Ubermensch Drawing Board

[Reverend Moon Immortal]

( I have had this saved as a draft for a while because I hated it and thought I would eventually come up with a better idea; never happened, so I am just going to post this coal.)

The notion, that the initial passion that necessitates the “if I were reborn” fantasies in Iseki are always engendered from ruminating on one’s own lost time and potential, has always entertained me greatly; this infatuation of mine is only typical as I, like all here(I can only assume), have been assiduously and maliciously suppressed in all healthy developments. Hence, it is only natural that I have, at more then one time, pensively endeavored toward fabricating an ideal reality, in which I am able to become my current self at a younger age. My focus on not becoming greater than myself, but merely the self I am currently at a younger age, posits the completion of personality as the main goal of development. 

Before proceeding any further, I should mention, if it was not already implied, that striverism(the belief that one deserves more then their innate potential) will be avoided. Additionally, I should state, that although I believe in freedom for the higher individual, I contingently hold the truth that those of a lower nature should be enslaved; freedom should exist commensurate with potential: more potential= more freedom.

From an initial understanding of ontogenesis it can be comprehended that a human’s nature it not wholly consistent throughout their development and is subject to a radical change during puberty; therefore, a pre-pubescent and post-pubescent division in life style condition, aimed towards greatest personal development, is justified. The character of the pre-pubescent and post-pubescent shall now be briefly adumbrated; the pre-pubescent is naive, of small stature, and of a dependent nature—meaning that they are very vulnerable at this stage; the post-pubescent is approaching adult size, on the cusps of developing greater prudence, and is capable of an autodidactic education style. 

Given the character of the two stages, a more hands on approach is needed throughout the pre-pubescent stage while more autonomy maybe awarded to the post-pubescent, given they show the merit for it. Furthermore, in pre-pubescent stages, this more hands on approach should be administered in the form of personal dedicated councilors and educators who will overwatch the pre-pubescents development; And, from personal preference, many, if not all, of these guiding figures should be extremely attractive women. The beauty of the educator will have a pronounced relationship to attention span.

The ratiocination that has lead me to this idea is as follows: When rancorously recalling my early education(elementary school) I remember the stark neglect that was shone to me. After looking around after finish the assignment given to me in under a minute, I would wait 10-15 minuets for the rest of the class to catch up. The many hours I spend day dreaming and acting out scenes of harrowing drama between my erasers while the teacher guided the rest of the class over basis concepts they would take—what seemed like forever to a child—to understand. Eight(+after hours) hours spent at school a day for five days a week doing near close to nothing; what if instead that time could have been spend productively? I had always enjoyed learning, but in the end I was always denied an education; and the worst part about it is the fact that children have a much higher learning potential than adults. How can I look back and see my early “education” as nothing more then my suppression? Ergo, a dedicated private teacher is only a reasonable desire.

For the post-pubescent autodidactic opportunity should be afforded. One’s greater personality will start forming at this stage—as well as the development of taste—therefore the introduction to great cultural works is to be in order. I wonder about the formation of personality/taste and how much is due to environmental factors vs innate blossoming character(but this discussion deserves its own thread). I think the autodidactic principle is lofty enough as to not need any other mentions in regards to education.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Is that your end goal? I rather agree with the sentiment - creation requires a vision. But is the vision the end goal? Further, I'm inclined to be nitpicky about the phrase "infinite space of possible ideas", and it's absolutely untrue that we've run out of physical space in some way. In the contrary, many fantasies of people on the forum here and of mine as well are concerned with the fact that there is a virtually endless amount of space, and that we're confined to an infitesimal part of it because of the hangups of GNC.

But to be sure, yes, I want to be knowledgeable, be closer to my ideal, in order to be able to exert a force on the world. The "ideal" then is subject to practical considerations. The focus of my post was on theoretical subjects, but I chose them and not others exactly because I think they have value under such considerations.

My desired end goal for our species is a stable state where each individual retains as much of their power and human spirit as possible. Stability is important because it ensures that this state of affairs will never degenerate into one where individuals can lose all their power and humanity. Some parts of the human condition seek chaos and to take power from others, so the goal of individuality conflicts with both stability and itself. Space colonization seems unrealistic to me for practical reasons, but it would be an appealing way of achieving this if it were possible. The only other way I can foresee our human desires being productively channeled is through creative activities.

