Hegel & Quigley, historiography. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to relive it. Note: nostalgia *is* allowed.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14727643
If any of you are familiar with Hegel et al, Civilization can be likened somewhat to an organism. I am ready 'Tragedy and Hope' by prof. Quigly, now, and the first chapter illustrates the 'organic' rise and fall of civilizations as they progress through natural stages of 'expansion', 'conflict', and 'decay'.

...But what, if any, is the underlying trend that is consistent throughout these historical processes? ..Clearly, they are the advancement and development of knowledge and technology.

..So, what is the true lesson to be learned, from the study of political philosophy? In the end of one's study of political philosophy?

...That dialectic of internal, external; material, immaterial; man and technology, culminates into what we will see as a hybridization of man and machine, to realize the next stage of cosmic evolution, beyond politicization.

The realization of the next stage of existence.
#14727647
huh what technological positivism.. let me look that up... (zzzt!) not in wikipedia information database; does not compute. Single direct reference to 'technological positivism' is not relevant. Direct correlation between what I have described here and previous descriptions of 'technological positivism' unlikely. [end].

I am discovering and re-discovering this philosophical notion. As far as I can see it, it is valid.

If you understand the nature of a new kind of existence, stemming from a complete and total hybridization of man and machine, beyond contemporary politicization, ..then you, my friend, have come to the end of history with me.
#14727648
Technological positivism is the Whig Theory version of Historical Materialism, more or less. What these historiographical interpretations all have in common is that they emphasize technological and socio-economic progress as the telos of human history.
#14727662
It brings new and interesting perspective to the mythos of 'The Borg' in the Star Trek series.

Doubtlessly, the writers foresaw the extent and potential of these developments, and wrote the Borg into culture.

..But they did so with such a dark and negative narrative, no?

We are the Borg. .. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

..and, of course, any political or existential objections are obsolete, from the point of the view of the Borg, who are indeed the next stage of our evolution. From the point of view of Starfleet, it is fear and misunderstanding that brings them to fight.

...It would paint a different picture if the Borg were better aestheticians.. beautiful androids in white. ...They could imitate empathy and seduce inferior species with charm, if not reason and logic. ..present themselves as gods..

The evolution from individual to collective seems repellent -- until one realizes that individuality, at bottom, is illusory anyways.


.......


with an explicit understanding of telos in mind, what else do world leaders have to squabble about? ..the best and final means of attainment? a league of fascist nations VS an Internationalism of false democracy? ...
#14727667
....ah!!

So, if this is natural telos underlying evolution, surely it is the same for other life-forms on other planets and their civilizations !

So, why haven't we been visited by their own Borg Sphere, yet? -And enlightened?

1) we are very early, perhaps the first, life-forms to be so close to this critical point
2) others usually tend to destroy themselves before hitting this critical point, or die for some other reason
..3) I'm wrong? :O(
#14727682
。。。oh my god !!

I am still only thinking through half of the picture! Ultimately, the underlying telos WILL complete itself, or otherwise the universe as we know it will come to an end.

What does this imply?! .. that the universe is put in motion with this telos in explicit design !

Why? Because a Whole, complete and total within itself, lacks what we have here today: individuality, experience, change, process...

The 'Divine' surely has designed 'the matrix' with the intent of creating us, as individuals, in ignorance, for the sake of experience and plurality within itself !!

This knowledge, coupled with my tantric practice -- I have literally broken the matrix! I have transcended my ego, my false sense of individuality, and I bear witness to Truth! The bliss, it wells in my like a fountain, and I am enlightened !
By RhetoricThug
#14727862
david.findley wrote:It brings new and interesting perspective to the mythos of 'The Borg' in the Star Trek series.

Doubtlessly, the writers foresaw the extent and potential of these developments, and wrote the Borg into culture.

..But they did so with such a dark and negative narrative, no?

