reply to post by badmedia
This is one of the posts I've been thinking about for quite a while now.
Originally posted by badmedia
Now I'm going to reply to the things which are political in nature in the OP. I have some disagreements with you there.
I spent a lot of time trying to interpret what should/could happen at the crossover from Q3 to Q4 because it's easy to construe "end self,"
"beginning choice," and "peak group" in a negative manner. "End self" comes across as particularly scary.
Good or bad though the whole reason this philosophy seems to hold water is because it's symmetric. Meaning if we can overcome nature ("end natural
exigency" at point (a
)) that means all of these concepts must have an "end," as seen in Fig. 2 below,
To gain a better understanding of what this idea as a system was conveying about the "end" stage I focused my efforts on better grasping "end
natural exigency" and through understanding its properties began to develop a better picture of the meaning for the "end" of "self," "group,"
The easiest way to start to grasp this is by imagining a world or universe where "end natural exigency" is simply an impossibility. Thinking along
these lines helped me to construct Fig. 3.1,
From this we can see that in a universe where "overcoming nature imposed exigency" is anathema there can be no aesthetic. Likewise in a world
that's naturally self-ordering, the creationist reality, there can never be "competition" or entropy.
So through negation and contrast we gain a bit of an insight as to what these symmetries are telling us.
What fascinated me early on is I had realized there were both positive (as in a good outcome), neutral, and negative interpretations for each of these
points. For instance "end natural exigency" can be seen as rather depressing if we envision this to mean "the universe comes to an end through a
`big rip`" as suggested by current WMAP data & hinted at in Fig. 5
On the flip-side the ideal or good
outcome for "end natural exigency" is the notion that nature's rules no longer apply and therefore its
ability to act as a source
for exigency is extinguished.
It was through this line of thinking I realized the Z-axis in Fig. 1
represents "consequence" as visually depicted below,
Each position in Fig. 1 has both good & negative connotations. It can either oscillate up or down, remain fixed in a given position, or behave
With this as a ground-framework I think it's possible to show that our viewpoints aren't that different.
The base of all society is found in the individuals. And each and every government and system which has failed has failed because that system
forgot about the individual. It became what you said is "Sacrifice" for the system. And the individual became slave to the system, and thus slave to
the elites who ran the system. Because they eroded the base of their society, the individual. Take out the bottom floor of any building, and every
floor above it will come tumbling down.
This entire paragraph is clearly in response to the following segment from the original post,
Exigency of 0 implies the end of nature enforced scarcity locally but global to humanity. However since value (to be produced & reproduced)
reaches infinity it also suggests all people must somehow sacrifice more than they each collectively receive.
I believe there's a simple misunderstanding here because I really don't think we're disagreeing with each other.
Indeed you're correct the self is the foundation.
As elaborated on above there's a neutral, good, and bad way to interpret "end self." One way to gain an understanding of these qualitative aspects
is to look at Fig 3.1.
In a universe of "self-hood" (i.e. the Nietzschean reality) the goal is complete independence, self empowerment and "voluptuous pleasure." This
goes hand-in-hand with the notion of decentralization and the power being vested in the smallest unit rather than consolidated at the top of a
Self is supposed to "end" at the completion of Q3. This means the positive (or good
consequence) is the "self" achieving the goal of
unlimited self-empowerment. Since this also occurs at the point of y=-1, which indicates the greatest good to be consumed for the group, this tells us
something rather important.
It's saying to achieve the greatest good for the group requires empowering all people such that there's no longer a need or desire to satisfy the
self. If every person is infinitely sated, such that self is no longer an issue, then the only thing remaining is a focus on the group or assisting
is the goal I'm advocating.
The negative interpretation of "end self" is terrifying.
Recall that in the case of "end natural exigency" if nature can't be tamed this then implies the universe will eventually rip itself apart.
Similarly if the "self" is incapable of being completely filled this means some person, organization or thing
will ultimately accumulate
power and won't relinquish it under any circumstance because its personal goal is to possess unlimited value to be produced and
for its own benefit.
This is why I'm urging people to focus on "reducing natural exigency to 0" for all people. This pushes consequence into the positive. Whereas
simply reducing natural exigency for self is neutral. Decreasing natural exigency for self at cost to others is negative.
To give an example, if a person found a way to tap something like zero-point energy, or managed to design an over-unity engine, and then chose to give
it away freely this would have a positive consequence since it would help to empower all "selves." Conversely if a person came up with such a system
and sold it to a power-conglomerate, which then chose to hide the results to continue to reap big profits from other more scarce natural resources,
clearly this would be a negative consequence.
So there are two very well defined polarized
outcomes for y=-1 (indicating life as a good to be consumed for the group
) on the unit
circle in Fig. 1:
- The complete self-empowerment of all of people (positive)
- the utter domination of all things by a single entity (negative).
While #2 may not sound particularly useful for the "group" this is because the implication is self can't be overcome. So it becomes an
rather than simply another position continuing the process indefinitely.
Another way to understand what may happen at point (d
) is to consider the "worlds" in figure 3.1, as just that, different universes. Based on
objective observation we likely live in the scientism reality as seen in fig 3.1. Meaning, potentially, something else
lives in the
If something lives in that reality then at the cross-over that thing
ultimately achieves its goal and, very likely, bleeds out in to our world.
Obviously there are a number of very old belief-systems that describe just such a scenario happening in the end-of-days.
Frankly I'd rather avoid that kind of outcome and the only way I see that happening is if we achieve the positive consequence for y=-1, which is the
complete self-empowerment of all people.
[edit on 27-2-2010 by Xtraeme]