Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

[Arminius]

What are the signs of the end of history for you?

[James S Saint]

What are the signs of the end of history for you?

When I can sort through the news and see only deja vues.

In today's paradigm of eternal deciet, documented, hard to change, history is strongly disliked (shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four).

In a dystopian 1984, Winston Smith endures a squalid existence in the totalitarian superstate of Oceania under the constant surveillance of the Thought Police. The story takes place in London, the capital city of the territory of Airstrip One (formerly "either England or Britain").

Winston works in a small office cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting history in accordance with the dictates of the Party and its supreme figurehead, Big Brother. A man haunted by painful memories and restless desires, Winston is an everyman who keeps a secret diary of his private thoughts, thus creating evidence of his thoughtcrime — the crime of independent thought, contrary to the dictates and aims of the Party.

.. the new socialist America (and entire West actually, if not the world).

That is partly why they favor people living for only 30 years, so they can't ever get old enough to realize that what they are seeing is merely a rerun. They hate long term memory of any sort.

[Arminius]

What are the signs of the end of history for you?

When I can sort through the news and see only deja vues.

In today's paradigm of eternal deciet, documented, hard to change, history is strongly disliked (shades of Nineteen Eighty-Four).

In a dystopian 1984, Winston Smith endures a squalid existence in the totalitarian superstate of Oceania under the constant surveillance of the Thought Police. The story takes place in London, the capital city of the territory of Airstrip One (formerly "either England or Britain").

Winston works in a small office cubicle at the Ministry of Truth, rewriting history in accordance with the dictates of the Party and its supreme figurehead, Big Brother. A man haunted by painful memories and restless desires, Winston is an everyman who keeps a secret diary of his private thoughts, thus creating evidence of his thoughtcrime — the crime of independent thought, contrary to the dictates and aims of the Party.

.. the new socialist America (and entire West actually, if not the world).

That is partly why they favor people living for only 30 years, so they can't ever get old enough to realize that what they are seeing is merely a rerun. They hate long term memory of any sort.

Yeah.

Do you also know Orwell's book "Animal Farm"?

[James S Saint]

Do you also know Orwell's book "Animal Farm"?

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

[The Artful Pauper]

I've been intrigued by the End of History debate quite a bit so I thought I'd give it a go. I read through the first 6 and last two pages of this thread so hopefully I didn't happen to miss the post which says exactly what I'm about to say.


The way I've understood the End of History debate is that the primary assertion was that society has been created to provide humanity comfort, well-being, an easy and happy life. The French Revolution had asserted some of the cornerstone ideologies, so to speak, of what that happy life would be like (Liberté, égalité, fraternité), there are more attributes to it, you can throw in notions of socialism and even communism depending how you want to spin it, but ultimately the idea is that everyone will be equal and free of necessity and compulsion, the government aiding and maintaining this state of affairs. The End of History is not something that is meant to have already occured, but that, barring a few stags and detours along the way, humanity is supposed to be moving towards these ideals.

The debate does not only center around this "final state" being the "End", but also the idea that, if all of our wants are taken care if, there is nothing really left for us to do, nothing to rebel against, no more great deeds to accomplish. There will be daily events, but no real "history" so to speak, and I'm pretty sure this is meant in the sense of monumental history, there will be no great figures to stand above the rest, because everyone is equal (presupposing that equality has been acheived).

I find it difficult to really pick a side on what I believe. I think it is possible that an End of History could be reached in this sense, if there were genetically designed test tube babies as well as many other special circumstances... but maybe in the end I don't think it is likely. It doesn't really seem like it is human nature to stay satisfied even under the best of circumstances (though again, I get to thinking, couldn't some kind of soma or other synthetic be produced to keep us satisfied?)... it is difficult to say, though still I think that we define ourselves as a species by accomplishments. Even though I'm not terribly fascinated by it personally, even if a state of bliss and equality and all that was reached, part of that bliss might be achieved by venturing into space, for example, and we can never know what we might encounter there.


