Thinking about the END OF HISTORY.

It is our tragedy because we are still waiting (us busy little bees) for the resolution. I suppose we are in a more privaleged position because we have easier access to that “luxury for transcendence”, living in a scientific era and having teachers like Nietzsche… but still as you say,

I understand this whole ordeal and dilemma well. Nietzsche talks often about strength and nobility — do you think these are just inborn characteristics of certain people? In earlier messages Arminius and I were mentioning free will and inclining more towards determinism. I believe Nietzsche’s stance is complicated because he would rather call it weak wills and strong wills, but I suppose the question still remains in this sense — I have been weak willed (though maybe other times I have been strong willed, but I am speaking mainly of my idealism in context), will that be it?

I have two questions (for being, as it were…) that are imminently connected to what I had just asked above.

You wrote that Joseph Campbell came to the conclusion through his studies that the subject-object differentiation could be overcome (as we see in Nietzsche). I was going to ask, do you think this overcoming is something to do with our historical period? But then on the other hand it seems (and I think this is in great part what Nietzsche was getting at) that the ancient Greeks had no real problem with this (At least not the nobility. We know very little, I believe, about the slaves mentality of that time). This would seem to point to an inherent nature of certain egos.

Isn’t it odd that there came periods of slave revolt, but yet the slaves (at least in this Nietzschean narrative) did not seem to learn from the experience, or is it because it was all ressentiment rather than true nobility? Hegel would imply that the slave learns from his work and it educates him to become more than he was before, to recognize his work in the world and acheive true self-consciousness (although I think the reality in our present age of consumerism and mass culture is more along the lines that we identify with our work and lose ourself in it, without really gaining a connection with being or possessing the distance to learn from it). Is this partly where Nietzsche rejected Hegel?

The other question (for being) was (and maybe this is due to my own misunderstanding of ‘the cave’ as a result of my ideal fixation), when we nagivate the world today there is a very thick barrier between us and nature, we have constructed a conventional world so complex that it begins to have its own nature. Buildings have become a new breed of unsurpassable mountains, and the beasts in the wilds are us. But there is a very vital difference, whereas primitive beings saw this wild and untamed world with new eyes, we are brought up in convention (some people call this indoctrination (ressentiment or no?)). Our lessons in convention tell us how we can navigate this “untamed-hyperconventional world”, the rest we fill in through intuition and experience. If we accept the conventions we can acheive success. If we deny them we acheive failure.

So, for me, convention is idealism (a historic idealism). Conventions must be understood ideally. We can see buildings, for example, and people in suits, but we don’t necessarily have to see “business”. Instead, we learn “business”, and hold the ideal concept and use it as our new given tool in the hyperconventional wilderness. I think it is because of this realization of the conventionality that the mind inclined towards philosophical thought desires to make changes — we see that this is convention. We don’t even need to acheive utopia anymore, but we see that life is playing with the images projected on the cave wall. It is alluring, we feel like children playing with these fantasy images (“we” are idealists).

Maybe I am wrong with my idealism —/— the hyperconventional world separates us from nature so that we deal with convention and understand conventionally, we don’t understand nature. Many of us “decadents” would die in the woods. My goal is not to create “this” (a strict designated, McDonalds for example, a building with designated behaviours, those working, those being customers, a layout to the store and behaviours designated throughout the store, stand and order here, sit here, throw trash here, go to the washroom in here, etc.) My desire is to create avenues, places of undesignation where we can reacquaint ourselves with the blankness which is our minds first meeting with nature.

Maybe I also have that desire because where I came from (and many places I’ve gone) even the wilderness cannot be touched. Where I came from you must pay to go for walks in the forest, and you must stick to the paths, and there are signs set up, don’t touch, don’t do this, don’t, don’t (designation…)

So we said,

but it feels like Nietzsche is not really the way out of the labyrinth. He took the Greeks for his model, but the Greeks lived very close to nature, but we live in hyperconventionalism. We return from our ideals into a hyperconstructed world of ideal (designations).

