Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

[Arminius]

"We have no choice, we [they] are going to be cyborgs anyway."

"Cyborgs are just natural evolution."

Therefore it was my intention to connect this topic ("Thinking about the END OF HISTORY") with another topic ("Will machines completely replace all human beings?"). One of the reasons for that is my firm conviction that you will not win very much knowledge about the human future, if you aways separate questions of technique / technology , science, and economy from questions of philosophy, psychology, sociology, and history.

Perhaps it would have been better, if I had opened this threads in the subforum "Science, Technology, and Math" or in the subforum "Society, Government, and Economics", but probably it would have been not better, if I had done so.

"Cyborgs are just natural evolution."

Therefore this question (amongst others): Can cyborgs "have" history?

And I remind you again: Please don't confuse "history" with "evolution"!

Please don't confuse the „end of history“ with the „end of evolution“ - both are different. The „end of history“ doesn't also not mean the „end of human beings“, at least not necessarily. It can be, but it does not have to be that „history“, „human evolution“, and even „evolution“ simultaneously end.

Evolution is more than history. History is merely a little part of evolution. Evolution is merely a part of cosmic devolopment.

Here in this thread we are primarily talking about history!

"We [they] will eventually replace our entire bodies with non-organic substances."

"We must compete with evolving computers."

Or eventually fight them?

"It just makes you [them] more powerful."

You or them?

[James S Saint]

Can cyborgs "have" history?

I don't see how they can avoid it.
"The time when we won voting rights."
"The time when we finally took New York"
"The time when we united our European allies."
.
.
"The rise of the religious cyborgs."
"The defeat of the religious cyborgs."
"The return of the religious cyborgs."
.
.
.
"The first day of world peace among the cyborgs."
"The establishment of the Cyborg New World Order."
"The choice to pursue agenda A, world wide."
"The second paradigm proclamation, world wide."
"The third...."

"We must compete with evolving computers."[/i]

Or eventually fight them?

They are saying that you are already fighting them because they are advancing faster than you and thus you will be replaced.

"It just makes you [them] more powerful."

You or them?

They have taken You out of the future.
The future is only about them in their eyes, not you.
They are not trying to help you survive. They are trying to get you replaced.
Thus "WE" are not evolving at all, merely being replaced. - and because of them replacing us.

[The Golden Turd]

Arminius, is the whole goal of all your posts is to advocate the Borg as the Overman?

Your emphasis on technology and questioning the psyche......

Fine, we will leave a server on second life on for you guys to hang out on, I dont know if philosophy house is still going there. It went to shit and everyone led to Thothica. Virtual worlds get boring fast.

[Arminius]

Arminius, is the whole goal of all your posts is to advocate the Borg as the Overman?

No. I don't advocate, but I try to find out, what can or will be done in order to prevent such developments. But before I can find it out, I have to know or - unfortunately (!) - to accept the facts.

My actual goal is: No "Borg"!

I defend freedom and fight slavery, as the Cheruscan Arminius did in ancient times.

Becoming machines does not mean freedom, but slavery.

Your emphasis on technology and questioning the psyche......

1) My emphasis on technology is because of the fact that nearly all people don't care that technology changes them. They are almost like the Eloi or the "Last Men". That's dangerous and terrible! Technology should never be underestimatied. If you know that - for example - Nietzsche did not mention any single word about technology a.s.o., then you may probably also know how much important it is to advocate technology in that sense I mentioned.

2) Psyche as defined in modern times is - unfortunately - dangerous and terrible too. In the German languuage there is - still (!) - a difference (possible) between "Psyche" and "Geist " ("mind", "conscience", "consciousness", "awareness", "knowledge", "esprit", "spirit", "génie", "intelligence", "intellect, "apprehension", "brain", "sense", a.s.o.), but in the English language and all other languages that difference is no longer possible (in former times it was!). What does that mean? I think, the danger is, that, if there is no difference between them, it is very much easier to enslave people.

