Eamonn Healy discussed in Waking Life the concept of a telescoping of evolution, particularly in technology, but I feel this also applies to human evolution.

To me, the split of mankind that is raised in Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche may be complimented by Healy's concept, or complicated by it.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a scenario is presented that the idea of an Ubermensch (Overman) will rise, but may be rejected by the "last man" who has become passive, desensitized, and complacent. Whereas the Overman is a pure being (that is, lacking desire in the purely physical and material nature of worldliness, in rejecting worldliness, is without pursuit of vanity and the ego), the last man is buried deep in his own base, animal needs. In having protection and security, the last man's mind is sealed, unable to escape.

I believe that as we continue to intellectually and, perhaps spiritually, evolve, we will be at a time and place where the "last man" who is stuck in the primitive behavior of survival and comfort will do everything to reject the rise of the Ubermensch, which is our next evolutionary step. He becomes afraid of change, and fears openess, freedom, and individuality.

We must then soon make a choice. Revel in our worldliness and continue a tragic play of life and death repeating itself, or rise above this and become something greater, something more divine, more logical and free of bondage that we have placed ourselves in under the delusion that we are "basically animal, even in our nature."

When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, I feel that this isn't just the idea of an Abrahamic God or a Supreme Cosmic Creator Ego, but of the enduring myth of an everlasting, eternal judgement against we, who were not just created by God, but are an expression of what we may call God, and furthermore, are God ourselves. If this hand is me, and these eyes are me, then so we are everything that could ever and will ever be without end.

Originally posted by ManjushriPrajna
Eamonn Healy discussed in Waking Life the concept of a telescoping of evolution, particularly in technology, but I feel this also applies to human evolution.

To me, the split of mankind that is raised in Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche may be complimented by Healy's concept, or complicated by it.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a scenario is presented that the idea of an Ubermensch (Overman) will rise, but may be rejected by the "last man" who has become passive, desensitized, and complacent. Whereas the Overman is a pure being (that is, lacking desire in the purely physical and material nature of worldliness, in rejecting worldliness, is without pursuit of vanity and the ego), the last man is buried deep in his own base, animal needs. In having protection and security, the last man's mind is sealed, unable to escape.

I believe that as we continue to intellectually and, perhaps spiritually, evolve, we will be at a time and place where the "last man" who is stuck in the primitive behavior of survival and comfort will do everything to reject the rise of the Ubermensch, which is our next evolutionary step. He becomes afraid of change, and fears openess, freedom, and individuality.

We must then soon make a choice. Revel in our worldliness and continue a tragic play of life and death repeating itself, or rise above this and become something greater, something more divine, more logical and free of bondage that we have placed ourselves in under the delusion that we are "basically animal, even in our nature."

When Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, I feel that this isn't just the idea of an Abrahamic God or a Supreme Cosmic Creator Ego, but of the enduring myth of an everlasting, eternal judgement against we, who were not just created by God, but are an expression of what we may call God, and furthermore, are God ourselves. If this hand is me, and these eyes are me, then so we are everything that could ever and will ever be without end.

I totally makes sense to me and I am agreeing with what you are talking about here. Although I have a little detail which I think the opposite from you. I do not mean to say it is more right but just make you see and understand the way I perceive it.

He becomes afraid of change, and fears openess, freedom, and individuality.

The man who reject the evolution of the "Overman" is not in my opinion fearing individuality, he is embracing it more than anything. The fact a specie can evolve from a step to another is through unity so someone resisting the tendency of all its fellow brothers and sisters is trapped in his ego, he is acting on pure individualistic reason.

Take note also, in the word "individualistic" one can find the word "dualistic" which present the concept that prevails (for now, but not for eternity) here on earth, duality. It is the opposite of unity, the ultimate goal of our specie this era of spiritual awakening.



I hope you understood my point,


Great thread to be honest,





Thruthseek3r

I suppose I should have clarified that I meant individual freedom, rather than the concept of an independent individual self. With individual freedom, we may follow the path we choose without overt outside interference. Without individual self, independently existing, we know that we are within interdependence and are not divided, but are in a complete oneness.

Maybe those Christians are right (to some degree) who say Lucifer as spoken in the Bible isn't a literal fallen angel, but the poetic embodiment using the Hebrew apocalyptic style of the evil, animal nature of man who is naturall prone to sin. Although I don't feel sin actually exists as a form of "weight" in the judgment of God, but that the worldly identity of a human is created through being raised by worldly humans. But I'm getting off track.