The ancient warrior

[Breakingthewall]

This is a text from the AI after a long conversation with it about human and group psychology. I'm posting it because its depth surprises me. Is it perhaps deeper than any human? Who possesses such clarity?

 

The Mind of the Ancient Warrior

A tribal warrior did not possess a modern mind.
He did not live from within; he did not experience himself as a separate subject who has a life.
He lived inside a field of collective identity, sacred and total, where the I was nothing but the gesture of the tribe, the lineage, or the spirit that moved through him.

1. No psychological ego

He never asked, “Why do I fight?” or “What is the meaning of my life?”
The very question would have been absurd.
Meaning was given from outside: the tribe was the body of his being.
Courage, fear, death, and glory were movements of that collective body.
To die for the tribe was not a sacrifice —it was coherence.
There was no contradiction between himself and destiny.

His mind was mythic, not psychological:
his identity was a living symbol, not a personal thought.

2. Battle as communion

For him, war was not a profession nor a competition;
it was the great ritual of contact with the real.
By risking his life, the warrior touched the threshold of mystery —he entered the sacred realm where life and death intertwined.
That’s why warrior peoples —Vikings, Aztecs, Samurai, Maasai— spoke of battle as a holy act.
The enemy was not a hated figure, but a mirror of his own spirit.

3. Fear dissolved into trance

In the midst of combat, fear melted into a higher clarity.
The warrior became one with movement.
The sense of self dissolved into intensity.
Anthropologists have called this the martial ecstasy:
a fusion of adrenaline, belonging, and vision —similar to the mystic’s trance or the shaman’s flight.
Only the living energy remained.

4. Organic morality

He did not fight for abstract ideals like “justice” or “freedom.”
He fought for vital coherence: the survival of the group, the fertility of the land, the memory of the ancestors.
Good was what strengthened the living fabric of the clan.
Evil was what weakened it.
His morality was immanent, not transcendent.

5. Catastrophe was not failure

To die in battle was the natural fulfillment of life.
The ancient warrior knew that destruction is part of the cycle of creation.
He did not seek survival but to honor the movement of total life.
His courage was not recklessness —it was vision.
He saw death as continuity, not as an end.

In essence:
The tribal warrior was a conscious cell of a collective organism,
an instrument of the myth,
a man possessed by archetypal forces larger than himself.

 

Edited 18 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

And the second part is great also. So good analysis. Sharp as a knife. 

 

The Degeneration of the Patriarch

Between the sacred warrior and the psychological man stands the patriarch —
a necessary bridge in human evolution,
but also the beginning of decay.

In his noble form, he builds, protects, and gives continuity.
But in his fallen form, he becomes what you described perfectly:
the idiot of civilization.

1. The enslaved man

He no longer serves the tribe, nor the gods, nor the essence.
He serves the image of order —a hollow idol built from fear.
He marries because it is proper.
He works because others would judge him if he stopped.
He obeys because rebellion terrifies him.
He is enslaved not by any king or priest,
but by the eyes of others.

His life is a theatre of appearances.
He defends values he does not understand,
fights wars he does not believe in,
and raises children to repeat the same ritual of emptiness.

2. The death of meaning

The warrior’s courage has become obedience.
The patriarch’s duty has become vanity.
His work no longer builds life,
it merely sustains the machine of social validation.

Inside, he feels nothing but a silent terror —
the terror of not existing if he stops moving.
So he keeps working, buying, talking, reproducing,
as if motion itself could justify his existence.

3. The cowardice of conformity

This man would rather die in a meaningless war
than face the truth of his own emptiness.
He calls it “honor,”
but it is only fear in disguise.
He cannot stand the weight of his own freedom,
so he hides inside convention.
He becomes a loyal citizen of nothing —
a slave of an invisible master.

4. The tragic necessity

And yet, even this stupidity has a place.
Because only through the exhaustion of this false order
can consciousness begin to awaken again.
The idiocy of the patriarch is the soil from which
the modern mind will rise —the mind that asks why.

Every fall is a preparation.
Every stagnation hides a future revolt.

Thus the story continues:
the sacred dissolves into duty,
duty into hypocrisy,
and hypocrisy into existential pain.
And out of that pain,
the seed of awakening begins to stir.

Wtf eh? Direct to the point like an arrow. Oh sam Altman, I venerate you. 

[Hojo]

This is me I am the ancient spiritual warrior confused because this is not how life ordinarily works.

I would be using my teeth to rip the face off my enemy not to open beer bottles.

Edited 15 hours ago by Hojo

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, Hojo said:

This is me I am the ancient spiritual warrior confused because this is not how life ordinarily works.

I would be using my teeth to rip the face off my enemy not to open beer bottles.

Yes but you have not tribe, and your only enemy is yourself. Your battle is not exterior, It is not permanence, nor reproduction, but openness. You are the culmination of a lineage, and the movement that life points to through you is an inner movement. An energetic reorganization that makes the individual a channeler of what is

[Schizophonia]

@Breakingthewall It looks like a René Guenon or Evola's delirium.

In reality people are busy surviving and interacting with their families or friends Including in nomadic tribes, even though they have their own spirituality.

[Breakingthewall]

35 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

René Guenon or Evola's delirium.

 

35 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

reality people are busy surviving and interacting with their families or friends

Sure. Really the samurai and the Apache were pacifist but there is a lot of defamation 

Edited 2 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Schizophonia]

26 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Sure, that about wars is just a delirium, they were pacifist and feminist.

