Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

I don’t think they will be able to precisely measure it, but when that era approaches, the other, the more instinctive knowledge may compensate for that lack of precision. Approximating on that basis, they may get a pretty good idea.

Realize that “instinct” is what has been used since day one. Precise measure is the only improvement Man can make. Precise measure, definition and mathematics, is the only thing that improved Man’s understanding of material existence, Science (and he still hasn’t gotten that one right).

The needs of Man must be precisely defined and then precisely measured moment by moment in order to keep improving. His aim must be directly at the improvement of being aware of his needs at every moment in order to quickly respond toward balance. The slower he responds to his needs, the more swaying to extremes he will do, taking generations to make corrections. As long as Man is going to extremes, people will be sacrificed in misery due to such needless extremes (which is what makes typical “History” what it has been).

 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, do you believe in “instinctive knowledge”?

Really?

In short; How can you measure and protect your Consciousness?
Your governments are already doing those things for themselves, but most often at the expense of the individuals.

Controlling the Narrative;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRuZa_kJlew[/youtube]

Every time a government decides to keep a secret, the consciousness of the individual is sacrificed through intentional obfuscation used to mislead and even create a false history. When have governments not been doing that?

Until the consciousness of the individuals are protected, the history of calamities will continue. Currently almost nothing you hear about the reasoning for what you should or should not do is related to the actual reasons, thereby removing your personal decision making utility and making democracy merely a demockery.

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?

“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.

 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.

That argument reminds me of the old satanic method of the circle of fire.

Imagine that you were in a castle with a mote. When the barbarians stormed the castle, you pored oil in the mote and lit it on fire. The though was to encircle your domain with a destructive (and obfuscating) force. Such things have worked before.

But if I were the adversary storming your castle, I would merely laugh. I would pore even more oil into that mote along with trees and anything else that would burn. I would keep that fire burning so long that either you would smoother in the smoke and heat or simply starve. I have the entire world of fuel. I could even make money from the spectacle of it and become quite wealthy.

The presumption of the circle of fire was that the one inside the circle would have control of it, a “controlled fire”. But entropy is far easier than control. If you are going to attempt the satanic circle of fire method, don’t play it with the entire world. The universe can provide far more fire than you can deal with. Judea was supposed to learn that over 2500 years ago, but they seem far too slow at learning.

But since that strategy has been played and the universe is merely laughing at the spectacle, it would seem wise to focus on quite the opposite intelligence, freezing a snowball amidst fires of Hell - “what are the chances”. And the claim is as it has always been, “We Shall be GODS!!”, so okay, what’s the issue? Surely a god would have no problem providing air-conditioning and joyous life within such a castle - eternally.

My position is that once you see how to freeze the fire (which I discovered back in the 70’s, turning chaos into order automatically), you just go ahead and do it. But you don’t keep making more fire at the same time as trying to freeze it. Nor do you freeze the entire planet. You prevent the entire scenario by demonstrating the the use of fire is pointless in the first place. You freeze the very incentive the barbarians had in attacking you. Both extremes are non-sense, yet they are the very fundamental thoughts feeding the lust of Man to be God - “Order vs Chaos”, “Vishnu vs Shiva”.

Heaven is not the city surrounded by Gehenna. Heaven has air-conditioning. :sunglasses:

There is an „instinctive knowledge“, an „intuitively grounded intelligence“, there are „products of common sense, but there is fear too, and fear is used or misused in order to convert traditionally real evaluations into virtually unreal evaluations. The business with fear is a lucrative business, but not the only one.

HOw is the observing of those hungry to rule working for you?

You might mean to say that “unawareness” is dangerous. What you described isn’t intelligence.
And with reference to the poor maligned cow, I hope that the next time you are about to drink a glass of milk it becomes sour the moment you are drinking it…you ungrateful wretch you. :mrgreen:

Im observing how 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?

And perhaps more germanely to those wishing to rule: is “studying how to rule” what rulers do?

They would have to have at some point in their life.

James, the following video fits to your video that you have recently posted.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDXBpQ8Dlug[/youtube]

Nuclear bombs are also a possibility, although perhaps not a sufficient one, to end the history.