ARTICLE 1. WHY HUMANITY NEEDS A NEUTRAL SYSTEM?

INTRODUCTION.

Throughout the long course of history, humanity has continuously sought a solid enough foundation to explain the world and guide its own development.

Each era has produced great ideological systems.

Some eras took divine authority as the center. Some eras took humanity as the center. Some eras took rationality as the center. Some eras took science as the center.

Each system has contributed great values to the progress of civilization. Thanks to that, humans have gradually understood more clearly about nature, society, and themselves.

However, along with that development, a paradox has become increasingly evident.

Increased knowledge does not mean increased peace. Technological development does not mean moral development. Human power over nature is increasingly greater, but the ability to master oneself has not developed correspondingly.

We can connect with everywhere in the world in just a few seconds, but the distance between people and people is sometimes farther than ever. We can create machines with computing power far surpassing the human brain in many fields, but we still have not solved basic problems such as war, violence, injustice, division, and spiritual crises.

This shows that the problems of humanity today are no longer simply a lack of knowledge or a lack of power.

What is still lacking is perhaps a principle capable of organizing those powers into a harmonious whole.

A principle that helps correct values not negate each other. A principle that helps seemingly opposing systems be viewed within a more unified structure. A principle capable of becoming a common reference point for many different fields.

This book was formed from that very question.

It does not aim to deny any existing doctrine. It also has no ambition to replace science, philosophy, or religion.

On the contrary, the goal of this work is to seek a principle capable of explaining why many correct systems can still lead to contradictory results when lacking a common balancing point.

That principle is called the Fulcrum Law.

The Fulcrum, according to the approach of this work, is not only a concept of mechanics. It is the fundamental principle that determines the direction of motion of every system.

In mechanics, the fulcrum determines the effectiveness of the lever. In thinking, the fulcrum determines how humans perceive the world. In ethics, the fulcrum determines the choice between good and evil. In politics, the fulcrum determines the stability or chaos of a nation. In science, the fulcrum determines the reference system of all measurements. In civilization, the fulcrum determines the ability of an entire culture to endure.

It can be said that every system moves around a certain fulcrum.

When the fulcrum is correct, different forces can create balance. When the fulcrum is wrong, even very large forces can neutralize each other.

From that awareness, this work is built as a system consisting of Axioms and Theorems.

The Axioms are not imposed truths. They are fundamental principles drawn from observations of nature, history, science, and life.

From those axioms, the theorems will be successively deduced to explain the motion of humans, society, and civilization from the perspective of a Neutral System.

The concept of "Neutral" in this work does not carry the meaning of average, compromise, or formal reconciliation.

Neutrality is the state in which opposing aspects are placed within a balanced structure, so that each element fully expresses its value without negating the existence of the other.

It is the state in which differences do not lead to conflict, diversity does not lead to division, and development does not trade off for imbalance.

If the history of physics once witnessed the unification of motion on Earth and the motion of celestial bodies, if mathematics once built axiomatic systems as the foundation for all branches of science, if biology once discovered the unifying principle of life in the structure of DNA,

then the question arises: Does there exist a unifying principle for the motion of thought, ethics, society, and civilization?

This book does not claim to have the final answer. It only proposes an approach. A way of looking. A foundational hypothesis. An open system to be continuously verified, supplemented, and developed.

Because truth does not grow from closure. Truth only grows when it is always ready to dialogue with reality.

If this work can contribute a small brick to humanity’s journey of seeking that, then its purpose has been partially fulfilled.

I. HUMANITY IS LIVING IN AN AGE OF IMBALANCE.

1. Imbalance – the common denominator of modern civilization.

If we look back at the entire history of human development over the past few thousand years, we can notice a very special rule.

Every time humans achieve a major step forward in one field, a new form of imbalance appears in another field.

The Agricultural Revolution helped humans stabilize food supplies, but at the same time created a wealth gap and concentrated power. The Industrial Revolution created unprecedented productivity, but also brought environmental pollution, excessive resource exploitation, and human dependence on machines. The Scientific Revolution expanded the frontiers of knowledge, but also led humanity into the era of nuclear weapons and the ability to self-destruct. The Information Revolution connected billions of people in a global network, but at the same time created loneliness, cognitive polarization, and a crisis of trust.

In the era of artificial intelligence, humans can have machines assist thinking on an unprecedented scale. But at the same time, questions about responsibility, ethics, privacy, employment, and the meaning of labor become more urgent than ever.

These phenomena are not isolated events. They all reflect a deeper law. That is, humanity’s development is occurring unevenly among the components that make up civilization.

In other words, the speed of development of power has far outpaced the speed of development of the ability to balance that power.

This is the fundamental manifestation of an age of imbalance.

2. Imbalance between material and spiritual.

Perhaps never in history has humanity possessed as much material wealth as today.

Things that were once considered luxuries a few decades ago have now become common. Homes are more modern. Transportation is faster. Medicine extends lifespan. Information is available in just a few seconds. Labor productivity has increased dozens or hundreds of times.

If measured only by economic indicators, humanity is in one of its most prosperous periods.

However, along with material abundance is a paradox worth pondering. Psychological disorders, mental pressure, feelings of isolation, crises of meaning in life, and ruptures in social relationships are becoming increasingly common.