That might all sound too futuristic, but in today's world knowledge already isn't particularly useful to help individuals exert a force on the real world. The most common means of obtaining knowledge: getting a formal qualification, is limited to primarily having an indirect impact on your individual power through the income you earn. Your knowledge is rented to an institution (public or private) and the institution wields its power and the combined knowledge of many people to exert a force on the world for its gain. The knowledge we spend years formally learning is highly specialized and often only useful to institutions; you don't get a physics degree so you can make your own nuclear power plant. In exchange for helping an institution make a nuclear power plant, you receive money.

Money, despite its practical necessity, is life-denying because it reduces many metrics of human success down to a single fungible scalar. You obtained all this hyper-specialized knowledge, but what mattered more was your 6 figure salary. You can now use this money to buy products that are often considered necessities and are barely differentiated. Economies also tend to erode the purchasing power of individuals over time.

If you learn hunting or construction or gardening in your spare time and apply this knowledge to improve your life directly and materially, that's great, but those situations are less common today. Learning because you like learning is cool too, but I would not privilege any particular category of knowledge in this case. If you practice creating art, you will reap unique rewards with a personal significance to you that cannot be devalued like money can.

When I initially said I had succumbed to a certain amount of brainrot at times, this is what I meant. This whole paragraph is word for word a summary of my beliefs on philosophy and philosophers a few years ago. If you had included something about the futility of reading thinkers that have been read for centuries, because their ideas have saturated the thinking of all their antecessors anyway and thus you should at most read contemporary works, then I'd suspect you're copying from old writings of mine.
Unless you mean something else entirely, books answering "big questions" are of the Lex Friedman type of philosophy, and will not offer you much. Not to make too much fun of it, but I see your attitude as narrowminded. I would suggest seeing these works as some sort of metaphorical whetstone for your own philosophical considerations. Wouldn't you agree that whatever your thoughts are about the world, somebody else has thought them before, and expressed them more precisely and more eloquently than you? I find it hard to believe that you could not profit from searching for these and use them to refine your own thinking.

Sorry, but I don't see much of an argument here. My interpretation is that maybe you found you had a personal interest in philosophy when you previously overlooked it. This is going to sound even more arrogant, but I actually don't think that many philosophers have had thoughts about the world that are as relevant as mine are, because I live in such different conditions from every historical figure, and our modern philosophers are either morally corrupt career academics (Chomsky, Zizek) or eceleb grifters. It's impressive to come across thinkers that predict aspects of the future with some accuracy, in part because the way they write makes it so apparent how different their lives were from ours. However, they usually don't go further than to describe in rudimentary terms something that is obvious even to normies reflecting on today's world.

I like your focus on signalling, and appreciate that it is a factor in educating oneself, as well as in talking about "important" books one has read and so on. But I don't think that this is too great a danger here on Amarna. I just don't have anyone to impress with with achievements. None of the people I interact with here or on Twitter will be impressed by my ability to do complex Fourier transformations, and if they were, I'd gain nothing from that.

I believe you, and generally I think aiming to better oneself in pursuit of an absolute abstract ideal (even if we have some disagreement about the nature of that ideal), should be much more encouraged than the most common kind of striving which is socially motivated.

[Hamamelis]

My focus on not becoming greater than myself, but merely the self I am currently at a younger age, posits the completion of personality as the main goal of development. 

I like this articulation particularly. The "what if I could go back and do it all again (the same, but differently)"-fantasy is probably mostly a function of having a brain capable of learning from mistakes, and not even particular to the sensitive young man, but it is captivating nevertheless. In my earlier post, I put this daydreaming at the beginning of our exploration: how much of the dream can be reality?
Others have put this the other way around: In 20 years, you will have a similar dream, so you can start now to become the guy you will want to be in 20 years. To me it's all the same, because my question is still "what does a completed personality even look like?"

My desired end goal for our species is a stable state where each individual retains as much of their power and human spirit as possible. ... the goal of individuality conflicts with both stability and itself.

Stability and instability of societies are likely cyclical.

Space colonization seems unrealistic to me for practical reasons, but it would be an appealing way of achieving this if it were possible. The only other way I can foresee our human desires being productively channeled is through creative activities.

Why is it unrealistic? We're doing it already. How are creative activities equally productive as space colonisation, and what are they? I'm not trying to deride, I genuinely don't see what you have in mind.

[Mason Hall-McCullough]

Stability and instability of societies are likely cyclical.

I think technology will eventually solve this and we'll end up with one society of a fixed nature.

Why is it unrealistic? We're doing it already. How are creative activities equally productive as space colonisation, and what are they? I'm not trying to deride, I genuinely don't see what you have in mind.

