Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

As long as events are dependent upon, caused by, or are led to by other events, there will be stories. The linking up of certain events to promote a designed idea are the stories that precede history.

Negative approaches to events, ideas and history become positive approaches in disguise. If it is a negative approach, it has to negate itself somewhere along the line. It’s claimed that anything this structure touches must turn into a positive thing, because it is a product of positive thinking. So anything you listen to is turned into a method, a system – you want to get something through this. For example, somebody says there is a mind and you must un-condition your mind. How are you going to un-condition your mind? You are conditioning your mind through this lingo – that is all that it is necessary for you to see. Don’t blame the other chap. So then you leave this chap alone: you never establish any relationship with this man. The moment you use this to get whatever you want to get, or to arrive at some kind of a destination, you are tricking yourself into the same old game. When this is seen, the seeing is the end – finished, you see. But we haven’t understood a thing; we go there again and again. And we have only clarified our thoughts, and through this so-called clarification we have given strength to the continuity of thought – this is all that has happened. So, it is the hope that keeps people going. They have gotten into habits, routines: instead of going to the spiritual, they go to the philosophical or the ideological – that’s all they are doing. If you see the absurdity of what you are doing, then there is a possibility of your saying to yourself “What the hell am I doing? What am I doing? How am I different? Why am I listening to this?”

So, you are saying that every stone has its history too, every subatomic particle has its history too. But that is not what we usually mean with the word “history”. Okay, one can poetically say nature has its own “history”, but I say that nature has its development, living beings have their evolution, and merely human beings can, but don’t have to have history.

Human beings have to have development (cp. nature), have to have evolution (cp. living beings), but they do not have to have history, but they can have history.

No, I’m saying people subjectively make up stories by the linking up of certain past events to create their philosophy or life narrative. They do it so as to not lose identity as time goes on. They don’t allow for events to stand alone independent of any other events. And I agree it is not necessary.

Right. But they can do that merely with story, thus: without history.

History of the World implies substantial changes concerning the entire world; changes in maps, religions, governments, paradigms of thinking, methods of travel, communication,…

I think it is safe to say that there will definitely be an end to that.

What man knows, experiences and feels continuously gets passed down to future generations. There is some element in the purpose of humans – when it comes to the intellect – that insists that all aspects of thought be protected and maintained. For man it would be a frightening experience to lose what he knows. Yet in nature there is no model, no perfect system or method of living. The reward is that we live in harmony with nature. And if we do not harmonize, if we superimpose over nature what we think we ought to be evolving into by means of the fixations of the mind, we will be heading for disaster.

I define „history“ as a „cultural evolution“. All „archivable artifacts“ belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here „story“ means only „telling story“, „told story“, etc.) since they began to speak. So „story“ as a „oral tradition“ (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the „Eloi“ as an example for humans without history in the future, can’t we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

[size=90]The “house of development”:[/size]

_______________________| History |
______________| Evolution ____|
________| Development ______|

[size=90]History is merely the “roof” of the “house of development”.[/size]

So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that’s the question of this thread.

it’s not that history will end, that is the question, but that we become oblivious to it. There is always a story, somewhere, it’s just that it’s not ours. Artifacts, develpment, culture, always leave traces, the deepest ones are hidden, within a kernel of a seed, ready to germinate and develop. His-story is but a germ, of a world of possibiities. It has been tacitly inscripted within and through natural processes.

That we become oblivious to history, yes, but that means in consequence that history ends after a while because human beings have become oblivious to it. If human beings become oblivious to history, then there is no historical comprehension anymore; and if there is no historical comprehension, then there will be soon no history. “History” without historians and without people who are interested in history is no history anymore.

“Stories” have to be told in order to be stories. So only human beings can have stories. “Stories” of animals or plants are merely stories for us because we make and want them to have stories. All non-human-beings do not have any story, they only have information, and they communicate with each other in order to get information - not more.

Story is human - and only human.

That’s right, Obe. But to whom are they traces? Who interprets them to be traces? Non-human-beings know nothing about traces as traces, but as a kind of Information - certainly without historical information. Trcae is a word, a concept, a term, a definition only for us. Non-human-beings can not tell you what traces are because they have no human language. Non-human-beings have no story because they have no human language in order to tell a story like human beings do, and they also have no writing language in order to wirte and to archive artifacts historically like human beings have been doing for at least 6000 years.

One needs a human language in order to have stories, and one needs a human writing (script) language in order to have history. Great war - as an eaxmple for an historical existential - can merely defined as “great war”, if there is already history. If there is no history, there would be no great war; but even then, if it were possible, the event of a “great war” could not be identified as a great war and therefore would not be defined as a such. It depends on semantics, thus on language, especially on semantics of the writing language because the writing language is the pre-condition for history. And if there is no writing language, there will be no history. And also: If there is nobody left to understand what writing is and what history is, there will be no history - even then, if there are “artifacts”, because they are hence no artifacts anymore because nobody knows what artifacts are.