People have more means of communication but less time to truly listen to each other. There are more conveniences but not necessarily more peace. There are more choices but it is harder to make decisions.

This shows that material wealth does not automatically transform into spiritual wealth.

Because material and spiritual are not two parallel lines. They are the two wings of the same bird. When one wing develops too strongly while the other weakens, balance is broken.

A civilization that only invests in economic growth while neglecting character education, ethics, and inner life is like a tree with lush foliage but roots that are increasingly drying up. The faster it develops, the greater the risk of collapse.

3. Imbalance between science and ethics.

Science is one of the greatest achievements of human intelligence. Thanks to science, humans have escaped many limitations of nature — from treating diseases to exploring outer space, from electric power to quantum technology, from telecommunications to artificial intelligence.

It cannot be denied that science has changed the face of civilization.

But history also shows another truth. Science only answers the question “Can it be done?” Ethics answers the question “Should it be done?”

A scientific discovery can save millions of lives. But that very discovery can also become a tool of destruction if used for the wrong purpose. Nuclear energy can light up an entire nation. But it can also flatten an entire city. Biotechnology can cure incurable diseases. But it can also create new risks if ethical standards are lacking. Artificial intelligence can expand human creativity. But it also raises a host of questions about control, truth, privacy, and responsibility.

The problem does not lie with science itself. It lies in the fact that the speed of scientific development is far outpacing the speed of ethical development.

When power increases while the capacity for self-control does not increase correspondingly, imbalance becomes inevitable.

4. Imbalance between power and responsibility.

In every era, power has always been a factor capable of shaping history. Political power. Economic power. Military power. Media power. Technological power.

Today, power no longer lies only in the hands of nations. Global technology corporations, social networks, data platforms, and artificial intelligence systems are also holding new forms of power capable of influencing the perception and behavior of billions of people.

However, history has repeatedly proven that power only truly brings benefits when accompanied by responsibility.

When power escapes the control of ethics and law, it easily leads to abuse. When power escapes the control of conscience, it can become a tool of oppression.

Many empires in history collapsed not because they lacked strength, but because that strength was no longer guided by responsibility.

This is also true for individuals. The more capable and influential a person is, the greater their ethical responsibility toward the community.

Power and responsibility are like the two ends of a scale. When one side increases while the other does not follow, imbalance appears.

5. Imbalance between development and sustainability.

For many centuries, the measure of progress was mainly the speed of growth. A more developed nation was often evaluated by the scale of its economy, industrial output, or consumption level.

That approach has created great achievements. But it has also raised increasingly urgent questions. Can an economy grow infinitely on a finite planet? Can exploiting resources faster than nature’s ability to regenerate be sustained forever? Is today’s development trading off the opportunities of future generations?

Climate change, loss of biodiversity, environmental pollution, and resource depletion are not just issues of environmental science. They are manifestations of an imbalanced development model.

A civilization that only looks at short-term benefits will find it difficult to maintain long-term stability.

Sustainability is not about abandoning development. Sustainability is development within limits where the system can still self-recover. It is the balance between the needs of the present and the rights of the future.

6. Imbalance between speed and depth.

Perhaps never before have humans lived as fast as today. Information is updated every second. News spreads in minutes. Decisions are made almost instantly. The pace of life is increasingly rushed. Speed has become the measure of efficiency.

But along with that speed, the depth of thought risks being narrowed. People read more but ponder less. They know more but may not understand more deeply. They connect more but dialogue less.

The development of technology has shortened geographical distances but cannot replace the capacity for contemplation, reflection, and self-awareness.

A civilization that only values speed while lacking depth is like a ship with a very powerful engine but no compass. It can travel very fast. But it is not certain it is going in the right direction.

7. Conclusion: Imbalance is a sign of the lack of a common Fulcrum.

Through the above surveys, it can be seen that the crises of the era, although manifested in many different fields, all share the same essence. It is not a lack of knowledge, nor a lack of power.

What is still lacking is a principle comprehensive enough to keep those powers moving in a state of balance.

When material is separated from spirit, civilization becomes rigid. When science is separated from ethics, power can escape control. When power is separated from responsibility, society easily falls into injustice. When development is separated from sustainability, the future is traded for the present. When speed is separated from depth, people easily lose direction.

From that perspective, the crises that humanity is experiencing are not isolated phenomena, but different manifestations of a systemic imbalance.

And if the cause lies in the imbalance of the entire system, then the solution cannot be merely partial measures. What humanity needs to seek is not simply more power, but a solid enough Fulcrum so that those powers can be organized into a state of Neutrality.

That is the central issue that the following chapters of this work will gradually research, establish through axioms, and develop into theorems. I believe this is also the natural bridge from the reality of the era to the theoretical foundation of the Fulcrum Law.

II. THE LIMITATIONS OF EXTREMIST IDEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS.

1. No ideology was born to create extremism.

The history of human thought is the history of efforts to seek truth. Each major doctrine was born in a specific historical context. Each ideological system tried to solve a specific problem of its time.

