Thank you for the generous and thoughtful comment. I'm genuinely grateful for your engagement and for taking the time to read so attentively. It's always a pleasure to be in dialogue with readers who bring both curiosity and critical perspective. Even where we may diverge—on the term "revisionist," for instance—your remarks are a welcome invitation to refine and deepen the conversation. I'm especially encouraged by your support for a psycho-political approach, which I agree offers essential depth beyond the usual geopolitical surface.

“Revision," at its root, means to “re-see,” to revise, or to review—there’s nothing inherently negative about it. On the contrary, the ability to reconceive or reassess the global order is often a mark of intellectual vitality and political evolution. Where revision becomes contentious is from the perspective of status quo powers, which typically resist any attempt to re-see or reshape existing arrangements. They benefit from stability and thus view change not as possibility, but as threat. In philosophy, the status quo is Being; revisionism is Becoming.

The negative connotations likely stem from terms like ‘revisionist history,’ which—especially after World War II—became associated with denialism or distortion. But even there, the act of revisiting history should not be inherently suspect. Societies grow by re-examining their pasts. To revise is not to falsify; it is to look again, and ideally, to see more clearly.