Re: Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

James S Saint wrote:I think that I have actually learned something from this thread.
Really?
Philosophical Discussion Forums
http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/
James S Saint wrote:I think that I have actually learned something from this thread.
James S Saint wrote:obe wrote:Yes, i agree, but the end of history is hypothetical, a far as a precise measurement is concerned, whereas it is unknown, when this will take place. Until this can mor e successfully predicted, basic intuition works on a general framework. The specifics unfold within an unfolding of events, not necessarily sequential , nor within a perceivable model of predictability. Not the least of which the confusion caused by resistive efforts to devise a continuing fictional history by adding virtual, pseudo revisions of historical fill-ins. It is even now difficult to separate fact from fiction and drama instantly created by the addition of ad hoc mythology.
I wasn't referring to a precise prediction of the timing of anything. I was referring to a more precise means to measure "too much" from "too little" of each of the needs of Man.
And fundamentally, that would mean precisely measuring every individuals effort to;
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony.
If you want to improve on something, first learn to measure it.
By what means could you measure that particular harmony?
How could you measure the degree of clarity concerning your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of verification of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of instillment of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
How could you measure the degree of reinforcement of your Perception of Hopes and Threats?
..all relative to your individual anentropic harmony.
obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,
not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.
Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.
The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.
Arminius wrote:obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,
not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.
Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.
The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.
Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“, Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?
Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?
But "the right to the enjoyment of happiness" does not belong to an "instincitive knowledge". You know what I mean?
obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,
not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.
Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.
The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.
obe wrote:Arminius wrote:obe wrote:I would guess, or even, think, the government may be constrained. Intelligence is dangerous,but it is,
necessarily,
not just a thrown away commodity. The fallout of effected confusion is perhaps necessary to keep those, who would do us harm, at bay. James, the red scare had some truth to it, and the only way people would believe it was, to embellish it. I would be willing to bet, the government did not anticipate the snowball, of that runaway train. The ontological meltdown started on a collision course of ideological in-distinction: the public could not discern the difference between 3 models of socialism, up until the ending days of ww2, the fascistic democratic socialism, the communist socialist communal paradise, and the capitalistic correlate of human rights. At this point the lack of awareness was not due to suppression of information, but, to lack of wide spread incentive to go ahead to search for the dynamics below the platitudes.
Granted, the landscape has irredeemably changed since then, but the dynamics remain pretty much the same. There are no more either/or prospects as to guidelines how publicly delineate such arguments, since forward revision of policy can only be unraveled, with an anti logic of attempting differentiation of variable elements, which have morphed, and can not be prone to any viable analysis. The exclusion of morphed terms is not even within the realm of possibility of the most acute intelligence.
The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as 'each to his need', or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness. These are 18th century concepts, awash with contingent hypothesis, such as with Spengler, and Adam Smith. Politics, like law, could only keep abreast of political landscapes, by augmentation, and not by direct involvement. The government has been run on the fumes of dissipating and politically biased opinion.
Again: Do you believe in „instinctive knowledge“, Obe? What do you exactly mean with „an intuitively grounded intelligence“, especially in your sentence: „The above argument may be one out of many, as a form of justification for an intuitively grounded intelligence, which at the present time may be hard pressed to evaluate such concepts of human need, as »each to his need«, or, the right to the enjoyment of happiness“?
Relating to „instinctive knowledge“: What about food? What about basic goods? What about time preference which actually and exactly means preference of the present time?
But "the right to the enjoyment of happiness" does not belong to an "instincitive knowledge". You know what I mean?
As products of common sense, which was adopted early as a constitutional configuration, of Adam Smith, later legitimized by a positivist language adaptation to such ideas, (Wittgenstein et. al),the productive sense has developed into corrosive and corrupted system of internalized fear- such as not being able to keep up with the Joneses. Such fear is generated by instinctual and not quantifiable fear, on the part of the consumer, but deliberately fostered by the producer.
This resulted in product development based on misinformation and misidentification, the central intelligence has to do with real dynamics, whereas disseminated information senses of guessing as to basic value questions of identity-what model (of a car, for instance) will best describe who a person is? The only way to protect the consumer, is to blur or misidentify pre existing values. Fear drives misidentification, as protection against intrusive attempts , to save face in the social battlefield. This fear is intuitive , based on the common sense approach to interaction. The models have been converted from traditionally real into virtually unreal evaluations. The price we pay.
Historyboy wrote:"Intelligence" is dangerous only if you are a stupid cow spending most of your time on getting food and not observing those who are hungry to rule.
Historyboy wrote:"Intelligence" is dangerous only if you are a stupid cow spending most of your time on getting food and not observing those who are hungry to rule.
HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.
Moreno wrote:HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.
Only_Humean wrote:Moreno wrote:HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.
And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?
Probably to some extent. LIke all the military dictator types, probably consciouslyl and unconsciouly modeled superior officers and other alpha males.Only_Humean wrote:Moreno wrote:HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.
And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?
Only_Humean wrote:Moreno wrote:HOw's that working for you? What practical consequences has this led to that separate you out from those cows? Or if it is 'not yet' then when do you see the practical benefits of this kicking in? At what age will you be?Historyboy wrote:Im observing how to rule.
And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?
And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?
Arcturus Descending wrote:
More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don't really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.
As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:
1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity
unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.
Arcturus Descending wrote:HistoryboyAs Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:
1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity
unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.
Wouldn't you put self-awareness and consciousness of self first?
Knowledge of what? What you will do with that power? What your intention is in attaining it?
And since the post- Nietzschians tend to accept mainstream science and rule out other methodologies, it gets very hard for them to distinguish some types of stupidity from wisdom. They do hate the reasonists, sometimes for good reasons (lol), but there they are, calling for something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.Historyboy wrote:And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is "studying how to rule" what rulers do?Arcturus Descending wrote:
More to the point, it might be a case of WHO those wishing to rule study? A fair benign ruler would study a great humane ruler from the past - a ruler who wanted to rule only for power and greed would study - who? Ghengis Khan, Hannibal? I don't really know the kind of rulers they were. Charlemagne might be someone to study. Alexander the Great perhaps if one wanted to be a despot.
As Nietzsche's Zarathustra said, "the knowledge will bring you to power"(Herrschaft), of course, there is an order of rank in intelligence:
1. Wisdom
2. Reason
3. Slyness
4. Stupidity
unfortunately the modern Europeans are too reasonable.
Moreno wrote:And since the post- Nietzschians tend to accept mainstream science and rule out other methodologies, it gets very hard for them to distinguish some types of stupidity from wisdom. They do hate the reasonists, sometimes for good reasons (lol), but there they are, calling for something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.
Moreno wrote:something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.
Yes, I call the former science groupies.fuse wrote:Moreno wrote:something transcending reason, without any clear criteria, and then looking down on others who have different epistemological methodologies than scientific empiricism.I'm not sure which parts seem counter to scientific methodology. If Wisdom is something beyond reason, then it incorporates processes that are definitely beyond scientific methodology. Which I think wisdom does. So do a lot of stupid methodologies. The N-ians look down on most people who have methodologies outside the scientific, while at the same time reserving for themselves Wisdom, which is also outside, but in some, not clearly defined correct way of being outside.This seems counter to scientific methodology I'm aware of on all three accounts.This is why I always separate people who support & agree with science in some vague way with what the scientific method actually is.
distinguishing between stupidity and reason