There are doctrines that emphasize freedom to liberate people from oppression. There are doctrines that emphasize equality to fight injustice. There are doctrines that emphasize the role of science to overcome superstition. There are doctrines that affirm the value of spiritual life to preserve ethics. There are doctrines that emphasize the market to liberate productive forces. There are doctrines that emphasize the role of the State to protect community interests.

If viewed from their historical context, it is very difficult to deny the great contributions that those ideological systems have brought.

Therefore, the purpose of this work is not to deny any doctrine. On the contrary, the work starts from a different assumption: Each doctrine holds a part of the truth. The problem only arises when one part of the truth is regarded as the whole truth.

2. From relative truth to absolute truth.

In nature, almost no element exists alone. Light only has meaning when there is darkness. Motion is only recognized when there is a state of rest as a reference. Positive and negative charges together create an electric field. Attraction and repulsion coexist in many physical systems. Even life is maintained thanks to countless dynamic equilibrium states.

However, in human thinking, we often tend to absolutize one side of an issue.

A correct value, when expanded beyond its original scope, will gradually lose its original meaning. Like water. Water is a condition for life. But water can also become a flood. Light helps people see. But light that is too strong also blinds the eyes. Medicine cures disease. But an overdose becomes poison.

What determines is not the thing itself. What determines is its limit.

Perhaps thought also follows that law. Not because the truth is wrong. But because humans often pull the truth beyond its natural limits.

3. When freedom becomes absolute.

No one denies that freedom is one of the noblest achievements of civilization. Thanks to freedom, humans have the right to create. The right to choose. The right to criticize. The right to develop their own abilities. Without freedom, society easily falls into stagnation.

But if freedom is understood as the right to do anything without being tied to responsibility, then that very freedom can infringe upon the freedom of others. A society that only emphasizes rights without emphasizing obligations will find it very difficult to maintain order in the long term.

Therefore, freedom cannot exist as an isolated value. It is only sustainable when balanced by responsibility.

4. When equality becomes absolute.

Equality is the foundation of social justice. All humans have equal dignity. That is a great achievement of human civilization.

But equality does not mean that all differences must be erased. People differ in ability. In strengths. In responsibilities. In contributions.

If equality is equated with sameness, society will lose its motivation for development. A healthy forest is not one where all trees are the same height. It is one where each species develops according to its own nature.

Equality needs to be placed in harmony with diversity.

5. When power becomes absolute.

Power in itself is not a bad thing. Without power there would be no ability to organize society. Without power there would be no ability to protect justice. Without power there would be no ability to govern a nation.

But history has repeatedly proven that the greater the power, the more it needs to be limited. When power is no longer controlled by ethics, law, and responsibility, it very easily turns into imposition.

It is worth noting that not only political power, but also economic power, media power, technological power, and even the power of knowledge can become extreme if lacking balancing mechanisms.

6. When the market becomes absolute.

The market economy has liberated humanity’s productive forces on an unprecedented scale. Competition creates creativity. Creativity creates development. That is the strong driving force of the modern economy.

But the market does not automatically generate ethics. It does not automatically generate justice. It does not automatically protect the environment.

If all values are converted into profit, then values that cannot be priced in money will gradually be overlooked: family, culture, faith, compassion, sacrifice.

A healthy economy needs the market. But a healthy civilization needs much more than that.

7. When faith becomes absolute.

Faith is the driving force that helps people overcome adversity. Without faith, there is no hope. Without hope, there is no future.

But faith also needs to be illuminated by reason. A faith that refuses all dialogue easily becomes dogma. A faith that refuses all verification easily becomes fanaticism.

History has proven that many major conflicts did not begin from differences. They began from the absolute belief that only one side possesses the entire truth.

8. When both materialism and idealism reach their limits.

In the history of philosophy, materialism and idealism are often viewed as two opposing positions. One emphasizes the decisive role of matter. The other emphasizes the decisive role of spirit.

Both have made great contributions to the development of human thought. But if one side is absolutized, both encounter certain limitations.

Extreme materialism risks reducing all phenomena to material processes, thereby overlooking the value of consciousness, ethics, and spiritual life. Conversely, extreme idealism can reduce all changes in the world to ideas or beliefs, thereby overlooking the objective conditions of nature and society.

Perhaps reality is richer than both ways of looking. Matter and spirit do not necessarily exclude each other. They can be two aspects of the same process of existence, interacting and together participating in the formation of human life.

If we only hold onto one side and deny the other, we will see the world through half a lens.

9. The law of all extremes.

Observation of nature shows a universal law. Every stable system exists thanks to balance. The Earth maintains its orbit thanks to gravitational balance. Living organisms maintain health thanks to homeostasis. Ecosystems exist thanks to balance among species. Even the atom is maintained by the balance of fundamental interactions.

When one force becomes absolute, the system begins to lose stability.

Perhaps the life of thought is no exception to that law. It is not because values such as freedom, equality, power, market, or faith are wrong. On the contrary, they are all essential values.

What needs to be avoided is not those values. What needs to be avoided is their absolutization.

A correct value, when detached from its connection with other values, can become a source of imbalance.

10. From extremism to Neutrality.

If extremism is the absolutization of one side, then Neutrality is not standing in the middle of two sides. Neutrality is also not a compromise to please all viewpoints.

