The Ant and the Ubermensch

Imagine that one day while sitting in the park, you hear a tiny little voice beside you. You look down at the bench and beside you see a tiny little ant. Leaning a little closer, not believing your ears, the tiny voice says, “I want to help with the relations between the USA and Iran. What can I do?”

You first think to just ignore the voice because an ant talking seems just too silly to be true. But then you think about the state of modern nanotechnology and realize that such a tiny little ant could well have the half of the library of Congress stored in that little head. So you decide to play along with the apparent situation and address this question.

I would think that your first objection to his question would be that it is a ridiculous thing for an ant to want. How could an ant possibly have any affect upon international relations between humans? But then you realize that such is basically what you were just asked by the ant. Why can’t the ant affect human international relations?

First the ant is simply too small, too insignificant. If the ant wishes to significantly affect human affairs, he definitely must become more significant. He must invest a great deal of attention merely growing his own influence regardless of his longer term concern for human relations… of any sort.

But even then, he must realize the complex nature of human relations. With humans, when there is any large group conflict, there is always a third party not seen by those in conflict… always. That third party always supports both sides of the conflict. By having significant influence on both sides of such very large populations, the third party can simply reduce pressure on one side while increasing pressure on the other and thereby have twice as much influence, pushing and also pulling. So the third party sways back and forth to encourage each side of the conflict to be as great as it can be so that at the right time, it can expire the resources of both parties against each other and choose a victor to its own advantage. The tow parties in conflict see only that one of them finally won and choose to hate them for it. Meanwhile the third party finds yet another conflict in the crowds to build and profit from.

No matter which side of the conflict the ant joins, the third party merely adjusts pressures so as to compensate and escalate it all into the pre-chosen destination.

So even with significant influence among the humans, how is the now significant ant going to convince the humans that they are being manipulated? He is just an ant. What does he really know? And frankly, if humans are really that foolishly complex, and interfering with any conflict is merely prolonging the conflict and not changing the outcome, perhaps interfering with them isn’t such a good thing. The more complicated human conflicts become, the more influence, wealth, the ever-present third party obtains with which it creates even more human conflicts.

So you advise the ant;
A) Forget human conflicts until you empower yourself to be significant among them.

B) Forget joining either side of their conflicts until you are on both sides of the conflicts with Two Hands and thus can be significant to the third party. Joining either side, merely increases the power of the third party without having the slightest affect upon the outcome.

D) Realize that every significant affect in such conflicts that is not controlled by either the humans or the third party, generally gets stepped on. Ants should relate to that concern and not forget it. You will be seen, if not by the humans, by the third party, the Third Eye.

E) Grow not merely Two Hands, but also a Third Eye so that you can see that which sees you merely to help avoiding getting stepped on by that which you didn’t see. And realize that the third party is as far above the humans as the humans are currently above you.

F) And because you will be seen long before you have very significant affect, focus on becoming immutable even before you are seen, because you WILL be stepped on.

G) Presuming that all has gone well through all of that, you must grow to be more significant than even the third party with wisdom beyond their very, very long history of dealing with humans and their very, very high technology. You must become what has never been, often referred to as the “Ubermensch”.

After dealing with the third party, you will find that dealing with human conflicts is trivial.

So then the ant asks;
“A) How do I know that third party really exists?”

Until you grow a third eye, you will not know if it doesn’t exist. And if you do not do even that much, then how will you be any different than the other 6.5 billion humans? You will merely be making all the same noises they make, merely a another “wavelet” of affect amongst billions of others, changing nothing of the whole. And if you were to find that there was no third eye, that will have changed and the whole issue is easily resolved - you being the third party. But do you seriously think that I am the first person who ever thought of that?

“B) It all seems a ridiculous amount to accomplish. What are the chances?”

Pretty damn low. Why do you think it hasn’t been done before? An ant changing Man? It takes an extreme dedication to a complex plan involving immutability. And the key to immutability is strategic momentum, very quickly doing exactly and only, exactly and only what needs to be done at that moment… endlessly. And that requires quickly learning of exact needs even as their particulars change - fast, efficient, and undistractable.