What I really think is important about this debate that doesn't really have to do with picking a side or not, but can amount to the same thing, is contemplating on how we as humans (at least some of us) can be very much satisfied and appeased. Society has become intricately structured, and for the main (in the west at least) a life plan has been set out for us (ie. grow up playing a little, learn how to function in school, get a job, enjoy certain designated liesure activities, make a family, and so on)...

Some people do not follow the expected life plan, true, but then it is frequently the case that their lives do not possess monumental historicality. Even a lot of recent inventions that are monumental, internet and computers, for example, though they impact our lives greatly and have certain benefits, have in a lot of ways sunken us deeper into the intricately structured fabric of society... Many people spend a lot less time out of doors, even taking physical action in general... also computers have done much to increase social/governmental efficiency and controls.

There are certain aspects of this issue that are not new. I don't think people always just went out and took destiny into their hands. Human society has always been quite structured and had many social rules and customs (both if you were nobility or a peasant, though the life of a peasant was significantly more limited).

It seems to me like the philosophical school existentialism never really caught on, and was never really progressed by many thinkers beyond the mid-twentieth century... Maybe it's because the idea of being able to do whatever you feel and make it your meaning seemed so vague to hold any weight? But I think there could have been potential there to really revolutionize the way we interact as a species, breaking down roles and customs, if we could keep our historical heritage and our humanity as a way to communicate, perhaps putting more of a focus on that issue as well, how we can communicate (share meaning, and about what?) when customs are broken down, as well as tying in more pragmatism and making existentialism a pragmatic philosophy of praxis, as well as our relation to existence...

Anyway, now I'm just rambling.

[Arminius]

As I said: if there will not come up a new culture, which is not global, then the history will probably end. The globalists will bring the last historical epoch - the globalistic epoch - to its end.

[The Artful Pauper]

I don't see why a globalist trend necessitates the end of history. You mean because it would encompass the larger swathe of culture and how we are conditioned and how we our engagement with society is designated? Isn't that what the trends you were speaking of being synthesized (capitalism/communism) are on smaller scales? They are ways of life in which conventional rules guide conduct.

I think there is a problem in the thinking of the End of History debate because there is a demand, which I read in the exerpt you posted from Fukuyama, and I noticed it repeated in Gregory B. Smith, and probably in others. It is embodied in this passage:

Our task is not to answer exhaustively the challenges to liberalism promoted by every crackpot messiah around the world, but only those that are embodied in important social or political forces and movements, and which are therefore part of world history. For our purposes, it matters very little what strange thoughts occur to people in Albania or Burkina Faso, for we are interested in what one could in some sense call the common ideological heritage of mankind.

There is a demand here to look at history in a very particular way, which actually negates the importance of monumental history rather than denies its possibility. While it may be true that we do not have to care for every crackpot scheme concocted by individuals across the world, I see in that passage an ideological pressure being put on individuals which seeks to deny them power and possibility, which I feel is unphilosophical, because regardless how slight such a possibility is, that doesn't negate it entirely.

This issue is brought up in a different manner by Laurence Lampert while providing an interpretation of Nietzsche in his book Nietzsche and Modern Times

Nietzsche is no existentialist, for he ridicules long before its promulgation the existentialist faith that we are free to create ourselves and the existentialist morals that condemn as bad faith identification with one’s role. [...] The age of the actor [who can create his own destiny] poses a problem for the master-builder [Lampert is using this term for the philosopher or ruler who creates morals and a new way of life]. Such builders [...] have the perspective of millennia and aspire to create a new society; they are prudent legislators who found peoples. Any such aspiration today must face the fact that all people believe themselves capable of everything. Such a faith is most unpromising for the builder whose projects require a very different fundamental belief: that worth derives from being a part of a whole, ‘a stone in a great structure.’ [pg. 253-254]

In this passage, far from saying that it would be impossible for an individual to carve out his/her own place in history, the belief in that possibility is a danger to the "master builder", which needs individuals to see themselves as stones in a greater ediface, whether it be a capitalist, communist, or globalist society.

I see this pre-naming "crackpot" in Fukuyama, and Lampert's assertion that Nietzsche "ridicules long before its promulgation the existentialist faith that we are free to create ourselves" itself part of an ideology with a political purpose. We might become part of a globalist society, we might become very controlled and discouraged, labelled "crackpots" (and in other regards relevant to discussions being carried on a few posts earlier, "conspiracy theorists") but I don't think it negates the potentiality of historical occurence taking place again.