If the psyche gets under control, then you have to have another mechanism in order to defend your freedom. Currently the psyche becomes a controlled instance, which it has never been before. So there is no instance left for freedom. If you have another and even a very much more powerful instance of freedom, you have another and even a very much more powerful chance to defend your freedom. Geist is this other instance of freedom, and it's very much more powerful than psyche. But if you have no word for this instance of freedom, then it is only a question of time when you will get totally under control. If there is no instance of freedom in language and in thinking, there soon will be no freedom at all.

Most people really don't want freedom, but idols, ideology / religion, thus slavery (which they always confuse with "freedom"). For example idiots like Cezar and his buddies belong to those people. If you know that Cezar and his buddies make Nietzsche the more unalluring the more they call themselves "Nietzscheans" and believe in him as their "God", then you may probably also know that Nietzsche didn't need such people as much as they need Nietzsche and misuse his words, e.g. for their envy and resentment, for their racism and sexism, and so on.

[Historyboy]

Ar-minus - where life is declining.

Haven't Nietzsches strongest men been proud of the power which humanity has accumulated so far? And is slavery not a condition for every higher culture and species? And isn't the Minus fighting Nietzsche and everything he wanted?

[The Golden Turd]

Arminius, this counter movement already began during Nietzsche's lifetime, by Samuel Butler, with his theory of systemic mechanical evolution that predicted aspects of Jan Smuts Holistic Philosophy.

He wrote a book called Erewhon.

A American author named Frank Herbert wrote Dune, which made a anti-technology war that ended the easy enslavement of man by machines, the war was called The Butlarian Jihad.

Humanity had already lived at a fairly primitive tech level for 10,000 years at the beginning of the story, and the book series is based off Nietzsche's ideas.... however, Frank tried to upend the Nietzschean assumptions by reversing the success of a Nietzschean concept upside down on its assumptions, Man bred the Overman, and the Overman wasnt interested in ghe horrors of the Nietzschean agenda, which he could see lead to universal extinction.

Dune is essentially the overman in struggle against its protagonist nietzschean forebearers.

I recommend just dropping the Nietzscheans like a sack of shit and comming over to our side. The ones on this forum are like, well... Cezar, ot Taz/BubbaGoddessWilderness, a Australian cartoonist and Amateur engineer who castrated himself, or Sauwelios, a dutch nietzschean who is into the golden dawn hermetic movement and neo nazis spiritualism, or Satyr/Lyssa, who is a Nietzschean with some serious Masculinity issues revolving around Jungian Phallic inflation-deflation issues...... the rest here are just potheads, and every once in a while one will have a bad trip and off themselves.

That is Nietzsche. Its all he IS, not a quotable ought, but the IS that is apparent and provably shown.

The most pathetic people I know in philosophy are Nietzschean. They are all sad, pathetic little creatures.

In Cezar's defence, he did reject Sauwelios White Arian nation crap, sighting emphasis on skin color is retarded.... which I am inclined to agree. But I have rarely been impressed with anything this rotten idiotic sect has to say.

If your looking for long term human self sufficiency, then look for a Cynic offshoot school. I wouldnt recommend pure Cynicism in your case.

Im really not fearful of cybernetic implants or virtual worlds.... I doubt most would care to live in a virtual world for long, and implants, depends case by case. I think Maia the blind girl on this forum would like Teilaxu Eye Implants, or someone in a car crash a new spine. I cant reject the benifits of such things.

But I think people can do more to improve themselves first. If I didnt have a bad knee than ruined my life in one part, I never would of become a philosopher, I never would of hiked a mountain range, never would of discovered what a good debater I was. Id probably be sitting designing weapons in Virginia for the Army, married to a outlook that wasnt sitting easy in my stomach.

[James S Saint]

There is a place for technology and even cyborgs and money. But in the hands of God-wannabes, isn't it.



"We WILL be gods, period!"

[Arminius]

.
Transhumanism ....

James, what do you think about that?

Refering to: "Will machines completely replace all human beings?".