“C) Why should I bother? Why should I believe you?”

Did I say that you “should”? You asked the silly question. I told you the answer. It takes reaching beyond courage, beyond wisdom, and beyond desires. It takes a dedication that even high priests don’t have. What are the chances? I would guess something like 6.5 billion to one. But then again, what else do you have to do that millions, if not billions of others are not already doing?

If you haven’t the desire (very understandable), then merely keep doing what you have always been doing, just do what everyone else does. Just be the ant that you are and do what ants do (fight over property rights until they get stepped on). The changes that come will come by the will of others. Perhaps forgetting the whole thing is really the thing that you “should” do. “Should” is always subjective and up to you.

The vision of the future of Man is only clearly seen by the Fourth Eye. Until you can see what even the Third Eye cannot see, you don’t know what you call “sanity”.

A. The third party does not exist. It is a possibility inherent in the very nature of any opposing forces. It becomes manifest, when there is no other option. It is as the saying goes, if god does not exist, it must be created. There are myriad ways to deal with this obtuse concept, however, not believing in it, creates a total reduction into the very oblivion of ‘being in the world’

B. The chances are incredibly low, You are right, frighteningly so, and the devil is always around the corner to discredit it. The devil is in the doubt, the faithlessness into the very possibility of belief. To be , or not, is a question of enormous ontological significance, and the above mentioned reduction can indeed tip the scale between an almost totally reduced idea, to the vanishing point of absolute nihilism, BUT, the point still remains. It is dead center as a consequence of diminishing spheres of lesser volume, into it’s absolute nothingness, which transforms into an image of pure conceptuality. The necessity for that concept becomes evident, in various practices, without which the ordinary manifestations of phenomena would be impossible. The chances or realizing this approaches the nothingness, , but it never gets there, because this point, this concept, can never be perceived, or experienced.

C. Why bother? For some, negation is almost absolutely reductive, and there is no question, of the absolute necessity of going beyond the doubt, of infinitesimal reduction, the existential leap of faith necessitated by this realization. It becomes not a question of why, but of when. If not in time, then the very space around it will curve as predicted, and all phenomenon will become visually transformed into grotesque shadows of the formerly image world, shadows of images, taking on a life on their own, threatening to destroy the creation in all aspects of manifestation.

A. The third party does not exist. It is a possibility inherent in the very nature of any opposing forces. It becomes manifest, when there is no other option. It is as the saying goes, if god does not exist, it must be created. There are myriad ways to deal with this obtuse concept, however, not believing in it, creates a total reduction into the very oblivion of ‘being in the world’

B. The chances are incredibly low, You are right, frighteningly so, and the devil is always around the corner to discredit it. The devil is in the doubt, the faithlessness into the very possibility of belief. To be , or not, is a question of enormous ontological significance, and the above mentioned reduction can indeed tip the scale between an almost totally reduced idea, to the vanishing point of absolute nihilism, BUT, the point still remains. It is dead center as a consequence of diminishing spheres of lesser volume, into it’s absolute nothingness, which transforms into an image of pure conceptuality. The necessity for that concept becomes evident, in various practices, without which the ordinary manifestations of phenomena would be impossible. The chances or realizing this approaches the nothingness, , but it never gets there, because this point, this concept, can never be perceived, or experienced.

C. Why bother? For some, negation is almost absolutely reductive, and there is no question, of the absolute necessity of going beyond the doubt, of infinitesimal reduction, the existential leap of faith necessitated by this realization. It becomes not a question of why, but of when. If not in time, then the very space around it will curve as predicted, and all phenomenon will become visually transformed into grotesque shadows of the formerly image world, shadows of images, taking on a life on their own, threatening to destroy the creation in all aspects of manifestation.