[Arminius]

I don't see why a globalist trend necessitates the end of history.

A globalist trend necessitates the end of history of a culture (in this case: the Western culture) via civilisation of that culture, and the last epoch or phase with history in this sense is always globalistic. In the case of the Western (Occidental) culture it even refers to the whole globe because the Westerners have discovered and captured the whole planet Earth - and even more of the solar system. I don't see another culture which will be able to be born "soon". So this time it is possible that there will be no culture anymore, which means there will be only cosmic developments and evolution but no history. That trend is cognoscible.

So, not the globalist trend itself necessitates the end of history, but the "life" of a culture, and the globalism is merely a phase of a culture, a globalistic phase of a culture, the last historical phase of a culture.

[The Artful Pauper]

I guess we will just have to see. I can see that a lot of people are dissatisfied with the way our society is set up, the culture now prevailent and the life course established and maintained by convention. It is not to say that a new culture will necessarily follow, but I definitely wouldn't rule out the possibility.

In your last post you use the broad term of culture, western culture, when we are talking about liberal democracy, which is perhaps (at least currently seen as) the west's penultimate representative form.

I happen to be one who holds an antipathy towards life in liberal democracies. It is not that I am averse to rights or other such safeguards for freedom, it is just that I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling. This feeling may not be shared, at least by those willing to act on their sentiments. It is worth noting something again from Fukuyama's text:

For Hegel, all human behavior in the material world, and hence all human history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness - an idea similar to the one expressed by John Maynard Keynes when he said that the views of men of affairs were usually derived from defunct economists and academic scribblers of earlier generations. This consciousness may not be explicit and self-aware, as are modern political doctrines, but may rather take the form of religion or simple cultural or moral habits. And yet this realm of consciousness in the long run necessarily becomes manifest in the material world, indeed creates the material world in its own image. Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world; hence the real subtext underlying the apparent jumble of current events is the history of ideology.

Many people might see the "End of History" as a very good thing, and be actively striving to bring it about. And many others are apathetic or unconscious of the role they play in holding up the dominant structures. I don't really think the "End of History" is something you can argue for or against in the sense that by constructing the more logical or rhetorically alluring turn of phrase you can win history onto your side. The result of the "End of History" is something that will come about by the actions we do or do not take. There is nothing inevitable about it, but there is a strong momentum that is leading in that direction, and I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are also powerful interests that look forward to an "End of History" in this sense, because the deck is already stacked in their favor and they would like to keep it that way, and they have the resources which they are using to make sure their positions are rested on a solid and stable foundation. I do not subscribe wholly to the view of an elite working culture behind the scenes, but I also think it would be folly to deny that figures like Rupert Murdoch are not exerting influence to keep the consciousness of the general population at a certain level and pointed in a certain direction.

I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development?

[Arminius]

In your last post you use the broad term of culture, western culture, when we are talking about liberal democracy, which is perhaps (at least currently seen as) the west's penultimate representative form.

Why the penultimate representative form?

B.t.w.: I do not only use "the broad term of culture, Western culture", when I am "talking about liberal democracy", but also because the "liberal democracy" is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.

I happen to be one who holds an antipathy towards life in liberal democracies.

All "liberal democracies" content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all "liberal equalities" or all "capitalistic socialisms". And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

It is not that I am averse to rights or other such safeguards for freedom, it is just that I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling. This feeling may not be shared, at least by those willing to act on their sentiments.

I agree.

It is worth noting something again from Fukuyama's text:

For Hegel, all human behavior in the material world, and hence all human history, is rooted in a prior state of consciousness - an idea similar to the one expressed by John Maynard Keynes when he said that the views of men of affairs were usually derived from defunct economists and academic scribblers of earlier generations. This consciousness may not be explicit and self-aware, as are modern political doctrines, but may rather take the form of religion or simple cultural or moral habits. And yet this realm of consciousness in the long run necessarily becomes manifest in the material world, indeed creates the material world in its own image. Consciousness is cause and not effect, and can develop autonomously from the material world ....