[James S Saint]

And then you have the 1927 version of this story as shown in the film Metropolis with an English radio program dubbed over the original silent movie.

Metropolis is a 1927 German expressionist epic science-fiction film directed by Fritz Lang. The film was written by Lang and his wife Thea von Harbou, and starred Brigitte Helm, Gustav Fröhlich, Alfred Abel and Rudolf Klein-Rogge. A silent film, it was produced in the Babelsberg Studios by UFA.

Metropolis is regarded as a pioneer work of science fiction movies, being the first feature length movie of the genre.[2]

Made in Germany during the Weimar Period, Metropolis is set in a futuristic urban dystopia, and follows the attempts of Freder, the wealthy son of the city's ruler, and Maria, whose background is not fully explained in the film, to overcome the vast gulf separating the classes of their city. Metropolis was filmed in 1925, at a cost of approximately five million Reichsmarks.[3] Thus, it was the most expensive film ever released up to that point.[4]

The film was met with a mixed response upon its initial release, with many critics praising its technical achievements and social metaphors while others derided its "simplistic and naïve" presentation. Because of its long running-time and the inclusion of footage which censors found questionable, Metropolis was cut substantially after its German premiere: large portions of the film were lost over the subsequent decades.

Numerous attempts have been made to restore the film since the 1970s-80s. Giorgio Moroder, a music producer, released a version with a soundtrack by rock artists such as Freddie Mercury, Loverboy and Adam Ant in 1984. A new reconstruction of Metropolis was shown at the Berlin Film Festival in 2001, and the film was inscribed on UNESCO's Memory of the World Register in the same year, the first film thus distinguished.[5] In 2008, a damaged print of Lang’s original cut of the film was found in a museum in Argentina. After a long restoration process, the film was 95% restored and shown on large screens in Berlin and Frankfurt simultaneously on 12 February 2010.

You have to be reasonably good at social metaphor in order to understand the film and remix score in their use of Maschinenmensch (the Iron Maiden in the film). And of course all such films had to have a happy ending.

[cassie]

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history.

[Arminius]

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history.

"Memetic"! "Meme"! .... Are you a Dawkinsian or even a Dawkinsist?

"Capitalism" and its antagonist "communism" have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the "globalism" - they have been lifted, not eliminated.

[The Golden Turd]

So.... Cassie has no voice, as hyperbole diction isnt a substitute for experienced history. She might have one if she breaks down the seeming abstract simplicity of her linguistic equations into parts that match a recognizable reality.

I admit, it takes alot of focus and delicate concentration to pull off such a complex idea, but such concentration of thought linguistically preceeds casualty in the mind, and it merely references out in shorthand even poorer abstractions that refer to even less in the world.

In other words, your equation is insufficient, and therefor incomplete. Inflate it, analyse memories that are more personal and relevant and expand on it, work them out into a larger casual synthesis that can be seen with apparent ease by others, at least in parts, and present it in a way that can be accepted or refuted.

No one can accept or reject what you wrote in a meaningful manner. It only has meaning to you. I recommend if your up to it, being a smart ass and be condescending, calling me a moron and dragging the explanation out using baby words. And then KEEP doing that with everyone, till you normalize.

If necessary, I can give you a cognitive map on where your method went wrong. Its a bad habit, but is natural when you overcompensate. Knowing linguistically doesnt translate to expressing meaningfully.

[Orbie]

Or ideology may morph into phenology,(sorry, my term), when absent the center, new habitats will be found, where new organizational, political structures will afford the probable/possibility, of electing emigration to worlds within different stages of development. Scientism, may be sustained in various forms of development, too, where different functional stages of may be assigned to automata or even absolute control allowed in other places. The folks left behind, on a devastated and,or debased and used up earth , may be left to their own devices, advanced portions of society abandoning them to a pre historical primitivism, starting a new cycle of evolution. They would leave in their wake subtle reminders of an ideal world, of what is achievable, knowing what they do. The last stage would be a total memetic conversion to a new genetic war starting from scratch. This again may become a new return, an eternal return, with a reaffirmation of biblical warnings about violating the tree of knowledge. The end of history may reconvey another new cycle of writing, of apparently a-priori sources of repeated historical treatises. It is not the end of history then, but the recapturing in time, of abandonment. The greatest discovery of the Gods, is, then, that all Being, compassion, is geared toward the idea of the tacit knowledge, of an abandonment by necessity. Those left behind, are but the children, of the gods.