So, if that scenario will come true, human beings will merely be what they had been before they started with writing and - consequently - with history. They will not know what human beings are, although they will still be human beings, just like their ancestors who did not know what human beings are, although they were already human beings. The word “human being” with all its semantics is a creation by human beings with writing language and history.

Sure.

Could be, but I see how the Cold war led to a capitulation in Russia economically, as the Neo Cons got invited in, I htink through Yeltsin, and did untold damage in Russia, and despite the redution in threat towards the World from Russia, the Western Powers kept up a very tight first strike set aimed at Russia. I see Russia as now lashing back -note I am not saying Russia is Good, or whatever, merely that we are seeing that something that was seemingly settled was not settled. And this is not about Communism vs. Capitalism, per se, but anything vs. mcworld. I also see a lot of history in what is not war at all, Little or big.

If science means technology, especially widespread personal/family use Tech, then OK. this would then include media, which really should be on the list.

Right and I Think it does help to break things down and see if we then become aware of Changes we want to call historical ones.

I don’t Think it was a Western production since it actually upset most of the Power players in the West since it was unclear if their puppets were giong to stay in Power. For me it is the mode of interaction that makes it historical.

That they are not hooking in to it or that they do not have such a viewpoint. My Point was that they are not buying Fukuyama’s ideas of what the end of history is.

What are you not convinced of?

That would be my main assertion. I’d be agnostic about the future.

Eternal return of the same, re-edited.

Nevertheless: It can be a part of a western strategy.

Well, maybe the oligarchs, sure, but I don’t see them as particular patriotic to the West.

It is possible that the western strategy includes anti-western politics. :wink:

According to Ernst Nolte both science and technology are meant. Science (incl. technology) also includes media, but media is also included in the other historical existentials, especially in education. Living beings are media beings. So media is important for all living beings, not only for human beings, also not only for historical human beings. What you probably mean with the word „media“ is the „modern media“.

I suppose I see Changes in media since the fall of the wall, since 9/11, so I see no way to determine history has ended under the criterion Changes in media. And since the modern trend is a mergence of media and self, the change is enormous. Where i live the amount of people who are scared without their cellphones and laptops and generally walk, drive, eat, bike and socialize while looking down at screens small and large, we post-humans are here. Only they are not some ubermencsh of a cyborg or some other flesh/machine intermingling, but they are just as post human to my Eyes. And rather pathetic. This trend could lead to the end of history. I just don’t quite know what happens when nearly eveyrone is no longer quite present at any time. This might lead to very unstable domino like effects.

“Übermensch”, “cyborg”, “flesh/machine-intermingling”, “post-human” remind me to my other thread:

Will machines completely replace all human beings?
If a human will become post-human, cyborg, flesh/machine-intermingling, then that human will still be a human, although merely partly. And if that human will be the Übermensch, then probably a more or less laughable one we better call “Letzter Mensch” (“Last Man”). This “Last Man” will probably be exactly that human who will no more be able to notice his entire replacement by machines.

At least the demographic development is one of the most importanrt “historical existentials”.

If a culture does not have enough children to rejuvenate itself, then the history of this culture ends. And if this culture has alraedy become the culture of all human beings, then the history of all human beings ends. Yet we do not exactly know, whether we have many cultures (and if yes: how many?) or merely one.

Anyway, the demographic development is one of the most importanrt “historical existentials”. Therefore I underlined the word “demographics” in the following cited list.

So, you don’t even know how many cultures you have? :laughing:

Don’t worry, you have only one. Each culture produces a few books which survive and are transferred to the second culture. As we know Romans have made their own collection of the Greek books which they took to Rome, it was called “Classics”.

I too have made a collection of books which will be transferred to the new culture. You can keep the New testament in return, it’s for old people!

Thank you and BYE!

According to the German cultural philosopher Oswald A. G. Spengler we know 8 historical cultures, according to the English cultural philosopher Arnold J. Toynbee we know 19 historical cultures. I think Spenglers theory of 8 historical cultures is right. Currently we have 4 „dead“ historical cultures and 4 historical cultures which are still „alive“. Maybe there will come a new one (perhaps Russia, Spengler said), but we do not know, and we also do not know whether the one and only culture has really existed and whether the one and only culture will exist. Institutions like World Bank, IWF, United Nations, … and so on … do not mean one culture. The fact that only one culture - the Faustian culture (also called: Western culture) - was able to discover, conquer, capture the whole planet Earth and in addition other parts of the universe is also no proof for the existence of one culture. a so called „universal culture“.

An „universal culture“ is merely ideology, new-religion.

If there will be merely one culture of the human beings, then all historical cultures of the human beings will have to be eliminated. But today the 4 historical cultures of the human beings are still „alive“.