And Marx reversed this statement, although he used Hegel's dialectic.

Many people might see the "End of History" as a very good thing, and be actively striving to bring it about. And many others are apathetic or unconscious of the role they play in holding up the dominant structures. I don't really think the "End of History" is something you can argue for or against in the sense that by constructing the more logical or rhetorically alluring turn of phrase you can win history onto your side. The result of the "End of History" is something that will come about by the actions we do or do not take. There is nothing inevitable about it, but there is a strong momentum that is leading in that direction, and I think it is not unreasonable to say that there are also powerful interests that look forward to an "End of History" in this sense, because the deck is already stacked in their favor and they would like to keep it that way, and they have the resources which they are using to make sure their positions are rested on a solid and stable foundation. I do not subscribe wholly to the view of an elite working culture behind the scenes, but I also think it would be folly to deny that figures like Rupert Murdoch are not exerting influence to keep the consciousness of the general population at a certain level and pointed in a certain direction.

I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development?

Not only and perahps not mostly.

[The Artful Pauper]

Why the penultimate representative form?

My mistake on the word penultimate.

B.t.w.: I do not only use "the broad term of culture, Western culture", when I am "talking about liberal democracy", but also because the "liberal democracy" is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.

I wrote that you seemed to use the term Western culture broadly when referring to liberal democracy because you said that the End of History would be the end of a history of culture, and while I understood that you did mean other things, it seemed to me that what is understood by western culture has been partly taken from other cultures either in its origins or throughout its development... so it seemed like what was most under focus was the spread of liberal democracy.

Al "lliberal democracies" content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all "liberal equalities" or all "capitalistic socialisms". And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

So we agree there is antagonism, but then it seems like you think that when I infer there might be a change in the system it would be to take away liberty, which I did not say and made clear below. I did not propose in my last post what form the government could take instead. What I did say was:

I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling.

So the question would be, if the institutions were dramatically changed and some done away with, would it still be what is called liberal democracy (keeping in mind that we live in republics no? Perhaps it would...

Not only and perahps not mostly.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant here.

[Arminius]

Why the penultimate representative form?

My mistake on the word penultimate.

Perhaps - because it is difficult to justify that the "liberal democracy ... is ... the West's penultimate representative form". It is not so difficult to justify that the liberal democracy could be the West's last representative form. But is it also right? I don't think so (see my last three posts of this thread).

B.t.w.: I do not only use "the broad term of culture, Western culture", when I am "talking about liberal democracy", but also because the "liberal democracy" is merely one of the (last) Western forms of governement.

I wrote that you seemed to use the term Western culture broadly when referring to liberal democracy because you said that the End of History would be the end of a history of culture, and while I understood that you did mean other things, it seemed to me that what is understood by western culture has been partly taken from other cultures either in its origins or throughout its development... so it seemed like what was most under focus was the spread of liberal democracy.

Al "lliberal democracies" content an antagonism, a contradiction, similiar to all "liberal equalities" or all "capitalistic socialisms". And liberality without democracy or democracy without liberality are one of the worst forms of society or government because they serve the purpose of exploitation and are not of long duration.

So we agree there is antagonism, but then it seems like you think that when I infer there might be a change in the system it would be to take away liberty, which I did not say and made clear below. I did not propose in my last post what form the government could take instead. What I did say was:

I do not find life lived through the institutions particularly fulfilling.

So the question would be, if the institutions were dramatically changed and some done away with, would it still be what is called liberal democracy (keeping in mind that we live in republics no? Perhaps it would...

Please tell me which "institutions" you exactly mean.

Not only and perahps not mostly.

I'm not sure exactly what you meant here.

It refers mainly to this statement:

I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development.

That is not only and not mostly the questin because (1.) history is a kind of development, (2.) history will perhaps end and then there will merely be cosmic development and evolution but no history, and (3.) the term "our role" can also be a bit unclear.

[The Artful Pauper]

Please tell me which "institutions" you exactly mean.

