Thank you for this Max, it is amazing to receive such a long and well articulated response. I've not re-read my own article in order to respond to your message, and i probably won't be editing it anytime soon, but consider this a sort of "patch" which will hopefully iron out any bugs that exist in my article or within the minds of anyone who has gotten a false interpretation of my ideas - which i am quite happy to blame ambiguity in my own writing for.

To start off, You make a good point about stable and variable being contradictory descriptors. it's difficult to condense the nature of all evolving systems in the universe into a few simple adjectives that are easily agreed upon. I guess i was trying to paint a picture of a large object with a lot of mass which can change velocity, but does so very slowly and perhaps is only likely to slow down or speed up to a certain degree, with any particularly fast or slow localised instances of variable rates of evolution being edge cases of a bell curve and not representative of the universe's speed of evolution when taken as a whole. To put it more simply, i was trying to explain this notion that there seems to be a momentum of evolutionary development which has a kind of "goldilocks zone" which perhaps itself can expand, shrink and move both left and right on an axis of speed, but it's speed changes, for most part, slowly. (at least when viewed from within a human-centric timescale) Large, sudden shifts in the rate of evolution of consciousness can and do happen - like world wars for instance - but these are likely to be rarer events.

I don't know if that is satisfactory to you, but i think it is more representative of my ideas than something being simultaneously stable and variable - so thanks for giving me the opportunity to further and explain my ambiguous writing.

Moving on to your main issue, i think the primary misunderstanding is the idea that my article promotes the idea that when put in a situation where you perceive there to be a deficit of morality - like living in tyranny - that you should do nothing to change it. I do not promote this idea. I don't know if my article contradicts this, but i believe i was trying to get across and explain the parameters for how to go about changing things that you deem to have a moral deficit in the most moral way. I believe that we are supposed to fight for change, but in a way which is harmonious with the natural rate of evolution of the systems we are in. I hypothesize that there is an optimum "goldilocks zone" for positive change and help to a person or a society or system etc which helps to catalyse and promote the development of that system in a way which is not too harsh. Often times there is such a thing as too much help. it can interfere with people's free will, it can cause dependent relationships, and it can give people experiences they are not ready for, like when people win the lottery but end up spending all of their money and perhaps even landing themselves in debt out of carelessness.

So yes, i do promote changing society and trying to help, but the prescription and dosage of the help you provide has to be specifically tailored and nuanced to the level at which that society is currently operating. If you try and leap up to many steps at once, you run the risk of not moving at all or falling back down the stair case. each step has to be taken one at a time, in their correct order.

it's sort of like matching a note in music with a corresponding harmonious frequency.

or it's like training a muscle. If you want to build big biceps naturally, it takes a very long time, and if you try to force the process, injuries can result. You need to apply the correct weight and amount of reps at every step of the journey. I hypothesize that this is analogous to how we are supposed to help each other. We need to respect each other's free will and not demand or expect too much of each other pre-emptively, and not give to each other what the other does not deserve or cannot handle. There is no "skipping grades", if you will!

This is a huge topic, and the concepts due to their existential nature are at a very high level of abstraction, so naturally ambiguity is going to try it's hardest to creep in, and i apologise for this, but i hope i have done a somewhat satisfactory job of trying to portray my feelings and thoughts in an accessible way. It is difficult though! and certainly if people are ascribing words like "Machiavellian" to my writings, then i have made a huge mistake somewhere! I'm very much just trying to put positive, spirituality-oriented hypotheses out there so that some people might stumble across them and have something to combat nihilism with.

I hope this clears up some of the issues you had with my article. If i have time i might go back and tweak some things to try and make sure my points are portrayed as clearly as possible.

A massive thank you to you for your engagement with my writing, my aim is not to persuade anyone in any particular direction, but i do like to try and put positive hypotheticals out there which might help other seekers who are looking for how to better tap into their own higher intuition on their spiritual path.

If you have any further questions, please do respond and i will be happy to keep this dialog up

Thanks again and i hope this was useful to you in some way :)