[Observer]

Promises, promises....

.

In other words, your equation is insufficient, and therefor incomplete. Inflate it, analyse memories that are more personal and relevant and expand on it, work them out into a larger casual synthesis that can be seen with apparent ease by others, at least in parts, and present it in a way that can be accepted or refuted.

No one can accept or reject what you wrote in a meaningful manner. It only has meaning to you. I recommend if your up to it, being a smart ass and be condescending, calling me a moron and dragging the explanation out using baby words. And then KEEP doing that with everyone, till you normalize.

You sound bruised....as if you came out of the prison showers limping and with blood streaming down your leg.

.If necessary, I can give you a cognitive map on where your method went wrong. Its a bad habit, but is natural when you overcompensate. Knowing linguistically doesnt translate to expressing meaningfully.

I hope it goes beyond Nietzsche.
Your world view appears to be contained by this iconic figure...as your moniker indicates.
I also hope it takes Judaism to mean something other than a genetic identity.
See Schlomo.
At least I hope Cassie understands it in the way.

If not, I'll consider it another statement with no substance....ILP style.

Time is short. Make the victory quick.

[cassie]

So.... Cassie has no voice, as hyperbole diction isnt a substitute for experienced history. She might have one if she breaks down the seeming abstract simplicity of her linguistic equations into parts that match a recognizable reality.

I admit, it takes alot of focus and delicate concentration to pull off such a complex idea, but such concentration of thought linguistically preceeds casualty in the mind, and it merely references out in shorthand even poorer abstractions that refer to even less in the world.

Who are you? What casualty are you talking about?
Should I refer you to some popular hollywood films that present the same thing I have said more artistically?

If I were to categorize you just by this post alone, I would put you under paranoid disorder. The good samaritan also suffers from the neurosis of seeing enemies everywhere, a gradiose sense of self-purpose that only leaves him clinically defensive and abstracting everything in his way to make it less threatening for him to deal with his reality.

Your accusation that my perception is insufficient is another way of masking, that you do not have any direct objections to what i say, or alternative take on history that competes with mine.
Before you can give me a cognitive map - PLEASE DO, I insist, I also suggest you outgrow your cowardice and smell the coffee; confront reality for what it is. Your very user name tells me you and the herd ideal dovetail quite well together.

[cassie]

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history.

"Memetic"! "Meme"! .... Are you a Dawkinsian or even a Dawkinsist?

Pardon me for my Dawkinsism, or Dawkinsonic take on the world. ; )

"Capitalism" and its antagonist "communism" have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the "globalism" - they have been lifted, not eliminated.

Yea, its what I said too.

[Observer]

Secular Humanism produced multiple branches.

In the west...
The memetic continuance
Zoroastrianism...Judaism...Christianity...Islam...Secular Humanism...Marxism...Socialism....Liberalism...Transhumanism...etc.

Just as Republicans and Democrats participate in the same paradigm, taking on opposite poles, as in 1/0 which are in agreement about the shared underlying context, so too this Capitalism vs Communism been an internal, memetic, conflict, once the real antithesis was dealt with.

[The Golden Turd]

Alright, lets back this damn boat back up prior to the impact of the mechanical revolutions' impact on philosophy, and awkward German words were assumed to have a role in what could be meaningful discussions.

The Jewish concept of the Golem..... its predicated psychologically on a concept of cartesian dualism..... a artificial, purpose built intelligent creature..... a servant, powered by a seal impression of the word of god, and it would sometimes go amok.