That seems to be a contradiction of this;

Not believing in it is what gives the opportunity for it to grow. Does the hunter announce his presence to the prey? Or does he use stealth and try to convince the prey that he doesn’t exist? How much closer can he get to the prey who refuses to believe the hunter existed? Deny all conspiracies, and one will most certainly come.

believing in it is reductive totally and although the reduction is temporally sequential, the absolute point is non verifiable.At that point the belief without verification becomes the without which of its very existence.

James, I hate to appear abrupt and obtuse. This argument is old as time itself and the alchemico-religious formulation of existence, essence and being is at the bottom of it. Western culture got it from the old arabs, Ave rose and Avicenna, and Christianity owes a lot to these sources. The essential connection between what is revealed and what is not, is analogous between the concepts of the seen and the unseen. The unseen, could include the feeling states , and the thoughts regarding consensual apperception, or reality as we now call it, and it is a matter of opinion, as to where our knowledge will shift toward: our feelings toward religious/mystical states, OR our thoughts toward institutionalized forms of belief. The essential distinction passes by most of the latter’ whereas the former have traditionally been branded with heretical condemnation. Existence has come full circle since those days, and have been shifted to the centerfold of our immediate awareness, causing thinning out of Being,and the disassociation with the truly spiritual. This magical formula is near forgotten, except as dusty reminders out of ancient alchemical and biblical contexts.

That’s okay. It’s good to see such life in you. Glad to have inspired it.
But,
what
the
Hell
are you on about?

I’m pretty certain at this point that you are talking about something very different than what I was talking about, but now you have my curiosity up. Could you perhaps give the finer exact details of what you are talking about?

ok. The third parties existence is at stake here. I take it, the example You give by the ant, is their apperception of conflict resolution. As it would seem as though, the implication was to diminish human understanding in relation to what a higher consciousness would interpret. I may be wrong, but an ant with the library of congress miniaturized into it’s cranium seems a bit far fetched to take literally.

Progressing from this, if it is justified. the third man , even Plato’s third man argument may allude to the negotiator. It’s existence. Now who can negotiate between man and superman? Only a non visceral being, a conceptual entity, who has transcended even the acts between lower and higher consciousness. I base that on the premise, that in order to negotiate, between parties, the knowledge of higher values would be required. In that sense, since the Ubermench has yet to attain materiality, the negotiator can by no means be attributed physical characteristics such as found in mortal beings.

That kind of being can not be thought of as an existent, or even as a being. The scholastic philosophers caught on to this, and the idea of the spirit, in Catholicism, the primary Christian authority of the time,the Holy Spirit, became this negotiator between the Father and the Son.

The reapplication of this in modern times, using your analogy, is apropos, to show the difficulties inherent with an evolving cybernetic mind, with those for whom keeping up with technological applications is difficult enough. The creation of newer and newer programs negotiating connections of translations into laymen’s language will dwarf the rate of advance of technological development. As a consequence, negotiations, will be harder put with time, a probability of which may cause a permanent break.

The existence of the third will be a hardly provable entity with the passage of time. Technology will replace the essential modicum of negotiation, and the anthropomorphic being of the father, and the existentially self destructive—redemptive son, will have an increasing tough time communicating. The negotiations are failing, with the essential terms being inaccessible to more and more negotiators.

If i am reading into this, and your intention was a literal one, then i withdraw all of the above allusions to a wider scope.

And thanks, you are right, about becoming interested in this, but to say i have come alive on account of it, may be a stretch.

I am just not used to seeing you so proliferate.

And yes, as suspected, you were reading way too much into it all. You mentioned how Aristotle’s Third Man, TMA, was seen through by philosophers, but from what I see, not only did they not see through the confusion at that time, but haven’t even got it straight now. I have addressed that resolve on several threads and topics. I suspect that Quantum Physics is partially built due to that confusion. Basically, they seem to not be able to understand the significant difference between form, category, and dimension.

I think that I agree with the rest of what you were saying; you cannot have a mediator between an existent entity and an entity yet to come (or something like that).

What I was talking about came from a question on another forum wherein I was asked what a particular person could do concerning international affairs. In my story, he was the “ant”. The warring countries involved were the two parties. And the “Third Party” was the group of people who create and manage such wars to their own advantage.