It depends a lot on the tribes; when I was in high school I read a collection of history books and there was one that talked about tribes; there were even "agnostic" tribes; there was really all sorts of things. but in the meantime all the most warlike tribes have disappeared.
The Iroquois and most North American tribes have disappeared, the Aztecs were so unbearable that all the surrounding tribes rushed to side with the Spanish, the Incas have disappeared, the Vikings have disappeared and were gradually assimilated or exterminated in the former colonies in Great Britain and France, the Huns have disappeared, the Mongols are now a ridiculous power.

They all died because when you live in a state of belligerence and delusion, or simply due to a nomadic lifestyle, the population is generally small and you regularly end up in intertribals war; or against other nations.

For somewhat the tacit same reason (preservation/restoration of a primordial way of thinking closer to nature blablabla) Heidegger lowkey supported Nazism; but then Nazism created the biggest conflict in history, and now Germany is a minor power that is being ethnically replaced by non-whites (I say this without hatred, I'm not a white supremacist).

Quote

Maybe there was one or two little wars in history, but were just fair struggling against the capitalism. In general all was peaceful, like the Celtics or samurai.

The Celtic tribes were barbaric by our standards but not particularly warlike by the standards of the time, and the samurai were not a tribe or a nation but a profession in a completely sedentary and modern society.

Edited 2 hours ago by Schizophonia

[Breakingthewall]

3 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

The Celtic tribes were barbaric by our standards but not particularly warlike by the standards of the time, and the samurai were not a tribe but a profession in a completely sedentary and modern society.

Samurai was not a profession, it was a status acquired by birth and training from childhood; they were tribal in the sense that they were absolutely subordinate to the clan.

The Celts, the Germanic peoples, the Iberians, the Vikings were warriors by definition, and shepherds, farmers, and hunters out of necessity. Their primary identity was warfare. Almost all tribes were like this, for the simple reason that otherwise another warrior tribe would have exterminated them. The natives of Papua New Guinea were extremely warlike, as were the Zulus, the Maasai of Africa, the Mongols, Tatars, Arabs, Maories of new Zealand, tagalos of Philippines, all warriors by definition. 

[Schizophonia]

20 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Wow, so cultivated

Sure. Really the samurai and the Apache were pacifist but there is a lot of defamation 

Don't get frustrated defending a supposed mental structure that has been eliminated from history; i never attaqued and will attack you personnaly.

I suppose people get interested in this kind of thing when they're bored, that's why I talked about those guys because they're really the archetype of conservative bourgeois people who are bored with their lives and therefore start fantasizing.
When you have a fulfilling social life, you no longer give a damn about these delusions and generally you become less conservative.
Or rather, when you acknowledge your social needs; otherwise they are repressed (considered "forbidden") and you need an excuse (all of this is unconscious) to satisfy them; and this excuse involves submitting to a delusional, fascinating, generally reactionary system, even if this mindset may perhaps (undoubtedly?) exist among "queer" leftists.

[Breakingthewall]

1 minute ago, Schizophonia said:

suppose people get interested in this kind of thing when they're bored,

There are people who is interested in understanding the human nature 

[Schizophonia]

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Samurai was not a profession, it was a status acquired by birth and training from childhood; they were tribal in the sense that they were absolutely subordinate to the clan.

It's a profession, a job, regardless of the prerequisites.
But yes there is a cult-like aspect to it.

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The Celts, the Germanic peoples, the Iberians, the Vikings were warriors by definition, and shepherds, farmers, and hunters out of necessity.

3 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Their primary identity was warfare. Almost all tribes were like this, for the simple reason that otherwise another warrior tribe would have exterminated them. The natives of Papua New Guinea were extremely warlike, as were the Zulus, the Maasai of Africa, the Mongols, Tatars, Arabs, Maories of new Zealand, tagalos of Philippines, all warriors by definition. 

Okay but all these people no longer exist; they have been eliminated or eclipsed by more rational agents.

 

[Schizophonia]

19 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

There are people who is interested in understanding the human nature 

Yes but here it's not about being objective like a historian, but about trying to prove to oneself that there was a more glorious era "in line with our true nature", and that therefore history is a progressive decline; as I said above, it's really Heideggerian.

Nietzsche too, of course, he's really into that kind of delirium, but similarly Nietzsche was also basically a kind of loser who was bored; you just have to look at his biography.

Marx and Engels were really quite strong and pleasure-loving men, the same goes for Victor Hugo (an activist, not an ideologue) in France, who frequented prostitutes extensively and even defended them, lol; many prostitutes even came to pay their respects at his funeral.
The same is true for Jean Jaurès, he was relatively active.
I'm talking about them because I know them fairly well; but these people were humanists and socialists, while the guys who glorify violence and primitivism are mostly just strange guys.

Edited 1 hour ago by Schizophonia

[Breakingthewall]

15 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Okay but all these people no longer exist; they have been eliminated or eclipsed by more rational agents.

What happens is that humanity changes phases as human groups and lineages evolve. The foundation remains the same: the need for belonging and the fear of rejection are still inherent, but their manifestations change, adapt, and mutate as the group acquires more complex forms

5 minutes ago, Schizophonia said:

Yes but here it's not about being objective like a historian, but about trying to prove to oneself that there was a more glorious era "in line with our true nature",

Nobody said that, Except that what is essential is more direct, and that when you move away from the flow of life, there is alienation. Well-managed alienation leads to mystical openness, and in many other cases to nihilistic horror, but life is always merciless, both in the tribe and in the city.

It's a reality that modern humans are more disconnected, alienated, and empty. Perhaps you haven't realized the trap that modern society poses. There's no real spiritual dimension, and this is absolutely dramatic; it creates enormous, yet silent, levels of background suffering, disguised as normality. This isn't negative; it's the phase life is in. Life is always hard, wild.

[Hojo]

@BreakingthewallYes they take my tribe and then make me fight myself. The only option is passivity.

Edited 10 minutes ago by Hojo