You have connotes of a competion of different aspects of the classical soul..... that arising from the form of parts (the body is the soul, in a strict christian monism, the BODY rises from the dead, not a abstract spirit) in competition against the spark of creation..... the name of god, driving a engine that God didnt give intention to be given life, a much less than perfect creature, echoing gnostic outlooks of rebellion in a less than perfect creation. This is the left hemisphere ghost in the mental symmetry of the brain to right hemisphere cartesian dualism of body and mind issues in terms of connectivity.

The right hemisphere balances this cartesian divide in technical thought.... you can explore and expand on technology, it can make up for a lack of perceived strengths in your divided sense of self.

The Golem is just that..... a technology meant for good, that makes up for weakenesses..... but its less than conscious counterpart in the left hemisphere is increasingly out of control.... due it its magnification of conflict inherent in the cartesian emotional deficit. When the Golem grows in time, it fails in free will. It becomes erratic and violent...... dismay and regret is displayed in its creator, who realizes he created a new kind of substitute idol..... not one to be worshiped, but one that was expected to conform before his expectations.

The word of god has to be removed. Its placed awkwardly inside, you gotta reach in and yank it. The terrifying risk.

Its a lateralizing morality tale, it hits on our emotional responses to various concepts of self and other, the role of the individual in society, our individual motivations and short commings, and foul prescriptions in short sighted overcomming. Every apparatus in the right hemisphere inherent in cartesial dualism, has symmetrical counterpart in the left.

The story ends as a complex yet complete warning. Dont let Golems run amok, however good your intentions. I dont know of a modern philosopher who can match the mental balance and finesse inherent in the golem stories..... THEY ARE BETTER CONSTRUCTED than the crap we now put out and label philosophy or morality tales. I suspect its a influence of kabbalah on the rabbi writing them, there was a conscious effort to expand yet dialectical ly balance the lines of thought against its hemispheric other.

We can move from the Golem to Pinocchio. Why does Pinocchio get a happy ending?

For precisely the reasons the Golem must fail..... the Golem was a imperfect servant, Pinocchio was deeply loved and cared for. He wasnt neglected, left to his own devices. He was encouraged to grow. He was given the beginnings of ambitions to wish, hope, love, aspire and inspire. When confronted with the harshness of reality of a parasitic world, he had the aid of a foreign voice, a conscious, a little cricket, to guide him.

In the end, he became a beloved real boy, unlike the lump of clay in the streets of prague, with a crying Rabbi sitting next to it, clutching a seal of God he just ripped out from the inside of a menacing Golem gone wrong, wondering where he went wrong.

Makes you.wanna google the middle gyrus and the dorsal laterals now, doesnt it.

Its quite easy to get lost and confused in the much of late 19th century and 20th century philosophy, it wasnt the best era for philosophers, they mostly got confused and had no real way to ascertain and confirm what they were saying, hence why its all dribble.

[The Golden Turd]

Cassie, continue.... its good therapy.... just make your expressions meaningful, tangent by tangent. Im okay with being the bad guy so long as it helps.

If the lines of a painting are so close together the picture looks solid black, then no one is going to see what the artist sees. The artist has concentration and focus in detail, but not a sense of causality.... others have to see the hidden parts between the lines. Give it space, give it depth.

Sentences full of hyper-compounded words, if lacking a sense of depth and width, a beginning and end, reference points related to greater life.... it looks all black..... meaningless and obstinate and obsfucated..... a rather pointless exercise of a elitist mindset that is eerily solipsist in feedback.

A good start in causality is looking past it, in the sense of self of the target audience, and your theory of mind of them in how they will react and process information. How you construct your linguistic formulations should match how they bifurcate facts and syllogisms to greater cognitive strengths they possess.

So you start off expressing ideas, that are NOT compounded and loaded with great meaning, into a semblance of logical sequences they can sort. You cant just toss the logical complex that is immediately apparent to you in your cognitive shorthand and expect them to grasp it.

Plotinus tackled aspects of thus phenomena of discursive thought a multicolored complexity.