I mean educational institutions, particularly on the elementary and secondary levels. I feel that the structure and content of universities is a step up, particularly in some universities, but still does not fulfill what I feel is a potential for humanity to be able to create their own way of being. My major issues (with elementary and secondary schools) are with both the content, which is severly deficient in regards to teaching the young how society's institutions function, about the development of history, and preparing them socially in such a way that they can teach themselves as well as opening the institutions in such a way that they become a resource for students to create their own way of life.

I find most of the institutions of society unfulfilling, so I will limit my examples and their descriptions. I also find corporate institutions unfulfilling as lived experienced, for reasons that I hope would seem obvious, but foremost because workers are removed from the product of their labour. (I do not currently work at or for a corporation.)

I find entertainment institutions unfulfilling, mainly because they train us to become spectators of life, and there is a dearth of potential for participation and creation.

I find institutions in general to be unfulfilling because of conventional norms which have to be fulfilled, which includes things like ritualistic behaviour and uniforms.

I am not concerned with seeing that these institutions be demolished, I have no such aspirations, but to initiate a way of life which supercedes them I would find rewarding. Introducing a novel form of a commons would be a step in that direction. I do not think it should be obligatory (nor restricted) to engage in capital accumulation. I also believe that it is possible for people to be conscious of their habits and relationship with the planet so as to enrich the environment we live in.

I suppose the question is, as history unfolds, what role will we take in its development.

That is not only and not mostly the questin because (1.) history is a kind of development, (2.) history will perhaps end and then there will merely be cosmic development and evolution but no history, and (3.) the term "our role" can also be a bit unclear.

Excuse me if I seem to be slow here. Perhaps I will end up getting more from the conversation than you, but if you would take the time to clarify some of this I would appreciate it. I understood your previous post where you said that history would in essence end if a global culture was acheived in which no other culture could arise which was not global.

What I don't understand here is what you mean when you say history is a kind of development. What kind of development are you talking about?

It seems that you imply that the role we play as historical beings is unimportant, and I'm not sure why. To clarify what I mean when I say "our role", I mean that the choices that we make and our actions contribute towards the development of society, either because we enter institutional roles and act as instruments to fulfill the institution's purpose (or not fulfill it, I suppose, depending on the quality of the work we do), "our role" is also important in regards to our interactions with others, the ideas we express to them, what we make them think and feel, the influence we come to have in their life, and so perhaps the influence over their actions which in turn contribute to developing society... Does that clarify what I mean by role a little? My teachers ( to take an example) played a role by standing before the class, exhibiting a certain demeanor, extolling the curriculum (or taking the consequences of failing to do so), and so forth, this influenced in turn things that I thought and felt and learned, what I thought was possible.

I don't think that idea of a role is by any means a simple thought, and I am sure I haven't done it justice in the above, but I hope I've at least gotten across what I mean when I am asserting that individuals play a role in the development of history. Probably the most significant thing I've left out is any consideration of free will. Connected with considerations of free will and determinism, but in a broader sense with human nature, would be what our natural inclinations would lead us to accept. Admittedly these last considerations aren't something I've worked out. I tend to incline towards thinking that the universe is mainly determined, and that human nature, as well as natural necessity is out of step with my own desires or "vision", yet I do not think I will abandon them for that reason. I suppose that's why I reacted against Fukuyama's "crackpot" and Lampert's "ridicule", not because I feel I am undeserving, but for the opposite reason entirely, that I feel I've embarked on an utterly Quixotic endeavour that I can't seem to bring myself to let go of.

[Arminius]

I find most of the institutions of society unfulfilling ....

Yes, you are right.

Introducing a novel form of a commons would be a step in that direction.

Back to the commons? Or to "communal particles"?

I understood your previous post where you said that history would in essence end if a global culture was acheived in which no other culture could arise which was not global.

Not "if a global culture was achieved" (that's another issue), but (1.) if the global phase of a culture has reached ist end, and (2.) there will be no other culture, especially a young culture (and currently there isn't any). A "global culture", that you mean, is the Western culture, especially its modern times, but the Western culture has not yet reached its end. I think we have to wait, so the times will become even worse, and I don't know when the time for better forms will come because anything and everything on this planet Earth (and in addition already other parts of our solar system) depend on this global culture, the Western culture. That doesn't mean that every Westerner is somehow "guilty", but the upper class is guilty, and this upper class is everywhere, not only in Western countries. There is no real resistance, and there will not be any real resistance because of the lack of a young culture. Nearly all human beings have been becoming Westerners, tributaries of the Western globalists (note: in this case of the globalists "Western" doesn't always mean that they are original Westerners, but they are Westerners because of the fact that they are globalists, and globalists are a product of the Western culture).

