Yes, you are right.
Back to the commons? Or to “communal particles”?
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).
Probably you haven’t read the whole thread, so I quote myself:
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.