Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

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]

James, what do you think about that?

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

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.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ouQwGPw_S4[/youtube]

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. :sunglasses:

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.

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.

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.

Promises, promises…

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

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.

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.

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

Yea, its what I said too.

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.

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.