Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

It seems to me that everyone during that era was thinking along the same lines, or at least what is shown of the history indicates that they were. The end of God and the world was being promoted so as to inspire a reason for the new empire, the “New World Odor”. All of Europe was apparently caught up in it. They dragged America into it eventually so as to spring the trap. All just a game. Isaac Asimov’s The Foundation relates much of the story.

It seems that Hegal, being a social historian, saw specific trends that societies go through. And from those trends, he could predict the future state of society in the same way as any scientist might. And then Marx came along as said, “Well, since we KNOW what the future state is going to be, we can speed it up merely by inspiring the flow that Hegal predicted.”

Of course, there is a serious problem with that.

Hegal had merely noted the historical trend, void of any concept of future significant changes in thought or behavior, such as technology and the Internet. So his prediction was based on the ASSUMPTION that people were just going to be as they had always been. But then Marx comes along and makes the same assumption but adds something new to the game. Marx, by intentionally inspiring the prediction, forces it into reality regardless of what was really going to happen. We typically call it “Fatalism” or “Self-fulfilling prophecy”.

So what is happening is that all new hope gets undermined by a strong ongoing influence based upon old assumptions. It doesn’t matter if anyone figures out a brand new way that solves all of the problems because the mechanism has been put into place to ensure that things go as predicted, regardless of anything that gets in the way. And a part of the mechanism is certain people getting extremely rich, so they aren’t even about to change their plans - “No miracles allowed”.

One can cynically say that the „Enlightenment“ („Aufklärung“) was a „process of murder“ ( :wink: :slight_smile: [-o< :-k ) because this process disenchanted the „Western World“, and when the „Western World“ was finally disenchanted, which means that finally in the „Western world“ „God was dead“, the next process started: „Bringing the Dead God to the Rest of the World“.

We have to wait on the re-enchantment. But maybe this re-enchantment will never come, but merely the last human age: the age without history - an as boring as cruel „age“, which is again like the „age“ of the nomadic humans, homonids, and prehominids.

Some or many „modern“ people have been appreciating this „age“. What do you think about that?

I think the end of history is an individual thing right now. More and more people behave as though we are living after the end of history, and thus they make themselves unimportant in history. I don’t think the number will ever reach 100%- history will continue for those who have power, but we are essentially living in a post-historical culture already.

That is at least the first impression. But people are overestimated when it comes to power. Not the people, but their rulers (with their „social-engineers“) are those who made, make, and will make people unimportant in history (and b.t.w.: probably in evoilution too). The impression is often that people themselves cause their behaviour, but often the behaviour of the people is caused by their rulers, and that should be always the first impression.

And why are you so sure?

History began about 6000 years ago and will perhaps end in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century - so accordingI to the end of history I refer to one of my questions in my OP: => [size=110]2.3)[/size]. But remember that all “historical existencials” (“historische Existenziale”), how Ernst Nolte called them, have to be eliminated, before one can say that the end of history is really reached. The process which leads to the end of history has to have the same dimension as the so called „neolithic revolution“ had. And Nolte said that all “historical existencials” have changed very much, but have not been elimanted yet. (Cp. Ernst Nolte, Historische Existenz, 1998, p. 682). I think, the post-historical age will be the very last age with machines, before the machines will completely replace all human beings (=> #), so in the end of the 21st, or in the 22nd, or in the 23rd century history as we have been knowing it for about 6000 years will have reached its end because all “historical existencials” will probably be eliminated then.

If history will really end, then one will have to speak about history as an episode of about 6000 years.

What would be the list of “historical essentials” to be eliminated?

That’s a good question, and I have expected that question. But would you mind answering before I answer in a more detailed way?

Oh geeez… I’m not sure you want me doing that.

As with all things, there is the actual and the mental model (including physics). Some refer to actual history, which can never be exactly known and some refer to “history” as being merely whatever is currently documented (and often erased and rewritten). The mind identifies or objectizes (forms a mental picture or as a mental object) situations or events and records them as historical events based on relevance.