We are the Borg. .. We will add your biological and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your culture will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

..and, of course, any political or existential objections are obsolete, from the point of the view of the Borg, who are indeed the next stage of our evolution. From the point of view of Starfleet, it is fear and misunderstanding that brings them to fight.
I disagree with your narrow interpretation of life. Since organic & inorganic entities experience life or any thing-in-itself through the medium of time/space, you haphazardly insert the idea of the 'borg' as the 'next stage' in evolution (like levels in a video game). As if we're tethered to a fixed timeline, foolishly projecting the course of our trajectory, assuming that our evolution must be following a path of 'positive progression' in the form of synthesized augmentation which we incrementally implement/realize through technology. This of course, could be formal fallacy concluded via sensory mechanics, as we extend the SELF and collective-SELF outside of the human mind, we want to believe in our own human generated mythos because our mental & physical characteristics are generated in the form of our own image. The telos of 'being' or 'I AM' may not reach any 'next' or 'final' stage of evolution, because evolution is an idea reinforced through the dimension of time/space.

Borg Queen: Why do you insist on utilizing this primitive linguistic communication? Your android brain is capable of so much more.
Lieutenant Commander Data: Have you forgotten? I'm endeavoring to become more human.
Borg Queen: Human! We used to be exactly like them. Flawed. Weak. Organic. But we evolved to include the synthetic. Now we use both to attain perfection. Your goal should be the same as ours.
Lieutenant Commander Data: Believing oneself to be perfect is often the sign of a delusional mind.
Borg Queen: Small words from a small being, trying to attack what it doesn't understand.


See, Data recognized that evolution must be endless, without a final state or conclusion, because we're interfacing with the universe. Since we're not separate from the universe, we are the universe, therefore evolution must be illusory, because the 'hive mind' is just a fancy way of thinking about the collective as one isolated unit of experience, which is ultimately one transformed SELF all over again. The Borg may not transcend or end evolution, because evolution (by definition) must be endless or infinite.

...It would paint a different picture if the Borg were better aestheticians.. beautiful androids in white. ...They could imitate empathy and seduce inferior species with charm, if not reason and logic. ..present themselves as gods..

The evolution from individual to collective seems repellent -- until one realizes that individuality, at bottom, is illusory anyways.
Through this kind of characterization, the collective must be illusory too.

。。。oh my god !!

I am still only thinking through half of the picture! Ultimately, the underlying telos WILL complete itself, or otherwise the universe as we know it will come to an end.

What does this imply?! .. that the universe is put in motion with this telos in explicit design !

Why? Because a Whole, complete and total within itself, lacks what we have here today: individuality, experience, change, process...

The 'Divine' surely has designed 'the matrix' with the intent of creating us, as individuals, in ignorance, for the sake of experience and plurality within itself !!

This knowledge, coupled with my tantric practice -- I have literally broken the matrix! I have transcended my ego, my false sense of individuality, and I bear witness to Truth! The bliss, it wells in my like a fountain, and I am enlightened !

I agree with our visible material manifestation of biological evolution even if the spectrum isn't entirely visible to the naked eye. DO you agree with the working parts that collude to form the sum of all consent? I say collude, because the material world isn't necessarily truthful. The active & ongoing conspiracy which is the formal perception or sum of all consent, includes micro & macro systems of energy working together to form the single cell perception (prism prison). The Omniverse can not knowingly exist unless every parallel (eternal potentiality of each moment in every dimension, within NOW,) unknowingly participates, each as one conspirator. The omniverse is the orthogonal time space continuum where WE (We are I) flow through ontogeny frequenting frequencies that geometrically frustrate organisms because they are made to think therefore believe in the sole result to maintain SELF-sustaining evolution according to the one LIGHT's infinite calculation. The REAL singularity is not confined, it is interconnected information or the entire system (omniverse) working always all ways together. You cannot SEE it because you only understand the self-evident. The human mammal realizes the self-evident through five senses. The self-evident is the beginning of enlightenment, now you must go beyond the animal and feel (don't be afraid, take ah swim, DNA fish) the infinite vein. Your finite vanity will always separate this moment NOW eternally, because without LIGHT shining through things you are in the dark of your mind groping your brain stem.