Neutrality is the ability to see the position, limits, and value of each element within a larger whole. It does not deny freedom, but places freedom in relationship with responsibility. It does not deny equality, but places equality within diversity. It does not deny power, but ties power with responsibility. It does not deny the market, but supplements it with ethics and community interests. It does not deny science, but accompanies it with conscience. It does not deny faith, but always opens up the possibility of dialogue and verification.

That is not the reconciliation of contradictions. It is the creation of a balanced order, where each value fully expresses its meaning without negating the value of other elements.

And it is from here that the concept of the Neutral System begins to be established. It is not a position lying between positions, but a principle at a higher level, capable of referencing and harmonizing seemingly opposing values into a unified whole.

III. WHY DOES SCIENCE DEVELOP BUT HUMANS ARE STILL ANXIOUS?

1. The greatest paradox of modern civilization.

If someone living three hundred years ago were brought to today’s world, they would probably think that humanity has entered an almost miraculous era.

Humans can converse with each other across continents in an instant. Can fly around the Earth in less than a day. Can observe galaxies billions of light-years away. Can replace many parts of the body. Can decode their own genome. Can create artificial intelligence systems capable of processing data volumes far beyond the capacity of individuals.

If measured by knowledge and technology, humanity has never been as strong as it is today.

But it is precisely in that era that manifestations of anxiety appear everywhere. People worry more. Are more stressed. Doubt more. Conflicts are also more subtle.

Crises do not only occur in society. They also occur right within the inner self of each person.

A big question therefore arises: If science continues to advance, why doesn’t human peace increase correspondingly?

The answer perhaps lies in this: Science was not born to answer all of humanity’s questions.

2. Science answers the question “How?”

Since its appearance, science has always developed according to a very clear principle: Observation. Experiment. Verification. Repetition.

Thanks to that method, science can answer questions such as: How can an object fly? How to cure a disease? How to generate electricity? How to transmit signals over thousands of kilometers? How to create artificial intelligence?

That is why science has become the most powerful tool humans have ever created to explore and transform the world. Science turns what was impossible yesterday into something normal today.

But here appears a very natural limit. Science is very strong in explaining the mechanism. But science rarely determines the purpose.

A scientist can successfully create a new technology. But whether that technology is used to cure disease or to manufacture weapons is no longer a question of science. That is a question for humans.

3. The question “For what purpose?” does not belong to science.

Suppose humans invent a new type of energy. Science will help determine: How does it work? What is its efficiency? In which fields can it be applied?

But science cannot answer by itself: Should it be used to dominate others? Should it be used to destroy the environment? Should the interests of future generations be sacrificed for immediate benefits?

Those questions no longer belong to the scope of physics, chemistry, or biology. They are questions of ethics. Of philosophy. Of conscience. And more profoundly, questions about the Fulcrum that humans choose to guide their actions.

It can be said: Science expands capacity. But does not determine purpose.

4. Power always precedes ethical intelligence.

The history of civilization shows a repeatedly occurring phenomenon. The ability to act always develops faster than the ability to self-restrain. Humans knew how to make explosives before knowing how to use that power safely. Knew how to exploit resources before understanding the limits of nature. Knew how to create social networks before fully understanding their impact on community psychology. Knew how to develop artificial intelligence before building sufficient ethical principles to govern it.

That is not the fault of science. It is the law of development. Technical power often increases exponentially. While ethical intelligence only grows through education, experience, and the maturation of the entire civilization. These two processes rarely occur at the same speed. It is that gap that creates the anxiety of the era.

5. Science creates energy, ethics creates direction.

One can imagine civilization as a ship crossing the ocean. The stronger the engine, the faster the ship travels. That is the role of science.

But what about a ship with a powerful engine but no rudder? It still moves. Even very fast. But no one knows where it is going. That is the role of ethics.

Ethics does not make the ship run faster. But it determines its direction. If science is the engine, then ethics is the rudder. If science creates energy, then ethics determines direction.

Lacking either one, civilization cannot develop sustainably.

6. But direction is still not enough.

At this point, it seems the problem has been solved. There is science. There is ethics. There is power. There is direction.

But actual history shows that is still not enough. Because a new question arises: If there are many different ethical systems, what is the common reference point? Each culture has its own standards. Each era has its own value system. What is considered right here may not be completely the same elsewhere.

If we only rely on ethics without a broader reference principle, humans can still continue to argue endlessly.

Thus, the problem is not only direction. It is the principle that keeps all directions from falling into extremism.

7. The Fulcrum solves the balance problem.

Here, the Fulcrum Law does not appear to replace science. Nor does it appear to replace ethics. It only poses a more foundational question: What keeps power and ethics always in a state of balance?

A ship not only needs an engine. Not only needs a rudder. It also needs a reference system to know where it is in the ocean. Without the North Star, a map, or a positioning system, the ship can still run very fast but not know whether it is going in the right direction or circling.

The Fulcrum is precisely that reference system. It does not create energy. It does not directly create ethics. But it helps all powers and all value systems find their appropriate positions within the entire system.

That is why this work does not view science and ethics as two opposing forces. On the contrary, they are indispensable components of the same whole. The Fulcrum does not deny either side. The Fulcrum creates balance between them.