What I don't understand here is what you mean when you say history is a kind of development. What kind of development are you talking about?

Probably you haven't read the whole thread, so I quote myself:

I define „history“ as a „cultural evolution“. All „archivable artifacts“ belong to history. So e.g. padded dinosaurs in a museum belong to history because they are archived artifacts, although dinosaurs themselves belong to eveolution-without-history because they did not archive artifacts, they did not have any history. Even human beings had not had any history for the most time of their existence. But they have been having story (here „story“ means only „telling story“, „told story“, etc.) since they began to speak. So „story“ as a „oral tradition“ (tale and so on) does not belong to history.

Do you agree with that definition? If yes, then we can think about the „Eloi“ as an example for humans without history in the future, can't we? The question in this thread is not, whether humans will have story in their future or not, but the question in this thread is, whether humans will have history in their future or not.

Why am I saying that? Because we should not confuse history with any development, for example with the natural development or with the natural evolution. History is cultural evolution. Archivable artifacts belong to history, and history belongs to evolution, and evolution belongs to development in nature. So history is embedded in evolution and in natural development, while evolution is only embedded in natural development. All events are based on natural (physico-chemical) development. Evolution is based on natural (physico-chemical) development. History is based on natural (physico-chemical) development and on (biological) evolution, history is defined as a cultural evolution. Story - as I define it (cp. above) - is also defined as a cultural evolution, but in contrast to history story contains no archivable artifact (except all kinds of an engineered story like an audiotape and so on). Story in this text and context means merely oral tales or oral narratives - not more.

The "house of development":

_______________________| History |
__________________|____ Evolution ____|
______________|______ Development ______|

History is merely the "roof" of the "house of development".

So if we are asking in this thread, whether history ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, then we are always asking, whether cultural evolution ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not, whether the relation between human beings and archivable artifacts ended or not, ends or not, will end or will not.

The "end of history" means the end of all great narratives, of all great stories, of all "historical existence" (Ernst Nolte), of all culture, of all great wars, and so on. => #

End of history or not, end of historical existence or not - that's the question of this thread.

=> #

So: History is always part of the evolution and of the general development, and evolution is always part of the general development. Development can, but don't has to be evolutuion and history, and evolution can, but don't has to be history.

=> #

Development > Evolution > history.

It seems that you imply that the role we play as historical beings is unimportant, and I'm not sure why.

No, it is not unimportant, but it is less important than many people think.

I don't think that idea of a role is by any means a simple thought, and I am sure I haven't done it justice in the above, but I hope I've at least gotten across what I mean when I am asserting that individuals play a role in the development of history.

The term "development of history" is tautogical because history is always a development. History is a kind of development, the "roof" of the "house of development" (see above). And I didn't say that the most people play no role when it comes to history. But the role is not as much important as many people think.

Do you know how powerful the rulers of this globe already are?

Probably the most significant thing I've left out is any consideration of free will.

Excuse me, but there is no "free will", but merely a relative free will.

[The Artful Pauper]

Excuse me, but there is no "free will", but merely a relative free will.

Since you probably read the remaining sentences of my post, I'm not sure why you needed to phrase this comment as such, but anyway that is unimportant.

I've read through what you've written as well as the other post about communal particles. I was recommending a form of a commons, but that is not necessarily important. There was a lot of information here so I will have to take time to process it to give it the consideration it deserves.

I would just like to ask some questions, if you are willing to answer them. Are your personal actions in conformance with the goals set out in society (so mainly in the structure of its institutions)? If not, are you in any way attempting to create a way of life that differs from the currently established institutions? If so, do you believe in them?

[Arminius]

Are your personal actions in conformance with the goals set out in society (so mainly in the structure of its institutions)? If not, are you in any way attempting to create a way of life that differs from the currently established institutions? If so, do you believe in them?