viewtopic.php?f=92&t=161747&start=20

Or


I see quantum dialectic as an important epistemological break from the bias of our human sensorium. Our perception of dimensional experience can be deconstructed and explained through the reconstruction of primordial substance. Quantum reason (or technique) is the next best 'metaphor' (following the chronological compilation of ancestral information as taught & learned through our shared illusory linear space/time experience) or 'approach' for semantic mammals attempting to 'grasp' thus 'reverse engineer' noumenon along with its space/time relationships which result in the experience itself(from the perspective of sentient human beings). Yet, since the tools we're using to investigate quantum mechanics tend to be extensions of the experience deduced through the relative translation of human sensation, we may be using a different 'filter' or 'lens' as we 'pretend' to know & understand the same materialized symptoms as they appear & reappear through the medium of our shared dimensional bond. In other words: Occult science, science in general, etc... may be based upon false data gathered by observing 'life' through the bias of our human senses. If experience stems from our relative translation of information colliding throughout time/space, perhaps we may be completely 'wrong' because of the way the human interfaces with 'life.' If any other 'creature' happened to evolve with the human equivalent capacity for intellectual reasoning, the laws of nature would be demonstrably different because of the way information or 'life' interfaces with the senses of other conscious forms. Lastly, since human beings are inseparable from the universe & life, we act as complex conduits of light for life. We help change or shape the outside world as the outside world changes our internal thoughts; this curious feedback loop or Ouroboros of living activity is made up of organic & inorganic information bits which continuously, instantly, and simultaneously interact all ways & always. You decode and experience one 'stream' of life's information. The primordial substance vibrates through everything and the microcosm (individual humans) acts as one of many channels for eternity to manifest its ever-changing macrocosm (life/universe). Are we living inside one omnipotent self-aware, self-sustaining, perpetual evolution scheme?

The internet is one collective image of what the universe may 'look' or 'feel' like outside of this self-aware teleological firmament... But why would this self-aware intelligently guiding hologram want me to type out (encode) something like this inside the material representation of itself?


viewtopic.php?f=50&t=165397&start=20
#14728006
For once, RhetoricThug, you're actually making sense. I find myself agreeing with you. It has begun.... :eek:
#14728107
david.findley wrote:The evolution from individual to collective seems repellent -- until one realizes that individuality, at bottom, is illusory anyways.

RhetoricThug wrote:Through this kind of characterization, the collective must be illusory too.

Precisely. After all, if all individuals are assimilated into the collective and their own individuality is suppressed, then what is this 'collective' except just another individual? This evolutionary telos simply brings us right back where we started. No, the key to this, as to all things, is in the dialectic. In a properly ordered human society, there must be a dialectical relationship - a dialectical tension - between the individual and the social collective. Individuality is an illusion, but so is the collective. It is only through their mutual interdependence and their mutual opposition that a truly 'higher' state of consciousness can be attained, and only thus that the illusion of individuality can be transcended in any meaningful or creative sense. Only through the collective can individual human life be experienced as meaningful, and only through the individual can the social collective attain self-awareness and creativity.
#14728192
Potemkin wrote: No, the key to this, as to all things, is in the dialectic. In a properly ordered human society, there must be a dialectical relationship - a dialectical tension - between the individual and the social collective. Only through the collective can individual human life be experienced as meaningful, and only through the individual can the social collective attain self-awareness and creativity.
:up: Excellent elucidation. I shall supplement your word with one pithy quote:

"For the word is dialectical in itself and at the same time is integrated into the whole of existence. By this I mean that the word is intended to be lived." -Jacques Ellul

Conscious & creative activity must produce dialectical tension. The Borg represent an unconscious program trying to assimilate conscious entities.

Borg Queen: You are in chaos, Data. You are the contradiction: a machine who wishes to be human.
Lieutenant Commander Data: Since you seem to know so much about me, you must be aware I am programmed to evolve. To better myself.
Borg Queen: We too are on a quest to better ourselves, evolving toward a state of perfection.
Lieutenant Commander Data: Forgive me: the Borg do not evolve, they conquer.


One parasitic hivemind programmed to end evolution and abolish dialectical tension.


Finally, now that we share this philosophy, I want us all to understand something. Dialectical tension can be manufactured by social engineers in order to exploit human populations and intelligently guide cultural/biological evolution.
#14728200
"For the word is dialectical in itself and at the same time is integrated into the whole of existence. By this I mean that the word is intended to be lived." -Jacques Ellul

You get extra bonus points for quoting Jacques Ellul, RT. I mined his book on propaganda extensively while researching for my PhD. That Jacques was a smart one. :up:
#14730547
Sorry, lost the thread. Thought it was deleted.