Those who record history for sake of humanity, identify some things as relevant and others as irrelevant and document the relevant ones. New ages bring people who then erase or alter documents so as to further their chosen cause.

So the idea of no one ever documenting anything seen as relevant means that the age that has been entered regards no changes as relevant and thus either doesn’t document them or merely documents them as an ambiguous repeated cycle. Or perhaps, as suggested, we simply stop calling it “our history” because there are no more humans to consider anything relevant.

As long as some living entity exists, there will always be a personal history relevant to that individual, at least. And it is hard for me to imagine even the possibility of life continuing in any form without any recording of social events marked as significant moments of change as far as those lives are concerned. Every small town and family has its historical events.

So the only thing that I could safely call the “historical essentials” that are being referred to would be the globally public announcements concerning globally significant events standing out above the average enough to be note worthy.

The greater issue is of course, the contrived historical announcing, a purely imaginary history for sake of an artificially propagated society being told of events so as to inspire them in certain ways even though those events never really occurred (The Matrix scenario). The more people believe what they are told via a news mediator, the more invention of history occurs and the less anyone knows of it being completely fake.

So to a public, history could never actually end because either the level of relevance will shift so as to make formerly irrelevant things noteworthy or invented historical scenarios will be told to them regardless of perhaps nothing actually relevant changing.

:wink:

According to Ernst Nolte there are especially the following „historical existentials“, which are translated by me ( [-o< or =D>):

• Religion (God/Gods, a.s.o);
• Rule (leadership, a.s.o.);
• Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.);
• Classes;
• State;
• Great War;
• City and country as contrast;
• Education, especially in schools and universities;
• Science;
• Order of sexulality / demographics, economics;
• Historiography / awareness of history!

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 10):

„Es wird also für möglich gehalten, daß bestimmte grundlegende Kennzeichen - oder Kategorien oder »Existenzialien« - der historischen Existenz tatsächlich nur für das sechstausendjährige »Zwischenspiel« der »eigentlichen Geschichte« bestimmend waren und heute als solche verschwinden oder bereits verschwunden sind, während andere weiterhin in Geltung bleiben, obwohl auch sie einer tiefgreifenden Wandlung unterliegen. Die Analyse solcher Existenzialien im Rahmen eines »Schemas der historischen Existenz« ist das Hauptziel dieses Buches.“
My translation:
„Thus, it is thought to be possible that certain fundamental characteristic - or categories or »existentials« - of the historical existence have been decisively only for the six thousand years lasting »interlude« of the »actual history« and now are disappearing as such or have already disappeared, while others continued to remain in validity, although they are also subjected to a profound transformation. The analysis of such existentials within the framework of a »scheme of historical existence«is the main goal of this book.

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 672):

„Befinden wir Menschen … uns bereits in der »Nachgeschichte«, wie wir den Zustand in Ermangelung eines besseren Terminus nennen wollen, oder doch mindestens im Übergang dazu?“
My translation:
„Are we people … already in the »post-history« as we like to call the state for lack of a better term, or at least in the transition to that?“

Ernst Nolte wrote (ibid, p. 682):

„Alle historischen Existenzialien … haben … grundlegende Änderungen erfahren, und einige, wie der Adel und der »große Krieg«, sind nicht mehr wahrzunehmen. Aber selbst diese haben sich eher verwandelt, als daß sie ganz verschwunden wären: Der große Krieg bleibt als dunkle Drohung bestehen, und der Adel überlebt in gewisser Weise als Pluralität der Eliten.“
My translation:
„All historical existentialia … have … been changed fundamentally, and some, like the nobleness and the »Great War«, are no longer perceivable. But even these have been transformed rather than that they were all gone: the great war remains as a dark threat, and the nobility survived in some ways as pluralism of elites.“

That are some sentences Nolte wrote in his bulky book, which was published in 1998: „Historische Existenz“ („Historical Existence“).

And all of those would be the currently conceived relevant events specifically by those who study world history as a whole.