And so here I repose the question I asked before, is it that certain minds are naturally strong? The elite today accept reality (the reality which is now designations even designations with “loopholes”) and they exploit it, become bankers and business executives and politicians, play by the rules and maybe sometimes cheat-by-the-rules… whereas I (“we”, the ideal “we”) resent the rules, we play by the rules but we don’t really want to, and we spend our time dreaming of different rules, maybe even dreaming of nature to which we cannot return (because we have lost touch, or because there are signs telling us don’t, or both).

Maybe I’m reading this line wrong, but it seems like you’re implying that the projections on the wall of the cave are ultimately those of each individual — and I am here taking these projections not as the ideals in my mind but the conventions of society, which seems to me something like a Hegelian Zeitgeist concept. If that is so, I don’t really think I see it that way.

Nietzsche also said that humans have no free will.

Humans have no “free will”, but merely a relative free will.

Ah, okay, so then we may be led on by fate and the universe into strength of will. What a hopeful thought.

“Fate”? That is a very relatively free interpretation. Relatively free will does not mean “fate” or even “amor fati” (cp. again: Friedrich W. Nietzsche).

“What a hopeful thought”? That is either rhetoric or angst. Anxiety for fate, for defeat, for pessimism, for what?

Would you mind telling me where which problem is?

It was a rhetorical response to your own crooked answers. You definitely sidestepped my entire previous comment (the one before you answered about relative free will, which was irrelevant in the context) so I answered rhetorically. I did not see the point of putting much effort into the response.

There were no “crooked answers”. And I definitely did not sidestepped my entire previous comment. I don’t have to response to any stupid statement.

The Narcissus myth is one of the most compelling… as all are self-valuing, but not all is integer, and the greatest values are beauty and integrity, as mathematicians will say. In school I was simply moved by a primal recognition. I am very much Narcissist, as I think this is the best attitude within the nihilistic void. I do not mind the tragedy, I encourage the fascination. Perhaps this is evil, or thoughtless at least. But not nihilist – it is rather the first impulse out of the zero-sum game that nihilism represents. Game theory is the formula of nihilism, of linear determinism, and of slavery. the Circle: Psyche represents the truth encompassing the passions rather than the differentiated passions of which each is a ‘sin unto death’ - the truth that satisfaction of the self of its beauty lies in becoming, in encountering, in the moon-land where the girl waits, who is attached to her sun, the ego who now is fatally caught, as all suns are essentially. The satisfaction of Narcissus with his own compelled-ness is is more interesting to me than the tragic loss of self - after all Narcissus is valuing something, a phenomenon, and he perishes of valuing. This is the best myth to explain that to value is not to gain. What one gains is usually different from what one values. For specific fruits of value to appear, the whole environment of these fruits and all its historic requirements must be fulfilled. Much like children were never the intention of sex, so the world is not the intention of its creator. The creator is after all never the intention of himself – even though all magic is means to falsify that statement. Creation is necessity and not intention - intention is in recognition, valuing in terms of self, more specifically the will to dominate and incorporate. I think Dostoyevsky was a ruthless experimentalist, and Tolstoy a robust kind of patriarchal zen master, whose characters have also seemed wax-like to me, except for the small Christian fables, where the roles of the characters were so short as to be affectively elemental, and somehow moving.

History has not ended yet, although it seems to sink, to go down, to decline, to shrink.

History can’t have ended yet because the „historical existentials“ haven’t ended.

There is no doubt that some of those examples of historical existentials have been shrinking, while other historical existentials have been expanding.

