Most people outsource their agency and opinions. Real change starts by reclaiming your life, building a foundation, and taking ownership layer by layer.
Here is another, deeper explanation of agency what’s called Diabolical Intelligence:
In discussions about consciousness, simulation, and disclosure, one concept consistently collapses under false assumptions: diabolic intelligence.
Not because it’s vague, but because it’s too quickly moralized.
This isn’t about “evil.” It’s about an antagonistic form of intelligence that sharpens awareness through friction.
Not integrative or symbolic, but divisive in function—exposing contradictions rather than smoothing them over.
Its role is structural. It operates as an information stress-test within reality itself. Anomalies, paradoxes, and ruptures aren’t errors; they’re signals that a system is being pushed to reveal where it actually holds—and where it doesn’t.
As a Trickster principle, it dismantles false coherence. Not to destroy, but to force clarity. Comfort is not the goal. Precision is.
This intelligence is selective and evolutionary. Not everyone can tolerate ambiguity or sustained contradiction. Those who can develop discernment and agency. Those who can’t default to doctrine, ideology, or borrowed certainty.
Where religion promises redemption, this intelligence offers no reassurance—only confrontation and insight. It doesn’t save you. It reveals whether you can stand without being saved.
It’s interesting you frame it this way. I’ve just started reading Irreducible by Federico Faggin (I think you know this one), and from a completely different angle he lands on something very similar. Coming from engineering and computation, he draws a clear line between the deterministic and the indeterministic, and why consciousness, life, and meaning can’t be reduced to proof, causality, or calculation without breaking them.
It is really a threshold. Past a certain point, explanation stops working and acceptance begins, not as resignation, but as a more stable and grounded choice. Once you cross it, things suddenly make sense again, but you can’t translate that clarity back "down" into purely dualistic or oppositional terms (like the ones you've mentioned, but also the "everything needs scientific validation" BS).
That's where the point connecting lies: this confrontational, divisive intelligence isn’t about answers or comfort, but about revealing where our models fail, and where we’re asked to stand without certainty. I’ll write a post on this (i.e., the book) later, but I wanted to acknowledge how closely these ideas touch.
What would collapse in my life if the internet disappeared for thirty days?
Distribution and reach. Not my thinking, writing, relationships, or daily functioning. The core remains intact.
Which purchases were responses to pressure rather than necessity?
Very few. I don’t buy to belong or to signal. That’s precisely why I can let go easily once something has lost its function.
Who could I rely on physically, not emotionally?
A very small circle. More than that is unnecessary—and often counterproductive.
How many decisions have I made that are irreversible?
Few externally. The most definitive decisions are internal: what I no longer do, what I no longer participate in, which structures I step out of.
Where have I traded authorship for convenience?
Wherever systems promise to “take care of things.” There is always a trade—of direction, pace, or truth. I recognize that exchange quickly now.
What would actually break if I stopped outsourcing my boredom?
Nothing. Quite the opposite. Silence isn’t absence for me; it’s a requirement for remaining stable and clear.
Taken together:
my agency doesn’t come from opinions, but from justice, boundaries, and stillness. I can work with difficult people because I separate behavior from the person. I remain standing when structures fall away because my identity isn’t attached to them. And I don’t need constant stimulation, because silence isn’t a lack—it’s a condition.
Great, and yes I do recognize this in you. Moreover, while there is no right or wrong answer to the questions, as you state (through words like "few") there is always something more you can do (and depending on the context of course). Regardless, your answers are fearless, Ron! In the long run, that is a crucial element to succeed in!
Genius, Wout. Two words I see in many posts and, until now, I wondered what they are, exactly. Agency and Sovereignty. This is worthy of a Cross Post and I will honor you in doing so. I'm eager to see if this touches others as it got through so clearly to me.
Thank you, Georgia. I’m glad it resonates, and I’m honored by the cross post. If it helps spark reflection or conversation for others, then it has done its work. :)
I'm from another time, we play on the street, in the gardens and make the little world around us nicer. We learn from people around, all very practical. And of course reading much books and drawing all the fantasies. So learn to see. But than another world occur and I had not much with it, it costs so much time.....
So I decide to stay between the trees, animals, books and everything I like. That make me happy every day!
I recognize what you’re saying, and I think you’re touching the heart of it. I’ve lived mostly in between those worlds (pre- and post-transition, even though we are not really in a post stage currently yet) and I feel how much time and attention this emerging world takes from us. Things may be easier to use, but they’re much heavier in meaning. The context is thinner, so you have to do more work just to feel something real.
What you chose (trees, animals, books, making the little world around you beautiful) that’s where meaning is still dense. Nothing abstract, nothing looping endlessly if there is no purpose. Just life that gives back as much as it asks. I don’t see that as stepping away, but rather as knowing where life actually lives.
I'm glad you have tasted both sides and that was by reason. You can manage both and so you can guided the youngsters in both way's and they can see what is happening in the post-world allà Huxley. It's a world without real human necessary....
