A Structural Analysis of Survival, Ego, and Power
By: LA Nev
Part I: Origin of the Observer
To observe reality is the greatest key to understanding.
From early childhood, I was enamored with the world around me. I vocalized what I observed with childlike wonder long before I could form actual words. Until the age of three, my observations emerged as streams of sound rather than language. My mother, embarrassed by this public display, would tell me to be quiet.
So I did.
From that point forward, I learned to remain silent, to observe my surroundings, and to move accordingly. What intrigued me most was the complexity of emotion and its influence on behavior. Even at a young age, I was able to separate emotion from logic. That separation became the foundation of my experiment: to understand psychological behavior across living systems and how it manifests in interaction and connection.
I began with animals.
Through observation, I noted the purity of their responses. Survival-driven, direct, forgiving, and honest. Their behavior served as a baseline. A control. This raised a central question that would follow me for years:
Are humans inherently pure, or is human behavior governed by something far more complex?
Part II: Manipulation and Ethics
In the early stages of my research, I relied on controlled environments. Variables were introduced. Responses were documented. Patterns were repeated.
I learned how emotional triggers bypass logic. How self-preservation overrides analysis. How primal responses surface when the correct variable is applied.
But a critical question emerged:
Does manipulation reveal truth, or does it manufacture it?
I observed that while certain variables could bring hidden intent to the surface, the results were often artificial. I could elicit reactions that bypassed logic entirely, responses rooted in subconscious desire or unresolved trauma. In these moments, words proved hollow. Emotion revealed itself as raw material.
This led me to understand that humans rarely present honestly unless pushed into a survival state.
That realization demanded ethical reckoning.
By the time I entered university, I made a pivotal shift. While writing my thesis on sociopathy, I recognized that I needed to remove myself from the equation. No more engineered circumstances. No more interference.
From that point forward, I would be the observer, not the manipulator.
This ensured the integrity of the experiment and provided my greatest insight yet: to be present not as an outsider, but as a participant within the system itself.
Part III: Family Systems, Ego, and Survival
When subjects are observed without interference over extended periods of time, their true intent becomes painfully honest. Whether intent is perceived as good or bad, it is always pure. It cannot be sustained indefinitely without revealing itself.
Over nearly two decades, I observed humans in social settings, enclosed environments, large and small groups, and one-on-one interactions. When assumptions are introduced as variables, most subjects respond energetically to the mass group or dominant structure, regardless of personal inclination.
There is almost always a shift toward alignment with the largest perceived authority.
When compared to animal subjects, the conclusion once again returned to survival. Humans blend into the group for protection. This behavior mirrors ancient survival tactics rooted in genetic memory. In prehistoric times, survival depended on group protection from starvation, predators, and environmental threats.
While environments have evolved, the human brain largely has not.
Social interactions are still treated as survival-based transactions. Not by all, but by most.
This led me to examine family systems as the first hierarchical structure humans experience. Families operate on inherited hierarchies, often ordered by age rather than competence. Power is distributed top-down, teaching obedience to authority rather than discernment of capability.
This distorts personal power.
Titles, age, and roles are mistaken for authority, leading individuals to suppress their own competence in favor of perceived dominance. Ego emerges as a survival mechanism, activated to protect position and maintain control when authority feels threatened.
Part IV: The Trojan Horse Archetype
The Trojan Horse, in this context, is not malicious in nature. However, it is perceived as a threat once a subject’s true competence becomes visible. The disruption does not occur through force, but through unapologetic presence.
To preserve existing power dynamics, this presence is labeled dangerous.
Suppression follows. Not to correct behavior, but to prevent a domino effect of self-empowerment that would dismantle the illusion of authority built on unearned dominance.
I experienced this pattern repeatedly within family systems and workplace hierarchies. Authority figures reacted not through direct confrontation, but through posture, positioning, dismissal, isolation, and subtle reputation diminishment.
Because I lived much of my life as a nomad, passing through systems rather than anchoring within them, I was able to observe these responses clearly. I documented, adjusted, and moved on.
Only later did I recognize the pattern.
Without intention, I had functioned as the Trojan Horse.
Self-assured competence invites others to reassess their own power. That alone is enough to trigger defensive responses within fragile hierarchies.
This pattern became most apparent when I attempted to build a family-based business rooted in legacy wealth for future generations and financial freedom for my mother. The moment power dynamics began to shift, authority responded through ego, seeking to preserve control through internal dismantling.
What was intended to grow the system was suppressed because it threatened who controlled wealth and resources.
This was not about survival or logistics.
It was about dominance.
After the dismantling, I chose to build again, this time independently, stripped of power struggles. I followed my natural inclination toward metaphysics.
Part V: Metaphysics and Structural Redundancy
Metaphysics was initially framed as a bridge between spirituality and science. A response to religion. A movement away from dogma and toward liberation. It appeared to be a refuge for disruptors and rebels.
This assumption proved incorrect.
Like all hierarchical systems before it, metaphysics revealed itself as the opposite side of the same corrupted coin.
Different arena. Same rulebook. (Full Breakdown in The Monad, The Trinity, and The Mule)
Authority once again felt threatened by ego dissolution and structural realignment, responding with isolation, suppression, and irrelevance to preserve traditional power dynamics rooted in survival mechanics.
Entering this space without predisposed expectations, without books or teachers, and guided only by lived experience, I once again assumed the role of observer.
The same power dynamics emerged.
This led me to my final question:
What happens when Trojan Horse archetypes remove themselves entirely from existing hierarchies and create new structures?
I initiated my final experiment by building a structure rooted in competence and unity. Over the course of a summer, I observed how two groups completed the same task under different systems.
Group A operated under traditional power dynamics. The result was chaos, power struggles, unheard voices, and loss of cohesion.
Group B operated under ancient structural competency. Authority emerged naturally through capability. Input was equal. Roles aligned organically.
The task was completed in half the allotted time.
This experiment proved not only that such structures are viable, but that they are more efficient.
So why are traditional systems still upheld?
The answer is always the same: power, control, and self-preservation.
What traditional structures fear most is not failure, but obsolescence.
Fear, however, has never stopped inevitability.
Conclusion
Across all structures, one pattern remains consistent: survival.
Traditional systems survive through control and dominance. Emerging systems survive by dissolving old patterns and evolving through learned behavior.
Change is not negotiable.
It is already happening.
The only choice is to evolve and align,
or be rendered irrelevant.
Thank You for reading SpaceyVerse Philosophies for the Multi-Dimensional Mind
Leave a comment