Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

According to Vollgraff, there is only one culture at the time. The still lasting is Anglosaxon. Before the Anglosaxon there was the Frankish, before that the Gothic, before the Gothic the Norman, then the Celtic, then the Latin … if the Frankish ended with Caesar in 1800 and the Gothic perhaps with Cesare Borgia, and the Norman with the conquests … I have the feeling that 2100 is Anglosaxon. It is almost 150 years after the ww2.

Vollgraff does not explicitly say Russians, but Nietzsche said “Russians will enter culture”, yet, I think I haven’t read more than 50% of Vollgraffs last Band. The answer may still come.

Spengler is a loser. Nietzsche must be a winner because he is fighting against the priestly ascetic idealism - the only cause why cultures are declining.

You western losers think decay is “inevitable”!

Capitalism as the thesis (cp. Hegel) and communism as the antithesis (cp. Hegel) are now integrated in the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). It is important to find the new antithesis (cp. Hegel) to the new thesis (cp. Hegel) which is set by the Globalism as the synthesis (cp. Hegel). What could that new antithesis (cp. Hegel) be?

If there will be no new antithesis (cp. Hegel), then that new thesis (cp. Hegel) will probably be the “eternal thesis” as the so called “universal culture / civilisation” of the “Last Men” and the end of history.

I would call it corporatism because I think this leaves open more possibilities for antithesis. Given that corporatism is also self destructive and resisted locally in a diverse set of ways, it may not need a total system as an antithesis.

You are really a weak brain! What you describe is nothing but the transition from oligarchy and tyranny into democracy, after 292 and 293 of the Wanderer and the shadow.

Maybe, but isn’t corporatism at least partly incorporated in their synthesis (cp. Hegel) too?

Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it’s identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called “free” enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It’s strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Heglelianism into it’s dynamic, without changin either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.

Incorporation is akin to inclusion into, versus a synthetic development. Inclusion implies enclosing an entity into a system, without changing it. In that way incorporation can retain it’s identity, whereas synthesis is a new, changed form the dynamic combination of an element and its appearently contradictory system. Incorporation is begotten from the idea of a stable coexistenz of elements each retaining their identity, synthesis changes elements in the process. This feature enables a philosophical bypass into the very ontology of the process Hegel talks about. It is on basis of projection, that Heglelian results can be predicted, but not so with so called “free” enterprise, where game theory is best suited.

That is not to say that one type of analysis is preferable to the other, and in that, incorporation is weaker in terms of conclusiveness. However, It’s strength does manifest, in the wait and see attitude of corrections of variables related to the approximations. It can incorporate elements of Heglelianism into it’s dynamic, without changing either elements. My conclusion is that depending on the success or failure of globalism, one or the other analytic will prevail.

That’s interesting.

And which one will prevail?

Communism and capitalism? I dont really think so. I think it is a kind of synthesis of capitalism and feudalism. Though I am not really Hegelian, so I don’t assume these kinds of steps.

Going along with the idea that it is more likely that technology will replace human labor to a large part, incorporation of antithetical systems will be superseded by technocratic methods. This will arise, because the failure of a synthetic Capitalistic(democratic)-socialist(communist) model to prevent a new social democracy to emerge, as a viable system. These methods will become incorporated within a system of apologia, wherein it will necessarily to veil the actual patent lack of resolution. Corporate fascism, probably of the machines, is likely, if “they” don’t watch out.

The feudalism doesn’t fit in the modern synthesis (cp. Hegel), but it could fit in a post-modern, the future synthesis (cp. Hegel), if there will be no “eternal thesis” as the so called “universal culture / civilisation” of the “Last Men” and the end of history. => #

There is a difference between the meaning of “corporation” in English and the meaning of “Korporation” in German. In the English language one can use the words “corporation” and “company” nearly synonymously. So, what do you exactly mean, when you speak about “corporation”? Do you mean the fascistic “corporation”?