Before I answer that questions we should clarify something, I think. Would you please tell me what you mean when you are speaking of "personal actions". Do you want to know whether I am a criminal? Or do you want to know whether I am a dropout who lives in a desert, or deep forest, or elsewhere, without any contact to the civilisation?

In any case we must expect much, because the future will not be easy.

Maybe, if history will end, the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).



Or maybe, if history ends, the humans will feel happy in the dictatorship of the machines.
Or maybe, if history ends, the human evolution will also end.

[James S Saint]

When the history will end the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).

I don't see that one. Why would all technology (for example) be forgotten just because things stopped changing?

[Arminius]

When the history will end the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).

I don't see that one. Why would all technology (for example) be forgotten just because things stopped changing?

Technology does not necessarily mean an eternal progressive development because technology can be reduced, for example by humans (politics etc.) or by nature itself (catastrophes etc.).

[Orbie]

When the history will end the humans will have to start where our ancestors once stopped (about 6000 years ago, when history started).

I don't see that one. Why would all technology (for example) be forgotten just because things stopped changing?

Because, technology, as history will be severely abbreviated, and shortcutted. The structural dynamics will need more and more abbreviated nomenclature, education will consists of programs of rote abbreviations to coincide with function and utility. The abbreviations in time, as with all experience in general, will quantify unqualified data, or unusable data. That will be a remainder, which will transcribe into the aesthetic of filling in between the specifically left out.

History will turn mythic, when these fillers overcome, the actually derivable, and memory will lapse or turn outward, of an exclusion of formerly inclusive elements.

This outward-orientated-ness will cause reliance on the machines which can utilize what is left, specifically, between wider and wider scopes of inference. Thought will rely more and more on technic, rather than science, and in order to prevent this from happening, self creating machines with built in safe fail systems, will take over.

But is this the end? No, even with a total program meltdown, a total reversion into the primitive, will not mean the end. Only the end as we know it. A new beginning from the very basic village, will signal a new recurrence, albeit, with the remains of the 'old mythology'. The scientific age will become merely a short period of retro-devaluation, and mythology will help support the previous suspension. The 300-400 years of post enlightenment era will in retrospect, be nothing but an abbreviated and misaligned formalism. Whether this be of natural causes of the degrading of mass intelligence, or of catastrophic causes of either natural or, man made havoc brought upon the earth, again may turn out to be an unnecessary distinction.

But it is not the end, it will mark the beginning of something new, based on a recurrent pattern.

Why the certainty? Because the aesthetic nature of forces, and forces of nature, are certain to bring creation back into a desired alignment. It is not for want of this, that the entropy of qualification is increasingly , and relentlessly transforming the hyperbola of experience into a functionally increasing (dx) curve, in an ever increasing, almost hysterically severe(d)tangent. The certainty is reached at the critical point of discrimination , where points of reference have been completely ameliorated, and thus become an opaque anomaly, from which no further reflection is possible.

It will be a very long time, from now, that Icarus will fall into the sun, and maybe never, for if ever that time could be foreseen, men will be morphed into birds, more efficient, and un needing of any fuel, probably long exhausted by then.

[Arminius]

It is normal, typical for humans and their cultures to forget their technologies. For example: the technologies of the Mesopotamian culture, of the Egyptian culture, of the Apollinic (Greek/Roman) culture, and of the American (Maya/Inca) culture were forgotten after the "death" of this cultures. So I predict that the technologies of the Occidental culture will be forgotten after the "death" of the Occidental culture. Relating to the forgetfulness, it makes only a little difference that the Occidental culture is the only one which has conquered and captured the whole globe and parts of the universe.

On average it is posible that it takes merely three or four generations, until cultural affairs are forgotten, if nothing is done against that forgetful development. You don't believe that? Remember the Roman history. When the Germans conquered Rome and the Roman territory the Romans had alraedy forgotten many of their own technologies. Or remember the Aztecan history. When the Spanish conquered the Aztecan territory the Atztecs had already forgotten how to build their pyramids.