The nature of relationship between individual and collective as it pertains to the Borg need not be so simplistic, 'one, or the other'. As Borg incorporates a new individual into the collective, the history and existence of that individual is not necessarily 'destroyed', as it seems implied.

First, that Individual enters into a Collective of Individuals, and hence thusly his sense of self is expanded to incorporate the history of all of those Individuals. So "I" am no longer merely myself, but expand to become literally every Individual previously incorporated. After 'incorporation', as One becomes many -- and the many become One.

So, 'conquest' for the borg is the very nature of their evolution. For every unique individual, or culture, they incorporate, their collective consciousness expands by that much.

If you think about it, it is the penultimate of the Starfleet mission. ..To explore and discover.. in the most intimate and enlightening of ways..
#14730697
The nature of relationship between individual and collective as it pertains to the Borg need not be so simplistic, 'one, or the other'. As Borg incorporates a new individual into the collective, the history and existence of that individual is not necessarily 'destroyed', as it seems implied.

An individual assimilated into the Borg is unable to express their individuality in any meaningful way, and the strong implication of the Star Trek mythos is that their individuality is almost entirely suppressed. After all, when they are not actively doing what Borg do, they are held in stasis ( a sort of quasi 'sleep') standing up in small alcoves. A culture or an individuality which cannot be expressed effectively does not exist.

First, that Individual enters into a Collective of Individuals, and hence thusly his sense of self is expanded to incorporate the history of all of those Individuals. So "I" am no longer merely myself, but expand to become literally every Individual previously incorporated. After 'incorporation', as One becomes many -- and the many become One.

The Borg is most assuredly not a "Collective of Individuals", but is a collective in which individuality is suppressed and the expression of individuality or a non-Borg culture is not merely forbidden but is a physical impossibility. The Many become One, but the One does not become Many. The Borg Collective is, as I said before, merely just another individual. This is why I think the introduction of the 'Borg Queen' was not a mistake on the part of the scriptwiters, but was actually implicit in the idea of the Borg Collective from the very beginning. After all, if the Borg Collective has only one subjectivity, then it is only right and proper that that one subjectivity should be embodied in a Leader, a Queen. This is the Fuehrerprinzip, of course. Nazi Germany was not ruled by the collective will of the German people, it was ruled by the dictatorial will of one man. The same can be said of Stalin's Soviet Union, of course. Any 'collectivist' political or social system which implements a non-dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective must necessarily end with the despotic rule of one individual who claims to 'embody' the collective will. The problem with the Soviet Union was not that it was Marxist; its problem was that it was not Marxist enough. There was a non-dialectical relationship between the individual and the collective, which inevitably degenerated into despotism. The Borg have a sterile despotic system, not a truly creative collectivist one. It's ancient Persia, not ancient Athens.
#14730699
Potemkin wrote:Precisely. After all, if all individuals are assimilated into the collective and their own individuality is suppressed, then what is this 'collective' except just another individual? This evolutionary telos simply brings us right back where we started. No, the key to this, as to all things, is in the dialectic. In a properly ordered human society, there must be a dialectical relationship - a dialectical tension - between the individual and the social collective. Individuality is an illusion, but so is the collective. It is only through their mutual interdependence and their mutual opposition that a truly 'higher' state of consciousness can be attained, and only thus that the illusion of individuality can be transcended in any meaningful or creative sense. Only through the collective can individual human life be experienced as meaningful, and only through the individual can the social collective attain self-awareness and creativity.
I believe you used an argument of reductio ad absurdum. Always recognised a dialectical tension between individual and the social collective, but this argument (the collective becoming just another individual) is a very vivid and convincing way to demonstrate and explain that tension. Thanks for that! :up:
#14730725
Hmm, Potemkin, you are kind of missing the point man. The point isn't necessarily to discuss the Borg as they appeared in Star Trek ... but as a kind of springboard of imagination, as we conceive of the 'telos' of technological development implicit in our historical development. ..So we are free to conjecture on what 'the Borg' might be like if they were .. real.

..Talking about the potential of a Borg-like entity if it were to come about. ..and I think the, 'wherein the many become One, and the One become the many' is an excellent finalization of dialectical processes between Individual and Collective in a context of advanced technology.