Arminus, similarity can be found between medieval-capital and company-corporation, in that both capital and corporate are fairly newly arrived entities. Whether there is overlap in meaning between old and new derivations, do not take away the significance of the meaningful dynamic based on their function. German philosophy is geared toward meaning of words, and no wonder the Vienna circles of the positivists originated in Austria, a German speaking country. Nietzsche started his career with meaning theory.

The dynamic approach, of looking at systemic aspects of corporations, do not designate a specific entity,but look at incorporation as an ontological tool. Elements incorporated into a system, are not necessarily synthesized. The corporate way of thinking suggests, even in the political sphere, about, for instance, the incorporation of new states into the United States. In this sense, the individual states still regain their relative autonomy, at least in the formal, geopolitical sense. In Germany, the different states as Bavaria, Schwabia, and others, are not constituted in this manner. They are more federalized, slanting more toward the central authority geopolitically speaking. The homogeneity of their populations affords more unification. Fascism arises out of gross political misunderstanding of the dynamics and the identity of the elements in any culture. It happens when apparent unity is glosses over a thesis-antithesis disjunction. The result is a political dualism. In case social democracy, the word hides the disjunction caused by the ambiguity resulting from confusing democracy with capitalism, and socialism with communism. The dynamic is hidden, but the politics of it carries on in an incorporation of these ideas. The isms remain the same, the public is lead to believe they are living in a socially democratic state.
The modern corporate world is the literal unabashed dynamic, unhidden, since it is seen as an economic and not a political entity. However, the hidden political agenda of such entities reflects a difference, which has become reified as institutions are concerned in a recurring pattern of meaning.

That’s correct.

That’s correct too.

But nevertheless: it is also a political entity, and it is a grown and furthermore growing political entity.

Well, we are in the postmodern era, though it has many other eras within it vying for attention. I know a lot of people who relate to both Corporations and representatives in government as if they were lords. Even those who detest feudalism find that it is often the only way to get justice or survive. And this is Feudalism without the commons. Imagine that. It is going to be feudalism where every damn thing is owned by the local Baron.

The post-modern era is merely a late-modern era. The postmodern era will come later, maybe even in this centrury or later. Why am I saying this? I think that the postmodern era will be very much similar to the era after the end of history, perhaps it’s a prestage or even the same stage, and this era (postmodern and/or era after the end of history) will, if it really will come, be an “eternal era” of the “Last Men”.

That would also fit into that era. The late-modern era leads to the postmodern era, and in the late-modern era you can already notice the increasing of e.g. gang systems (cp. late-modern) which lead to feudal systems (postmodern).

Postmodernism has no Engine, not sure what would happen if everyone was a postmodernist, not that this will happen. I mean, modernists are in a minority. A hysterically powerful minority. Postmodernism is where the educated and consumers go to not accomplish anything in what seems to them like a profound way.

Sociopathism is the guiding pattern of those with power these Days.

That would also fit into that era.
[/quote]
It’s already that era, but most people haven’t noticed.

I don’t think that it is already that era, but we can already notice (and unfortunately many people don’t or can’t do it) many of the “messengers” of that postmodern era. Why am I saying that? The postmodern era will not be that what artists, art historians, performers, some philosophers and others have been saying for so long. It will be a little bit different, compared with the current era (late-modern era). The postmodern era will be more “entropic” than the current late-modern era.

Do you know which “messengers” I mean?

I don’t know what you mean by it.

I see the pure consumers around me a tacit postmodernists. They sure couldn’t articulate it, but there they go mixing high and low Culture, rarely thinking about morals unless someone Cuts them off in traffic.

The neo cons are postmodernist, though they use rhetoric from religion, modernism, whatever, to push for their goals.

Science technology industry - postmodern and rapidly terraforming and humanoforming.

In this text, you posted, you have already mentioned some of those “messengers” because you mentioned: “low culture”, “rarely thinking about morals”, “terraforming”, “humanforming”. In almost the same manner you could have said: “subculture”, “gangs”, “global destruction”, “human destruction”. In the future “crime” will be no crime anymore because it will be normality.