8. Isolated truth and the need for a Neutral System.

In the previous chapter, we reached an important conclusion: All extremism begins with an isolated truth.

Science is a truth. Ethics is also a truth. Freedom is a truth. Equality is a truth. The market is a truth. Faith is a truth.

But when any truth regards itself as the whole truth, imbalance begins to appear.

This is also true for science. If science is viewed as the answer to all human problems, then science itself is placed in a role beyond its nature. Science was not born to replace philosophy. Not born to replace ethics. Not born to replace conscience.

Just as ethics cannot replace science in discovering the laws of nature.

Each truth has its position. Each field has its limits. A mature civilization is not one that absolutizes one truth. It is one that knows how to place every truth in its correct position.

That is the profound meaning of the Neutral System.

IV. WHAT HUMANITY LACKS IS NOT POWER.

1. History is not a contest of the strongest.

On the surface, history seems to be a story of power. Vast empires. Mighty armies. Huge economies. Scientific revolutions that changed the world.

People often think that the stronger will win. The richer will last longer. Those who possess more advanced technology will master the future.

But history tells a different story. Many strong people have failed. Many powerful nations have declined. Many brilliant civilizations have left only traces in archaeology.

If power were the only decisive condition, history would not have happened that way. This shows there is a deeper law governing the motion of civilization.

2. The stronger is not necessarily the winner.

In nature, pure strength does not always determine the outcome. A giant tree can be toppled by a storm. While flexible bamboo still survives after strong winds. The largest animal is not necessarily the longest surviving species. The species that adapts better has the ability to endure.

This is also true for humans. There are very intelligent people who are not happy. There are very rich people who are not at peace. There are very powerful people who always live in fear.

Conversely, there are people who do not possess superior strength but still have the ability to create long-term influence thanks to the balance between intelligence, character, and life purpose.

The greatest victory of humans is not victory over others. It is the ability not to let one’s own power become the cause of failure.

3. A stronger nation is not necessarily more sustainable.

World history has witnessed the rise and fall of many nations once considered invincible. There were empires controlling vast territories. There were superpowers with the strongest military of the era. There were nations leading in trade, finance, and technology.

But that strength did not guarantee longevity. Many nations weakened not because they were defeated from the outside. But because imbalance appeared from within. When the wealth gap grew larger. When power was concentrated without control mechanisms. When short-term interests overrode long-term interests. When people’s trust declined.

Then small cracks gradually accumulated into major crises. History has repeatedly shown that a nation can be very strong militarily but fragile socially. Very rich economically but poor in faith. Very advanced technologically but slow in public ethics development.

Strength does not disappear in a day. But balance can be eroded day by day without being easily noticed.

4. A wealthy civilization is not necessarily long-lasting.

When studying great civilizations in history, people often pay attention to their brilliant achievements: magnificent architectural works, progressive legal systems, leaps in science, commerce, and art.

However, a question is always raised: Why did those civilizations eventually decline?

There is no single cause. But there is a notable common point. When material development exceeded the system’s ability to self-adjust, civilization began to lose balance. Wealth created luxury. Luxury easily led to enjoyment. Enjoyment led to a decline in creative will and sense of responsibility. The gap between power and the people grew larger. Social trust was gradually eroded.

That was not the collapse of strength. It was the collapse of the balancing structure. A building does not collapse because the roof is too heavy. It collapses because the foundation is no longer strong enough to support the entire structure.

5. Power always tends to exceed itself.

An interesting law of all systems is: When power increases, the potential to cause imbalance also increases. A small knife can cause injury. A modern weapon can destroy an entire city. A word influences a few people. An algorithm can influence billions.

The greater the power, the greater the responsibility. The greater the potential for consequences.

Therefore, the most dangerous thing is not power itself. The dangerous thing is power developing faster than the ability to self-control. That is the paradox modern civilization is facing.

6. What is still lacking is the Balancing Point.

If we observe a lever, we see something very simple. To lift a heavier object, there are two ways: One is to increase the force. The other is to change the position of the fulcrum.

In practice, changing the fulcrum is often much more effective than just increasing force. That is the basic principle of mechanics. But it is also a profound metaphor for the development of civilization.

For many centuries, humanity has mainly sought to increase power: Stronger economically. Stronger scientifically. Stronger technologically. Stronger militarily.

But very rarely has it asked: Where is the fulcrum of all that power?

If the fulcrum is wrong, the greater the power, the greater the consequences. If the fulcrum is correct, even limited resources can create sustainable achievements.

7. From power to balance.

Here, the Fulcrum Law does not deny the value of power. On the contrary. Power is a necessary condition for all development. An individual needs knowledge to grow. A business needs resources to innovate. A nation needs potential to protect independence. A civilization needs science to progress.

The problem does not lie in whether there is power or not. The problem lies in: What does that power serve? What limits it? What balances it?

Science makes people stronger. Ethics helps people know what they should be strong for. But only when there is a correct Fulcrum do power and ethics move together in a state of balance.

The Fulcrum does not reduce power. The Fulcrum helps power fully express its meaning.

8. Longevity does not belong to the strongest.

Both natural history and human history show a thought-provoking law. It is not the largest species that survives the longest. It is not the strongest nation that survives the longest. It is not the richest civilization that survives the longest.