To actually affect the outcome requires that the ant become at least a Third Party in his own right, and preferably, so as to know good from bad, gain a “Fourth Eye” (an eye that sees the proliferation of Third eyes - Third Parties).

Thanks, that does clarify it to a large extent, but i must ask You, can the ant , at least as in a present existent form, be used as a metaphor, to compare it to men present now ,in relation to men to come, who may be of possession of vaster quantity of knowledge and wisdom? Is not the man of today a mere insect of what is possible to man,in say another couple of hundred , or even thousands of years? (If he survives, that is) Perhaps it’s possible that You used the ant as a metaphor for human behavior.That would not really be reading into the intent of the use of it. The rest may follow, predictably, in line with the compensatory effects of quantum mechanics?Your argument seems to follow a reverse course starting from the effects of the discovery,rather then from the point of view which entails the original dimensions of the argument. The problem, as i see it, is when arguing backward, in terms of the effects, the chain of causality and it’s included elements, may change, according to indeterminate changes of uncertainty.

[size=107]First of all, James, I buy and send you the “Ü”-key for the “Übermensch” - and you may have the “Ä”-key, the “Ö”-key, and the “ß”-key too.[/size]

[size=107]And according to you: How can I become the “Übermensch”? By getting a “Fourth Eye”? How can I get a “Fourth Eye”? Can you send me one in return for my “Ü”-key?[/size]

That takes the “∫”, “∂”, “μ”, and “σ” keys.

All sight is gained through contrasting form out of obscure noise via Definitional and Bayesian Logic. One “sees” the wind, by seeing the leaves, clouds, snow, and dust. And one sees the Truth by declaring its construct.

There is a great deal of obfuscation in within the noise of Man’s struggles. But no struggle proceeds without form. All that is ever gained always has form inspiring it. All of Science is merely identifying the forms by measuring the struggles. Thus when Man struggles in any way at all, there is form within it. When Man wars, there is form inspiring both sides.

Presumption is the seed of sin and the father of blindness. Accuracy is its adversary.

Learn to see the forms that inspire the wars of Man and you gain the Third Eye with which to see the Third Party. But there is not merely one Third Eye or Party. Contrast from the obfuscation, the forms and patterns of the many Third Parties, and the Fourth Eye awakens.

In the pyramid of intelligence, you have the obscure layers of
1) Confusion and noise (Chaos; Entropy and Blindness)
2) Understandings and misunderstandings (Order; Beliefs and Perceptions)
3) Maintenance of understandings and misunderstandings (Discipline and Ego; Kings and Priests)
4) Creators of understandings and misunderstandings (Creators of Orders and Discipline; “Lords”)
5) Reality

…inverted.

Re the OP:

In HG Well’s novel War of the Worlds, it was the smallest of things on Earth, the bacteria, that sorted the problem of the Martians.

Quote from the film Lord of the Rings: Galadriel tells Frodo that “even the smallest person can influence the world.” (or approximately that.) Note, too, that Frodo did not confront the Enemy. Rather he sneaked into the heart of enemy territory and destroyed the enemy’s source of power.

An ant that can speak and think and is knowledgeable concerning human affairs and wants to help???!! I wonder what would be the effect of that on our society? It would be a sensation not far short of the arrival of aliens. The scientific world would be set alight. Some of our most cherished ideas would be proved false, or at least cast into doubt. If scientists did not get to it first and hush it up, there would be a media frenzy, everyone wanting to have the ant on their show and interview it.

I should think the ant would only have to make its presence known (and presumably that of its myriad relatives) to cause a very significant change in our society, and what might be the far-reaching effect we can only speculate about — maybe the powers that be would stop fighting each other and declare war on the ants instead! After all, another intelligent species sharing our world might be seen as a serious threat.

That seems right.Evolution progresses predictably, based on constant elements of gradual change, but it is the missing link, seldom found, which causes major alternations.