Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.