Longevity belongs to systems that know how to self-balance. A healthy body is one that maintains homeostasis. A sustainable forest is one that maintains ecological balance. A stable society is one that maintains balance between rights and obligations, freedom and responsibility, creativity and discipline.

Perhaps that law also applies to the entire human civilization. What determines the future is not who possesses the greatest power. But who knows how to place that power on a solid enough Fulcrum to maintain balance over time.

Conclusion.

If the previous three chapters raised questions about the imbalance of the era, then this chapter leads us to a foundational awareness.

For many centuries, humanity has devoted most of its intelligence to making itself stronger. That is a great journey. But that journey is still not complete. Because power, in itself, not only creates the ability to create but also creates the ability to destroy.

What determines is not how great the power is. But on what foundation that power is placed.

Therefore, one of the foundational propositions of this work can be stated: Greater force is not the decisive condition for development. The correct Fulcrum is the decisive condition for sustainable development.

A person may not be the strongest, but can still be the most successful if they know how to place their life on a correct Fulcrum. A nation may not be the largest superpower, but can still be the most stable if it builds a balance between power, law, and social trust. A civilization may not be the richest at every moment, but will have the opportunity to endure if it knows how to place all its power on a Fulcrum of Neutrality.

V. THE CENTRAL IDEA OF THE FULCRUM LAW.

After surveying the limitations of extremist ideological systems, the paradoxes of modern civilization, and the nature of imbalance, we can reach a foundational conclusion.

What determines the development of a system is not only the magnitude of power but also the position of the Fulcrum that the system chooses.

That is the central idea of the Fulcrum Law.

This law was not built to deny the achievements of science. It does not aim to replace philosophical systems. It also does not oppose ethical or spiritual values formed in history.

On the contrary, the Fulcrum Law only proposes a different way of looking. A perspective focusing on the element that is often least noticed but determines the entire structure of a system. That is the Fulcrum.

1. Every system needs a Fulcrum.

In mechanics, a lever cannot work without a fulcrum. In astronomy, every motion needs a reference system. In mathematics, every deductive system begins with axioms. In architecture, every structure needs a foundation. In biology, every living organism needs to maintain homeostasis.

Looking more broadly, it can be seen that every stable system exists thanks to a fundamental principle that keeps its components connected. If that principle is lacking, the system becomes fragmented. If that principle is distorted, the entire system loses direction.

Humans are no exception to that law. An individual needs a fulcrum to orient their life. A family needs a fulcrum to maintain happiness. An organization needs a fulcrum to develop. A nation needs a fulcrum to be stable. A civilization also needs a fulcrum to endure.

2. The Fulcrum determines the direction of development.

Two ships can have the same engine. The same speed. The same amount of fuel. But if the guidance systems are different, they will reach completely different places. What determines is no longer speed. But direction.

That is also true for all social systems. A nation can be very rich. But if the development goal only aims at growth while forgetting people, that wealth will be difficult to sustain for long. A business can be very successful. But if it only pursues profit while losing reputation, that success will become fragile. An individual can be very talented. But if lacking an ethical fulcrum, that talent can also become a cause of harm to themselves and others.

The Fulcrum therefore not only determines the path. It determines the destination of the entire system.

3. The Fulcrum determines the degree of stability.

In nature, every stable state is formed from the balance between many different forces. Not because the forces disappear. But because they are organized in a reasonable structure.

A bridge stands firm not because there are no forces acting on it. But because all forces are distributed in balance. A healthy body is not one without change. But one that always maintains homeostasis. A stable society is the same. Not because there are no differences. But because those differences are harmonized in a fair system with self-adjustment capability.

The Fulcrum is the principle that helps different forces not neutralize each other but together create stability.

4. The Fulcrum determines the ability to endure.

History shows many systems that were once very strong but did not last long. Conversely, there are seemingly small values that have vitality for thousands of years.

What creates longevity is not the intensity of power at a certain moment. But the ability to maintain balance over time.

A tree can grow very fast. But if its roots are not deep enough, it will have difficulty standing firm against storms. An economy can grow very fast. But if it trades off the environment, ethics, and social trust, that development will not be sustainable.

The Fulcrum does not guarantee that a system will never encounter difficulties. But it gives the system the ability to self-adjust, self-recover, and continue to develop after each fluctuation. That is the foundation of longevity.

5. Not the greatest force, but the correct Fulcrum.

In mechanics, a person can lift an object many times their own strength if they know how to place the correct fulcrum. This shows that effectiveness does not only depend on force. But also on the position of the fulcrum.

That is not only a law of physics. It is also a principle that can be extended to many other fields. A person does not need to be the strongest to create the greatest value. A nation does not need to be the largest to become a happy and stable nation. A civilization does not need to possess the most wealth to become an enduring civilization.

What is important is not accumulating more power. What is important is placing all that power on a correct Fulcrum.

When the Fulcrum is correct, even limited resources can create results far beyond expectations. When the Fulcrum is wrong, even enormous power can become the cause of decline.

