RICKY 2320

5y

you are wrong op

Smacked Voodoo

5y

OP gotta come from Missouri or some s***.

Bestowed

5y

I'm just not entertaing this sir. If you were past your beastly state you could see what's being said. Look at where tech is headed, it's inevitable that merging flesh with machine is the next step of humanity. Hence why it's a concept. Evolution is only been a***yzed within this current culture. I don't even think the Romans believed in it. Correct me if I'm wrong. That's why it's a concept or a process. From the current ruling state's beginning as the Wild Man in the 1200s, to their 'Rebirth' in 1492 to Running the world today creating America, experiencing innovation in tech and other industries. Now we're experiencing the 'Great Reset' or another 'rebirth' or Renaissance Era that began in 2019-2021. Moving forward, technology will be the next step in 'evolution' per se. Merging Man with their ultimate creation 'Artificial Intelligence' is bound to happen.

Ooo

5y

What if he’s a hotep

Cherrywine

5y

Didn’t we apparently pass into the age of Aquarius last December?
12-21-20 to be exact

eye contact

5y

you believe in DOGMA my guy you're the one in shackles if anything

mythic

5y

The people who say base things like this always have their own dogma that is somehow precluded from being considered dogma by themselves because of its exoteric social application

LYL

5y

y’all complain bout troll threads all the time but when dudes have a different perspective ya just belittle them call them names and tell them to stfu
what do y’all want

math fifty

5y

In Kubrick's 2001 we had nuclear space stations, artificial intelligence, interdimensional travel, civilization on the moon, spaceflight as a commodity

In real 2001 we had planes crash into the Twin Towers, an economic crisis, war in afghanistan, The Blueprint, Metal Gear Solid 2, and the Lakers winning a ring

Flaphead

5y

We’re currently seeing the other side of this coin, though. Information can now travel and be consumed far quicker than any arbiter can qualify it, which is obviously leading to some serious political problems (I.e. everything 2016 and onward) as well as truly toxic discourse on the major social networks.

We’re in the Information Age, sure. But will we survive it? I’m not optimistic based on how things have gone in the past 5 years let alone everything leading up to it.

Flaphead

5y

We’re currently seeing the other side of this coin, though. Information can now travel and be consumed far quicker than any arbiter can qualify it, which is obviously leading to some serious political problems (I.e. everything 2016 and onward) as well as truly toxic discourse on the major social networks.

We’re in the Information Age, sure. But will we survive it? I’m not optimistic based on how things have gone in the past 5 years let alone everything leading up to it.

skrt

5y

The one side of the coin (the optimistic side) is that the sheer amount of information available to us now with the internet is so vast that human growth will be accelerated extremely fast. Things that once were a threat to our survival can be overcome a lot easier.

I think the biggest detriment to our survival is seperation

eye contact

5y

Always whats your basis on that

What dogma do I even follow then

mythic

5y

You probably idolize politics, and believe politics is a 'thing-in-itself' which can be represented by a 'spectrum' of a***ogous points, or rendered into 'data' and that from this data 'proofs' can be extracted that serve as the justification for what could be called dogma or at the least be used as a vector for a certain kind of 'faith' in this political 'thing-in-itself'. From here we could say that the modern paradigm tends to split between idealism and materialism, but as materialism is a type of idealism (except in the case of the physicalists), as it is just ideas derived from materials, or materials turned into ideas, or ideas turned into material turned into ideas as Marx would have it then we could say that there is no distinction. Both ideologies in their purely modern form derive from Kant I would say, and by extension of him Hegel and this is probably the crux of your dogma I would assume. That you see things and know 'things-in-themselves' and you take what you know in itself a priori and apply it to what you find out a posteriori (or things you know in general whether before or after) and create what could be called a 'Hegelian synthesis' based on your own idealistic 'dialectic'.