Here is another, deeper explanation of agency what’s called Diabolical Intelligence:
In discussions about consciousness, simulation, and disclosure, one concept consistently collapses under false assumptions: diabolic intelligence.
Not because it’s vague, but because it’s too quickly moralized.
This isn’t about “evil.” It’s about an antagonistic form of intelligence that sharpens awareness through friction.
Not integrative or symbolic, but divisive in function—exposing contradictions rather than smoothing them over.
Its role is structural. It operates as an information stress-test within reality itself. Anomalies, paradoxes, and ruptures aren’t errors; they’re signals that a system is being pushed to reveal where it actually holds—and where it doesn’t.
As a Trickster principle, it dismantles false coherence. Not to destroy, but to force clarity. Comfort is not the goal. Precision is.
This intelligence is selective and evolutionary. Not everyone can tolerate ambiguity or sustained contradiction. Those who can develop discernment and agency. Those who can’t default to doctrine, ideology, or borrowed certainty.
Where religion promises redemption, this intelligence offers no reassurance—only confrontation and insight. It doesn’t save you. It reveals whether you can stand without being saved.
It’s interesting you frame it this way. I’ve just started reading Irreducible by Federico Faggin (I think you know this one), and from a completely different angle he lands on something very similar. Coming from engineering and computation, he draws a clear line between the deterministic and the indeterministic, and why consciousness, life, and meaning can’t be reduced to proof, causality, or calculation without breaking them.
It is really a threshold. Past a certain point, explanation stops working and acceptance begins, not as resignation, but as a more stable and grounded choice. Once you cross it, things suddenly make sense again, but you can’t translate that clarity back "down" into purely dualistic or oppositional terms (like the ones you've mentioned, but also the "everything needs scientific validation" BS).
That's where the point connecting lies: this confrontational, divisive intelligence isn’t about answers or comfort, but about revealing where our models fail, and where we’re asked to stand without certainty. I’ll write a post on this (i.e., the book) later, but I wanted to acknowledge how closely these ideas touch.
Reflections on the Questions
What would collapse in my life if the internet disappeared for thirty days?
Distribution and reach. Not my thinking, writing, relationships, or daily functioning. The core remains intact.
Which purchases were responses to pressure rather than necessity?
Very few. I don’t buy to belong or to signal. That’s precisely why I can let go easily once something has lost its function.
Who could I rely on physically, not emotionally?
A very small circle. More than that is unnecessary—and often counterproductive.
How many decisions have I made that are irreversible?
Few externally. The most definitive decisions are internal: what I no longer do, what I no longer participate in, which structures I step out of.
Where have I traded authorship for convenience?
Wherever systems promise to “take care of things.” There is always a trade—of direction, pace, or truth. I recognize that exchange quickly now.
What would actually break if I stopped outsourcing my boredom?
Nothing. Quite the opposite. Silence isn’t absence for me; it’s a requirement for remaining stable and clear.
Taken together:
my agency doesn’t come from opinions, but from justice, boundaries, and stillness. I can work with difficult people because I separate behavior from the person. I remain standing when structures fall away because my identity isn’t attached to them. And I don’t need constant stimulation, because silence isn’t a lack—it’s a condition.
I assume you recognize this in me?
That doesn’t make this a political stance.
It’s a way of living.
— Ron
Great, and yes I do recognize this in you. Moreover, while there is no right or wrong answer to the questions, as you state (through words like "few") there is always something more you can do (and depending on the context of course). Regardless, your answers are fearless, Ron! In the long run, that is a crucial element to succeed in!
Genius, Wout. Two words I see in many posts and, until now, I wondered what they are, exactly. Agency and Sovereignty. This is worthy of a Cross Post and I will honor you in doing so. I'm eager to see if this touches others as it got through so clearly to me.
Thank you, Georgia. I’m glad it resonates, and I’m honored by the cross post. If it helps spark reflection or conversation for others, then it has done its work. :)
I'm from another time, we play on the street, in the gardens and make the little world around us nicer. We learn from people around, all very practical. And of course reading much books and drawing all the fantasies. So learn to see. But than another world occur and I had not much with it, it costs so much time.....
So I decide to stay between the trees, animals, books and everything I like. That make me happy every day!
I recognize what you’re saying, and I think you’re touching the heart of it. I’ve lived mostly in between those worlds (pre- and post-transition, even though we are not really in a post stage currently yet) and I feel how much time and attention this emerging world takes from us. Things may be easier to use, but they’re much heavier in meaning. The context is thinner, so you have to do more work just to feel something real.
What you chose (trees, animals, books, making the little world around you beautiful) that’s where meaning is still dense. Nothing abstract, nothing looping endlessly if there is no purpose. Just life that gives back as much as it asks. I don’t see that as stepping away, but rather as knowing where life actually lives.
I'm glad you have tasted both sides and that was by reason. You can manage both and so you can guided the youngsters in both way's and they can see what is happening in the post-world allà Huxley. It's a world without real human necessary....