6. The spirit of the Fulcrum Law.

From the above analyses, the core spirit of the Fulcrum Law can be summarized into four propositions:

First, every system needs a Fulcrum to exist and develop. Second, the Fulcrum determines the direction of motion of the system. Third, the Fulcrum determines the ability to maintain balance and self-adjust. Fourth, it is the Fulcrum, not power itself, that determines the ability of a system to endure.

This is not a closed conclusion. This is a foundational hypothesis that will be developed into axioms and theorems in the following chapters.

Conclusion.

At this point, we can temporarily state the central idea of the entire work as follows:

Power answers the question: What can humans do? Ethics answers the question: What should humans do? The Fulcrum answers the question: How can what humans can do and what humans should do coexist in a long-term balanced state.

Therefore, sustainable development does not begin with increasing power. Sustainable development begins with correctly choosing the Fulcrum.

VI. WHAT IS THE NEUTRAL SYSTEM?

After surveying the imbalance of modern civilization and introducing the central idea of the Fulcrum Law, an inevitable question arises:

If the correct Fulcrum has the ability to bring the system to stability, then what is that state of stability?

In this work, that state is called Neutrality.

This concept is not understood in the usual sense. It is a principle concept. A model of operation for all sustainable systems.

1. Neutrality is not average.

In life, people often equate Neutrality with being in the middle. Between hot and cold. Between fast and slow. Between strong and weak. Between right and wrong.

But nature does not operate that way. A healthy body is not one where every indicator is exactly in the middle. A forest does not exist because all trees have the same height. An orchestra does not create a symphony because all instruments produce the same sound.

What creates harmony is not uniformity. It is the correct coordination of the function of each component.

Therefore, Neutrality is not the arithmetic average of values. Neutrality is the organization of values according to a reasonable order.

2. Neutrality is not compromise.

Some people think that avoiding extremism means conceding to both sides. That is an incomplete understanding. A doctor cannot compromise between disease and health. A judge cannot compromise between justice and injustice. A scientist cannot compromise between truth and error.

There are principles that cannot be diluted. There are values that cannot be traded.

Therefore, Neutrality is not a formal reconciliation between opposing viewpoints. Neutrality is the ability to identify what needs to be firmly maintained and what needs to be adjusted so that the entire system reaches a higher state of stability.

3. Neutrality is not standing in the middle.

If two people are both going in the wrong direction, standing in the middle between them does not bring us closer to the truth. If two forces both pull a system toward imbalance, choosing a middle position still does not create balance.

In many cases, standing in the middle is just a position in space. Neutrality, on the other hand, is an operating principle. A wheel that spins very fast but always maintains a stable center of rotation. The balance point does not lie on the rim of the wheel. It lies on the axle.

This shows that Neutrality is not the distance between two extremes. Neutrality is the Fulcrum that keeps the entire system able to move without destroying itself.

4. Neutrality is a state of dynamic balance.

Observation of nature shows something very interesting. No living system stands still. All systems are always in motion. The Earth continuously rotates on its axis and orbits the Sun. Cells in the body are constantly born and die. Ecosystems are always changing. Climate is always fluctuating. Even the atom is not in an immobile state.

Yet, amid countless movements, the world still maintains an astonishing degree of stability. That is not immobility. That is dynamic balance. Every change is followed by a self-adjustment mechanism. Every force is balanced by other forces. Every deviation has a tendency to be corrected so the system does not collapse.

Perhaps that is also the law of all sustainable systems. Neutrality is not no change. Neutrality is the ability to maintain the essence of the system even in the process of constant change.

5. Opposing aspects do not neutralize each other.

In ordinary thinking, opposition is often understood as exclusion. But nature tells a different story. Day and night do not destroy each other. They follow each other to create time. Inhalation and exhalation do not eliminate each other. They together maintain life. Positive and negative charges do not erase each other. They together create an electric field. Attraction and repulsion both participate in the stability of many physical systems.

In social life it is the same. Freedom and discipline are not two enemies. A society with only freedom and no discipline will fall into chaos. A society with only discipline and no freedom will lose its creative power.

Science and ethics are also not opposed. Science expands human capacity. Ethics directs the use of that capacity. Without science, humans find it difficult to develop. Without ethics, development easily becomes a risk.

The Fulcrum Law therefore does not seek to eliminate opposing aspects. It seeks to place them in the correct positions so they can together fully express their values.

6. From antagonism to mutual support.

This is perhaps the most important difference of the Neutral System. In many ways of thinking, opposing aspects are often viewed as forces that must defeat each other. But in a mature system, what is necessary is not victory. What is necessary is coordination.

Two legs do not compete to see which is more important. They together help humans walk. The two wings of a bird do not deny each other. They together create the ability to fly. The two hemispheres of the brain do not neutralize each other. They complement each other to form comprehensive thinking.

A society is the same. Freedom needs responsibility. Power needs control. Competition needs cooperation. Science needs ethics. Economy needs culture. Development needs sustainability.

Each value is only truly complete when placed in relationship with other values. That mutual support creates the vitality of the entire system.

7. The Neutral System – a model of sustainable development.

From the above analyses, the Neutral System can be understood as a system in which: Every component is recognized for its value. Every force has its position. Every difference is harmonized within a unified principle. No element is absolutized. No element is completely denied.