I can envision a time when those occurrences would not seem relevant to anyone, any more than the detailed stones involved in an old mountain being washed into the sea. As time goes on, details gain a higher standard for relevance, thus history becomes a shorter story rather than longer (part of the efficiency of a mind).

“Many ages ago, homosapians used to communicate with each other through this thing they called an “Internet” created for them by their god “Science” and his son, “Technology”. Nothing ever came of it. Eventually our people got rid of their old superstitious gods and began our great society based upon Truth and Noble Justice. And we are now considering returning to those old standards as long as we can prevent superstitious beliefs that just lead to deception, else we might devolve into being just like those ancient homosapians and their mythical gods and children of gods.”

One man can defeat the entire humanity, so, this question can never be answered by the modern man.
also, the nobility, as it was among Germans, would never be acceptable among the people of antiquity. Germans appear as nomads (barbarians) in many ways, including “nobility”.

The “great war” will disappear as barbarians (Moslems) take over, for their own safety the globe will disarm. Obama is currently taking care of this in the USA.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=139954

Monenvasia was sold to the vatican, then taken by the venetians, BEFORE the fall of Trebizond.

You must be following my posts on.UNRV Cezar. I was simply trying to find a Byzantine outpost that outlived trebizond. The islands allied to the Knights of Rhodes next to Chios is the best bet… they built a island chain of fortifications to keep the Venetians, and the Ottomans didnt even send a tax collector till the 19th century, and that went badly.

I dont understand the Nietzschean fascination with bad history. Why cant the overman use sound historical methods and peer review of his research when it comes to history.

And for Christ sake, the prussian empire is dead, been so almost a century. Leave Hegel, and Zizek Neo-Hagelian resurrections of concepts of the end of history back in the 19th century where it belongs. The arguments are pointlessly self inflating… if your assuming your in the good group, and everyone else is unknowingly in the extinction bound bad group, celebrating what you perceive to be your strengths over their perceived cultural weaknesses isnt going to keep you alive, its just going to make you more complacent, less likely to analyses your own behavior and motivations critically on a sound, ongoing basis, and will make you blind to aspects that works in others, dispite whatever overriding fault in them is apparently bringing them down.

If people are that bad, just move… far, far away from them. If you cant do that, then the prognosis given to the sense of ‘other’ is really just the unconscious diagnosis of the self… YOU are the last man, and you are weak, stupid, and are going extinct.

How many here in this thread have offspring, or are even in a relationship with a breeding age member of the opposite sex, or managed to even talk with a female this pasf month?

I rest my case.

You are the last man. Your arguments are the sound of extinction. Everyone else… just avoid this tainted prussian crap, its no good for the healthy or sound of mind.

.
Transhumanism = “Give up on humanity and let us create a new life form in your place”.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cU1-YFbAifA[/youtube]

“Aren’t ‘we’ geeks cool.”

“If we don’t want to be left behind, we must become robots ourselves.”

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

“Cyborgs are just natural evolution.”

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

“We must compete with evolving computers.”

“Totally controlled Artificial organic brains.” - currently used to control airplanes.

“Successfully replacing brain portions with chips.”

“Artificial listening-brains mounted in surveillance cameras throughout the city.”

“By 2025, conservatively, we will be able to read everything going on in a brain and transfer it to a computer so as to liberate ‘us’ [them]”.

“600 megabytes to completely copy a person”.

“Molecular nanotechnology to alter the body’s material.”

“It doesn’t change you. It just makes you [them] more powerful.”

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.

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!

Or eventually fight them?

You or them?

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…”

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

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.

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.

[size=120]No.[/size] 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: [size=150]No[/size] [size=140]“Borg”![/size] =;

[size=108]I defend freedom and fight slavery, as the Cheruscan Arminius did in ancient times.

Becoming machines does not mean freedom, but slavery.[/size]

  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.

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?

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.

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

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBTCYD2Wax0[/youtube]

[size=150]“We WILL be gods, period!”[/size]