Our issue is, most people cant think that fast, much less unpackage someone else's complex thought unless its laiden with cognitive markers that make casual sense to a empirical, fact driven, much slower mind.

Ive found its best to involve emotions..... old fashion casual diction, such as comedy to supplement the unraveling process, using Aristotle or Henri Bergson's Comedic formulas.... they are based on the linguistic transforming into the casual, and why some equations are funny, and some are not. However, for some types, its necessary to be a intolerable tyrant or enfeeble moron and let them seemingly dominate me..... so long as the unfolding process occurs.

Expression is a unfurling flower, seeking to be perceived by the bee. The structure of the whole seeks to grasp any aspect of the bee in part. Thats when it becomes causality. Simple logistical norms dominate from then on, getting the pollen to the next flower. If you study flowers, and pollination, then you know how to move a complex thought from your mind to another. There is a natural way discourse moves through each mind..... peaceful ones need chaos, choatic ones, peace. The monks in each picture of the buddha's wheel grasp this.... they give honey water to the inhabitants of hell, and play music to those in heaven..... its about the simplist path to consistently capture other people's attention. Saying it bluntly, in a highly compacted form next to never works.

[Observer]

So, for you Golem is the representative idea of Judaism...and christianity is not an outcrop of Judaism, mixed with parts of Hellenism?

The splintering of Judaism into, I think Straus put it this way, Religious Zionism (represented by the Orthodox Jew, still true to his chosen identifier), the Cultural Zionist (seeking to carry through with this decisiveness of being chosen but not in a final Armageddon, but in seclusion, in a nation State, contradicting the Wandering Jew identifier of world's outsider. Here the meme seeks to become genetic), and the Cultural Zionist (the memetic form, wanting to eradicate all genetic and cultural distinctions so as to disappear within the multitudes).

Capitalism reduced man to a product, producer...and so does Marxism.
Jew as Banker.
Freud shames the Goyim, with expositions on his sexuality, leaving death on the side.
And what of Derrida?

You seem more interested in deciding what metaphors are more relevant than not.

The position is psychological.
A relationship between man and nature, his own and the cosmos.

It doesn't matter what name you put on the attitude, what people become its representative group, it's the attitude that contrasts with the pagan, Hellenic one.

[Orbie]

In reference to Goyim and the Superman, and those stuck in this divisive discourse, the simple fact is, that some One or ones have always to be chosen.

Why? Because that is the way the bicameral mind works(ed), prior to it's breakdown. Now what follows? The deluge? But god promised, and has set the boundaries, in the most powerful foregone conclusion possible, and that is why Nietzsche has yet to be successfully debunked. There need be gatekeepers, respecting those types of boundaries. Its a question of an inner sanctum which transcends, ahem, the will to power to will. We will be constrained, as we are ,now, increasingly, to break out, or, to understand the constraints upon our boundaries.

[Arminius]

I recommend just dropping the Nietzscheans like a sack of shit and comming over to our side.

And what do you exactly mean in that text and context by saying "our side"?

If it is the opposite side of that pan-psychotic side (including the slavic / slavish idiot from Bosnia where life is rapidly declining!), then I don't have to come over to your side because it has been my side since my first post in this forum, as you probably know.

[Arminius]

Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

My questions:

1.) Is the „end of history“ merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea will never be realised?
2.) Is the „end of history“ not merely an idea of an idealistic philosopher, so that this idea has or will have been realised?
      2.1) Has the „end of history“ been realised since the last third of the 18th century, when the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) ended?
      2.2) Has the „end of history“ been realised since 1989/'90, when the „Cold War“ ended?
      2.3) Will the „end of history“ have been realised in the end of the 21st, in the 22nd, or in the 23nd century?

What do you think?

The cold war never ended; it simply morphed from a genetic plane to a memetic warfare and in that sense, it was the end of a history. Although the players change, the ideals haven't. You are either a mindless hedonist seeking identity via what you consume, or you find your identity in an allegiance to a one mind humanity. The meme war between capitalism and communism never really ended. In the former case, what is paraded as individuality is really a hyper-narcissism, and in the latter case, secular humanism masquerades as individuality. Either way, both are nihilistic ideals that can be traced back to platonic-hebraic values, and so really a continuation of the same history.

