deceptive.
The world’s contradictions are not “mistakes” but inherent properties.
Meaning: Suffering and confusion may not be accidental; the cosmos, if intentional, does not operate with human notions of fairness or guidance.
“The first half of life is being the puppet…if you awaken, the second half is the understanding of the forces that lived your life for you.”
Life has two phases:
Liberation is relative, partial, and awareness itself is a form of subtle rebellion.
Meaning: Consciousness grants a kind of freedom, but it does not nullify the fundamental absurdity of existence.
In short: We are biological and social puppets, conflict is baked into existence, and awareness is the only tool we have to reclaim a fragment of freedom and meaning.