Synthetical philosophy, to begin with, is just defined as counterpart to the well-known analytical philosophy. Clear concepts, however, for a long time failed in a way that was initially incomprehensible because such approaches emigrated into purely rational or fundamentalist areas or were even banished. Almost all of these efforts show that human-animal comparisons for sure important were played down. It became increasingly clear that the difference between them is much smaller than previously thought.
The cause seems to be at least in a significant part of psychological nature. Mental problems, in turn, are often caused by concepts familiarly called undigested. But the first great problem of mankind, that undoubtedly remained "undigested" in this sense, was to educate oneself, which in practice meant distancing oneself from the own far ancestors, who, according to clearly established knowledge today, were monkeys or more precisely prehistoric chimpanzee species. The distancing could only be done so that connections to these were broken off. The chimpanzees are now known to be almost the only species that already wages wars and uses tools as weapons. So the assumption should be self-evident that wars broke out between those proto-humans, who wanted to distance themselves from the monkeys. These wars were certainly cruelly led and aimed at the extermination of the opposing chimpanzees.
Contrary to gilding ideas of the biblical fall from grace, there is little to oppose the suggestion that archaic precursors of priests would have liked to cover up this grim fact. We can now rightly assume that the image of the first fall of mankind of those proto-humans was, in all probability, precisely the systematic extermination of their own predecessors, of which probably only a few archaeological traces should be expected to have remained.
It is basically the same phenomenon that we today are seeing in the US referring to the sometimes very cruel extermination of the indigenous Indian population that the settlers were responsible for, in past centuries. The consciousness of the obviously bad crimes continues to be still largely suppressed today or even transformed into Western romance.
Scientifically rational, but at that time without a general awareness of such situations, which is now becoming apparent, Charles Darwin recognized in the 19th century selection as the driving force of the development of all earthly life. In his time, considerations that could be understood as criticizing the prevailing religious doctrine had to be avoided. Gregor Mendel complemented Darwin's statements with the notion of partial inheritance, which initially was explained by different alleles and, in the twentieth century, better attributed to the double helix structure of DNA.
The essential point now seems to be the introduction of duality. Not a simple molecular chain allows for complex inheritance, but rather a choice between the information on one strand and the other strand of the DNA, triggered by possibly small environmental fluctuations. Selecting or excluding entire areas on these strands can significantly accelerate the development or enable abrupt adaptation. Since, however, there is a number of nucleotide base pairs even if not completely, yet practically infinitely large, which determines properties and is further potentiated by manifold possibilities of recombination, in principle no complete equality between only two living beings is possible. Even monoovular twins are not completely identical.
Development, however, does not only happen on an individual basis, but also happens in societies. Perhaps one of the most decisive historic steps in the realization of this kind of development was the French Revolution, which proclaimed freedom, brotherhood and equality as guiding principles. However, we can translate these three concepts into modern consciousness, which at first sounds daring, but which should convince through consistency. If we want to express brotherhood the same way through an abstract concept as equality and freedom, this is possible through the modern expression of interaction. Abstract formulation is often rejected as less humane, but may well convince by greater generality and especially nowadays by the possible inclusion of animals.
However, equality and freedom are not possible at the same time in principle. Complete equality would mean the total absence of freedom and vice versa. There must be a balance between equality and freedom, which we can call dynamic.
In summary, it seems better to use a language adapted to a clearer way of thinking today than in the famous slogan of the French Revolution. The more abstract, but more up-to-date idea of dynamic interaction is likely to have a central and, with good likelihood, still underestimated significance for future orientation and seems to be significantly more consistent.
Along with this dynamic approach, ARS-UNA's advocacy can be seen for thematic communities rather than associations or societies specified by more fixed statutes in a neighborhood, and similarly for flexible movements rather than national and international political parties more fixed by constitutions. In the personal sphere, this provides support for advocates of free relationships and poliamory, since admission of the impossibility of completely tight borders must also have its meaning here. The hot question is certainly whether sexuality is just about to be put under lock and key, which also plays a major role in the current discussion about migrants, especially in Eastern Europe. A genetically uniform population is visibly more esteemed there than in Germany, for example.
In this sense, a possible movement DIA (Dynamic InterAction) is conceived and is taught to be a quite central theme on this website of ARS UNA and also on two Twitter accounts @dyninteract and @khlongraven .