Space colonization is economically unfeasible, not just because it's expensive (supply issue) but more importantly because there is insufficient demand. Space development so far has been motivated by scientific research, satellite communication, and trying to win the space race for political favor.

We have plenty of real estate left on Earth. Reclaiming land from the ocean/desert/mountains will always be cheaper than traveling through space to set up a colony in a place with no air, so there is no argument to be made that space colonization will provide a solution to the Earth running out of room. Other moons and planets are lifeless and uninhabitable, so a lot of resources will need to be brought from Earth. This makes no economic sense when you could set up the same controlled atmosphere in a harsh corner of Earth instead at a fraction of the cost. The only resource space has to offer is metal, and small mining operations sending metals back to Earth seems like it could happen.

Demand in an economic sense is not just "wanting things", it also requires the ability to pay. Many people will want to live on the Moon, but they will not have the economic bargaining power necessary to warrant a proper Moon colony that begins to expand on its own. It could make more economic sense for a Moon mine to be entirely automated.

Sending families on a ship to the Americas was economically viable because at that time we needed lots of humans to farm and build and industrialize. Humans are not adapted to perform tasks in space and will soon lose the last advantage they have (intelligence) to AI, so there's no motivation to send them into space other than as a publicity gimmick, or possibly an experience sold to billionaires.

---

Creative activities offer a sort of colonization across the infinite space of creative possibility, and creative freedom is a genuine freedom that does not conflict with the freedoms of others. These activities are not productive, but by this stage nothing is. The ideal man should prepare to face the Earth-locked hellworld that we are approaching, where every other freedom is sand in a desert planet of zero opportunity, with the greatest dignity. Even if we win, in the long term the erosion of the value of a human is existentially threatening and society will reach a similar state, though with a stronger political order we would suffer less damage in the process.

[BillyONare]

“When solarpunk communism is achieved, my role in society will be an artist.”

[Svevlad]

Space colonization will be a thing because 200 years after the Comically Evil Amarnite post-victory civil war, the hyper-ubermensch will spontaneously combust if the local population density is higher than 0,1 people per square kilometer.

[Matthew Jim Elliott Groyper]

Hamamelis:

If "everything and anything" that I could do to myself, by myself or with a tutor is up for grabs, I want character, especially the ability to plunge myself into work for long periods. Single-mindedness is a great gift, and I think it can be developed. With the tutor I would practise my charisma and speaking (in the sense of both public speaking and private conversation). If I had those things, character, charisma, and loquacity, I could live a hero's life. I would. Of course my task would be easier if I was better-looking and had a higher IQ. But those cannot be changed.

It may sound odd, but I wouldn't read books or study languages other than to amuse myself. I have spent most of my life on those two things and they do not help one to act in the world.

Thank you for the thread. Replying to it has clarified some things in my own mind.

[Hamamelis]

Thank you for the thread. Replying to it has clarified some things in my own mind.

You're welcome, I'm glad you replied. I haven't included much about changes to my character in my own post, but they should actually be in there - after all, if I could force myself to devote all my time to become better at these things, I would. Maybe that I can't means I don't care about them at all, that I just wished I cared.

[Guest]

- physical training and hardship beget mental fortitude. Rigorous strength training, long distance cardio, as well as combat sports. 

- comprehensive literacy of the western canon, the classics generally, and philosophy at large. 

- strong foundation in math, at least through partial differentials. 

- high proficiency with guns (think a lot of USPSA style shooting), and a strong understanding of SUT

These equip someone to fend for themselves pretty well no matter the situation in which they find themselves. 

Beyond these, a broad knowledge of the trades and outdoor work will serve a man well, and is very easily acquired (especially with the advent of the internet -- there's virtually no skill you can't learn. Other than these, priorities become much more interest-specific; does art interest you? Then consume and practice art. Does biology interest you? Then study it.

[Hamamelis]

>"physical training and hardship beget mental fortitude."
I have not found this to be true at all. I used to train martial arts 4 times a week, now I do strength training 5 times a week. I was always lazy, and always trained because it's fun.

[Guest]

>"physical training and hardship beget mental fortitude."
I have not found this to be true at all. I used to train martial arts 4 times a week, now I do strength training 5 times a week. I was always lazy, and always trained because it's fun.

I have, but it requires training something that's hard and unpleasant. I love lifting and combat sports, so I force myself to do long distance running too. I hate it, but it's good for me.