Nihilism repeats. When a culture becomes old ("modern", "civilis[at]ed"), it becomes nihilistic.

"Capitalism" and its antagonist "communism" have not been eliminated because they have become parts of the "globalism" - they have been lifted, not eliminated.

Yea, its what I said too.

Globalism as the "One World", the "One Nation", is probably the last stage before the "World of the Last Men" / the "World of the Morlocks and the Eloi" will begin. And the "World of the Last Men" will probably lead to the "World of No Men, but only Machines" (=> #).

[Historyboy]

The Last man is only possible if there is no Wladimir Wladimirowitsch, from Vladati = to rule.

[cassie]

Cassie, continue.... its good therapy.... just make your expressions meaningful, tangent by tangent. Im okay with being the bad guy so long as it helps.

If the lines of a painting are so close together the picture looks solid black, then no one is going to see what the artist sees. The artist has concentration and focus in detail, but not a sense of causality.... others have to see the hidden parts between the lines. Give it space, give it depth.

Sentences full of hyper-compounded words, if lacking a sense of depth and width, a beginning and end, reference points related to greater life.... it looks all black..... meaningless and obstinate and obsfucated..... a rather pointless exercise of a elitist mindset that is eerily solipsist in feedback.

The black hole has such power. What do you make of Malevich's black square and his surprematism?

A good start in causality is looking past it, in the sense of self of the target audience, and your theory of mind of them in how they will react and process information.

I write to express my own self and to the like-minded who find resonance in it, not necessarily to communicate to all. You see lack of verbiosity as a poor development, I see it as highly sophisticated.

Our issue is, most people cant think that fast, much less unpackage someone else's complex thought unless its laiden with cognitive markers that make casual sense to a empirical, fact driven, much slower mind.

Gestures and tones and the physiology of communication communicates faster than you can imagine and also grasped if the other's intuition is well-developed. Condensation is an intactness and clarity, and the symbolic order says more to our subliminal conscious than expanded words. It is where and how I want to reach out.

Expression is a unfurling flower, seeking to be perceived by the bee. The structure of the whole seeks to grasp any aspect of the bee in part. Thats when it becomes causality. Simple logistical norms dominate from then on, getting the pollen to the next flower. If you study flowers, and pollination, then you know how to move a complex thought from your mind to another. There is a natural way discourse moves through each mind..... peaceful ones need chaos, choatic ones, peace. The monks in each picture of the buddha's wheel grasp this.... they give honey water to the inhabitants of hell, and play music to those in heaven..... its about the simplist path to consistently capture other people's attention. Saying it bluntly, in a highly compacted form next to never works.

hmm. That's nice, and well-put, but as a zen master would say, to speak in three short strokes like a sword or not at all.
I get to the heart of the matter; it is what counts.

Since you are contra-nietzsche, and just love the man, for you - to assist you in your self-own diagnosis -
"A distinguished intellect and taste, when it wants to communicate its thoughts, always selects its hearers; by selecting them, it at the same time closes its barriers against "the others". It is there that all the more refined laws of style have their origin: they at the same time keep off, they create distance, they prevent "access" (intelligibility, as we have said,) while they open the ears of those who are acoustically related to them. And to say it between ourselves and with reference to my own case, I do not desire that either my ignorance, or the vivacity of my temperament, should prevent me being understood by you, my friends: I certainly do not desire that my vivacity should have that effect, however much it may impel me to arrive quickly at an object, in order to arrive at it at all. For I think it is best to do with profound problems as with a cold bath - quickly in, quickly out. That one does not thereby get into the depths, that one does not get deep enough down is a superstition of the hydrophobic, the enemies of cold water; they speak without experience. Oh! The great cold makes one quick!" (nietzsche)