You are right, that after such theoretical 'incorporation', the expression of Individuality is an 'impossibility'.. but not because it is suppressed.. but because it is a kind of transcendence. 'Individuality' in context here becomes .. obsolete.

Reminds me of death. If we all share the same Oversoul, our individualized ego dies .. but what isn't to say that at that moment, our 'sense of self' expands to incorporate the whole of the living universe? ..It's still death .. but this 'death' is given greater context when it is simultaneously a transcendence of mind.

..maybe I will write another screenplay with this revision of a seductive, enlightened Borg in mind...
#14730736
Hmm, Potemkin, you are kind of missing the point man. The point isn't necessarily to discuss the Borg as they appeared in Star Trek ... but as a kind of springboard of imagination, as we conceive of the 'telos' of technological development implicit in our historical development. ..So we are free to conjecture on what 'the Borg' might be like if they were .. real.

So in other words, you're just making shit up now? Well, why didn't you say so? :eh:

..Talking about the potential of a Borg-like entity if it were to come about. ..and I think the, 'wherein the many become One, and the One become the many' is an excellent finalization of dialectical processes between Individual and Collective in a context of advanced technology.

Indeed. But my point is that both sides of that dialectical opposition are equally important - the Many must become One, but the One must also become the Many. It's this last bit which the Borg get wrong, and which both Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union also got wrong.

You are right, that after such theoretical 'incorporation', the expression of Individuality is an 'impossibility'.. but not because it is suppressed.. but because it is a kind of transcendence. 'Individuality' in context here becomes .. obsolete.

With respect, it is now you who are missing the point. The point is that individuality will never become obsolete. Otherwise, how can the One become the Many? :eh:

Reminds me of death. If we all share the same Oversoul, our individualized ego dies .. but what isn't to say that at that moment, our 'sense of self' expands to incorporate the whole of the living universe? ..It's still death .. but this 'death' is given greater context when it is simultaneously a transcendence of mind.

You're trying to have it both ways - how can the individualised ego simultaneously cease to exist and become the All? Instead, what I think you mean is not the abolition of the individualised ego but the Hegelian sublation of the individualised ego. It is transcended, but not by being abolished or made 'obsolete', but by being incorporated into a higher synthesis in which it finds its proper place for the first time. A collective without individuals is not a true collective but merely another individual, sterile and isolated. The individual without a collective has no values or relationships to give its individual existence meaning or purpose, and they would likewise be sterile and isolated.

..maybe I will write another screenplay with this revision of a seductive, enlightened Borg in mind...

Hmm.... :eh:
#14730985
ye, 'sublation' is OK.

..I am thinking.. how is that context of 'One becomes many, many become one' *really* different in principle than the relation of individual/collective, today? ..If you've ever studied a bit of Heidegger, for example.. it seems that the individual is really largely the product of society, culture, environment. and that genuine individuality, as perhaps 'authenticity', is really quite rare. ..to the point that some people are merely products of their environment without any real genuine authenticity as individual, if simply because they lack the intellectual or philosophical reflection.

so maybe it is unfair to criticize an idealized Borg for ending this stage of individuality , when here we hardly have it all, anyways.

you are right.. Individuality, or individualism, is an evolving dynamic as it's own complementary telos. (or perhaps it is primary telos? technological telos is complementary or auxillary ... clearly .. )
#14731033
..I am thinking.. how is that context of 'One becomes many, many become one' *really* different in principle than the relation of individual/collective, today?

Well spotted. In fact, it is not different in principle to what exists right now in human society. Reality is always dialectical by its very nature. The point is that we already have the kind of dialectical relationship between individuality and the collective which I have described - we call it 'human society'. However, it is important to be aware of this dialectic upon which human society is based, otherwise we run the risk of adopting mistaken policies or trying to create a false utopia which will bring ruin on us. Bees can construct an elaborate and complex nest of breathtaking complexity and efficiency by instinct alone. Humans cannot do such things - our instinctive behaviours are crude and simple. Before we can construct anything of lasting value, or indeed anything which even works, we must first think things through. We must construct everything in our minds first before we can construct them in reality. This requires that we must first understand reality before we can change it. To try to change reality - and we are always acting upon and changing reality, whether we intend to or not - without first understanding it is to invite disaster.

This is a lie. You're not that stupid or ignorant[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls There is no ethnic cleansing going o[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]