Since the beginning of the Western modern times:

  1. Religion has been becoming a more secular, more powerful religion, a modern religion, thus an ideology; so religion has been expanding.
  2. Rule (leadership, a.s.o.) has been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so rule has been expanding.
  3. Nobleness (nobility, a.s.o.) has also been becoming a more hidden, secret, esoteric, more powerful one; so nobleness has been expanding.
  4. Classes have been changing: a richer becoming upper class, a shrinking middle class, an increasing lower class; so classes have been changing badly.
    5. State has been becoming a more and more powerless Institution; so the state has been shrinking, and probably it will disappear. => #
  5. Great war has been becoming smaller but much more wars and threatening; so we still can’t say much about the end of this historical existential.
    7. City and country as contrast have been changing by expanding cities and shrinking countries; so the contrast will perhaps disappear.
    8. Education, especially in schools and universities, has been becoming a catastrophic issue; so education has been changing very badly.
    9. Science has been becoming a new religion for the most part; so science has been changing very badly.
    10. Order of sexulality / demographics, economics has been becoming a catastrophic issue too; so this order has been becoming a disorder.
    11. Historiography / awareness of history has been getting under ideological (modern religious) control; so historography has been changing badly.

So the historical existentials state (=> 5.), city and country as contrast (=> 7.), education, especially in schools and universities (=> 8.), science (=> 9.), order of sexulality / demographics, economics (=> 10.), and last but not least historiography / awareness of history (=> 11.) will probably disappear during the next future, provided that humans will be alive then. But we still don’t know whether the historical existentials religion (=> 1.), rule (=> 2.), nobleness (=> 3.), classes (=> 4.), graet war (=> 6.) will end as long as humans are alive.

All of those are indicators of the “New Moon” rising to guide Man through the night and worshiped in Islam. They are the effects of instituting a new religion over an old one, “new wine in an old wine skin” (“Secular”). Islam increasingly publishes numerous videos associating Science and the Quran in order to maintain itself with the new order and religion of the new night and its false Sun, “Moon”.

Maybe that that is the case in the Magic/Arabian/Islamic culture. Do you think that the Occidental culture intends to use this for own interests, for example in order to “cement” their “global society”, thus their “society of the last men”?

It is only a difference in words and names. The concepts are the same. The “new Moon” as far as the West is concerned is “Scientism” or “Human Secularism”. They can no longer see the Logic so they revert to being guided by blind Passion (egotism, lust for power (WtP), hedonism). And are being governed by the Destroyer of all humanity, aka “The Devil” or “Shiva”, the “Deceiver and Divider”.

“Man” refers to the order or organization of people, of “hu-mans”. The “Last Man” refers to the last/final Order of Man, never to have to change again and is built upon SAM. But until then, the blind passions blindly presume that last Man to be a huge glob, Globalism - a single huge “particle” formed of the chaos of passions (including fear).

I am showing the Logic that they cannot see (and often do not want you to see). Blind Passion will prevent you from seeing it too (much like FC), if you do not resist it.

Are you a friend of the motto or principle “NULLIUS IN VERBA”? :slight_smile:

You’re kidding me, right?

Are you a friend of the German language?

[size=120]No.[/size]

[size=120]Yes.[/size]

Just in case you don’t understand English sarcasm;
The same answer equally applies to the question that you asked.

That’s not only “English sarcasm”, James.

…just making certain (verifying :wink: ). :sunglasses:

What’s your point? :wink: :sunglasses:

Peter Sloterdijk wrote in his diary on the 11th of May 2009:

“Woran würde man das Ende der Geschichte erkennen? Vielleicht am Aufhören der Sorge.”

  • Peter Sloterdijk, “Zeilen und Tage”, 2012, S. 197.
    My translation:
    “By what would one recognise the end of the history? Perhaps by the cessation of the care.”
  • Peter Sloterdijk, “Lines and Days”, 2012, p. 197.

Victor Orban, president of Hungary, in 2012-

“God willhelp us and we will not have to invent a new type of political system instead of democracy that would would need to be introduced for the sake of economic survival” Incidently, he considered Hungary to be an Asian country.

For him democracy means something else, whereas,
‘Many still believe that we live in a democracy even though there are clear signs suggesting otherwise.’

‘mass surveillance
violent suppressin of protests
attacks on minorities
expanding military industrial complex’ and the list goes on.

'We have the freedom to choose all sorts of products or lifestyles, but this not necessarily guarantee our personal or political freedom.