[The Artful Pauper]

Sorry for my hideously long absence. I had retreated to my hovel to sulk.

Are your personal actions in conformance with the goals set out in society (so mainly in the structure of its institutions)? If not, are you in any way attempting to create a way of life that differs from the currently established institutions? If so, do you believe in them?

Before I answer that questions we should clarify something, I think. Would you please tell me what you mean when you are speaking of "personal actions". Do you want to know whether I am a criminal? Or do you want to know whether I am a dropout who lives in a desert, or deep forest, or elsewhere, without any contact to the civilisation?

When I asked that question, I was wondering if the work you do (the expendeture of your effort) supports the current power structures, mainly. But also, do you feel like you are working towards creating avenues for new kinds of actions that are not structured and dictated by the current system?

I am not expecting a simple answer to those questions. I think certain people could be considered to be supporting the current system to much larger degrees than others, for example people who work in a bureaucracy, or even elementary school teachers that stick closely to the curriculum. I even had some teachers who got offended when children asked why we were learning certain subjects and topics. Although it seems fairly obvious, when you are very little, you don't always put it together that you are being put through the rungs, progress through school, find a job, generally either in some government institution or corporation or other capital accumulating company.

I don't think the only options to work against the current system are becoming a criminal or isolating yourself. I do think that it is pretty near impossible to live without supporting the structures in some way (even necessities we pay for end up as part of the funding, as well as tax.)

Like I said, I'm not looking for a simple answer to this question, and it is only if you feel up to answering. It just seems to me that you readily accept the end of history as a given, and I am wondering how much of that is a result of you perhaps liking the system as it is and wishing to perpetuate it. I think there is an incentive to shoot down ideas that conflict with the way things are if we wish to maintain that system (which is not to say that every divergent idea is a good one)...

It strikes me that the reason there was more passion in the past, more desire for political revolution (for example, which I am not personally for, in any common sense of the term, ie. armed or violent revolution) was not because it wasn't believed there were risks, but because (among many reasons) there were pressures that made it more uncomfortable to maintain the status quo than to risk everything on a change for the better. In the west, for the most part (maybe not for everyone) our way of life has become fairly comfortable, and we are less liable to take risks with what we have for fear of losing it at all, and that means even small risks. Most people want to stick with the system because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that if they study hard at school and get a "good" job, they will have a comfortable home and shiny baubles to play with.

Do you think that is a fair assessment?

[1mpious]

What do you think?

Not there yet, probably never will be.

[Arminius]

It just seems to me that you readily accept the end of history as a given, ....

I do not accept the end of history as a given. But I say that history will perhaps end in the near future. Not more.

It strikes me that the reason there was more passion in the past, more desire for political revolution (for example, which I am not personally for, in any common sense of the term, ie. armed or violent revolution) was not because it wasn't believed there were risks, but because (among many reasons) there were pressures that made it more uncomfortable to maintain the status quo than to risk everything on a change for the better. In the west, for the most part (maybe not for everyone) our way of life has become fairly comfortable, and we are less liable to take risks with what we have for fear of losing it at all, and that means even small risks. Most people want to stick with the system because they believe (correctly or incorrectly) that if they study hard at school and get a "good" job, they will have a comfortable home and shiny baubles to play with.

Do you think that is a fair assessment?

Can assesments be "fair", although they have to be right or worng?

[Arminius]

Not there yet, probably never will be.

Why "not there yet"? Why "probably never will be"?

[The Artful Pauper]

I do not accept the end of history as a given. But I say that history will perhaps end in the near future. Not more.

Okay, I stand corrected. It seemed like your last responses were trying to convince me that the end of history was approaching. So I was asking you whether you are working to bring it about or to bring something else about. I'm not really convinced that as individuals we have no effect on the way the future progresses, and in any case, despite what little control we often have over our selves and our own lives, it is the only thing we can have something near to direct control over (even if freedom is relative or merely perceived), our relation to everything else is mediated through ourselves.

Can assesments be "fair", although they have to be right or worng?

One definition in the Oxford dictionary of fair is:

Just or appropriate in the circumstances:

I think that coincides pretty closely with asking if the the assessment is right or wrong. It's a figure of speech.