The Fulcrum keeps the entire system always oriented toward a state of dynamic balance. Thanks to that, the system has the ability to: Adapt when circumstances change. Self-adjust when deviations appear. Self-recover after fluctuations. And continue to develop without losing its own essence.

That is the meaning of sustainable development from the perspective of the Fulcrum Law.

8. The bridge to the Axioms.

At this point, we can look back at the entire journey of the Introductory Article. We began by surveying the imbalance of the world. Then analyzed the limitations of truths that have been absolutized. Then pointed out that science creates power, ethics creates direction, but both still need a Fulcrum to achieve balance. From there, the Fulcrum Law was introduced as a foundational principle. And finally, the Neutral System was established as the ideal operating state of all sustainably developing systems.

But all of that is still just intuition. For a doctrine to have scientific value, intuition must be transformed into axioms. Axioms must be developed into theorems. Theorems must be tested by practice.

That is the path this work will continue in the following chapters.

Conclusion.

"Opening Manifesto" for the entire system:

Every system moves under the action of forces. But only a system with the correct Fulcrum can maintain balance, develop, and endure.

From that principle, the Neutral System is not understood as a compromise between extremes, nor as a position standing in the middle of different viewpoints.

Neutrality is a state of dynamic balance, in which opposing aspects do not neutralize each other but support each other; values do not deny each other but illuminate each other; powers do not compete to dominate but are together organized under a common Fulcrum.

It is from that foundation that the Axioms of the Fulcrum Law will be established in the following chapters, as the first stones of a system of thought oriented toward balance, development, and longevity.

VII. CONCLUSION.

Looking back at the entire development journey of humanity, we can see a rule that repeats through every era.

When facing greater challenges, humans often choose to create greater powers. To overcome distance, we invent faster means. To conquer nature, we create stronger technologies. To protect ourselves, we build larger power systems. To develop the economy, we mobilize more resources.

The history of civilization is therefore also the history of increasing power.

But that very history also poses a paradox. The greater the power, the greater the ability to create. The greater the ability to destroy as well. The richer the knowledge, the deeper the polarization in perception sometimes becomes. The more concentrated the power, the heavier the responsibility toward the future becomes.

This shows that power in itself is not the final solution. Power is only capability. Whether that capability becomes creation or destruction, development or decline, depends on the principle that directs the entire system.

Observation of nature shows that no system exists long-term just because of one stronger force. All sustainable systems are maintained by the balance between many different forces. A healthy body is not strong in one single organ. It is healthy because the entire body maintains balance. A forest does not endure because one species of tree is superior. It endures because the entire ecosystem maintains a harmonious state. A civilization is the same.

What makes longevity is not just economic power. Not just military power. Not just the level of science. But the ability to organize all those powers within a balanced structure.

That is the meaning of the Fulcrum. The Fulcrum does not replace power. The Fulcrum gives power direction. The Fulcrum does not replace ethics. The Fulcrum helps ethics become the operating principle of the entire system. The Fulcrum does not deny differences. The Fulcrum creates conditions for those differences to coexist and support each other within a Neutral System.

Perhaps this is also the profound lesson that history has repeatedly sent to humans. No civilization has collapsed just because it lacked power. Many civilizations declined while at the peak of their power. Not because they weakened too quickly. But because they gradually lost the balancing point that had once created their strength.

Therefore, the most important question is no longer: How to become stronger? But: Which Fulcrum will lead that power to sustainable development?

That is also the question that this entire work hopes to continue exploring.

The following chapters will not begin with conclusions. They will begin with Axioms. From the Axioms, Theorems will be formed. From the Theorems, a Neutral System capable of dialoguing with science, philosophy, ethics, and the realities of life will be expanded.

If those axioms are rigorous enough, the theorems will form naturally. If the theorems are consistent with practice, the work will prove its own value.

That is the path chosen by the Fulcrum Law. Not starting from faith. But starting from observation. Not ending in affirmation. But continuing to open up possibilities for verification and dialogue.

Because truth does not grow from isolation. Truth grows when many truths together find their positions within a unified system.

MANIFESTO OF THE FULCRUM LAW.

In history, humans have often sought greater power to solve greater problems. But all power, in the end, is only a consequence. What determines does not lie in the magnitude of the force. But in the position of the Fulcrum.

A small lever, if it has the correct fulcrum, can lift an entire rock. A correct idea, if it has the correct fulcrum, can change an era. A person, if they have the correct fulcrum, can overcome their own limits. A nation, if it has the correct fulcrum, can overcome the challenges of history. And a civilization, if it has the correct fulcrum, can support the future of all humanity.

Therefore, Power does not begin with greater force. Power begins with a more correct Fulcrum.

And when every power is placed on a correct Fulcrum, when every truth is placed in its correct position, when differences no longer neutralize but know how to support each other, then the Neutral System is no longer just a philosophical concept. It becomes an operating principle. A way of thinking. A foundation for humans, society, and civilization to move toward balance, development, and longevity.

Thank you for following. We will welcome PART I. THE AXIOMS. Article 2. Axiom 1. Every system has a Fulcrum.

Purpose. Define the concept of “Fulcrum.” Prove that: • the universe, • nature, • society, • humans, all cannot exist without a Fulcrum.

Sincerely. Dien Ba Tay Ninh.