The Expanding Universe

The scientific insides into the expanding universe weren't known until Edwin Hubble in the 1920s. Even Einstein still had a static universe in mind. And though we have the idea of flux since Heraklit and metamorphosis at least since the I Ching, this "accelerating expansion of the universe" is still something different and to be considered, when reading any texts pre-dating the 1930s. (Of course Darwins idea of Evolution brought some kind of movement into the otherwise perceived cosmic stability, even if just on the level of nature.) Cosmology is an important factor to shape ones world-view. I don't want to bring up the East and West difference again. But it probably applies in this context, too.

Share your thoughts, knowledge and ideas on this topic.

Space = possibility.

Expanding space means expanding possibilities, veering towards the infinite.
As possibilities become infinite the possibility of a near-absolute emerging, a singularity, increase.
I would consider the concept of a Black Hole such a phenomenon: an implosion of possibilities into a near-absolute or towards the singular possibility. The singular is another term for no possibilities, as order is a restriction of possibilities.

Take matter or energy: flux displaying a pattern.
In other words a pattern which has restricted possibilities.
The concept of the Big Bang being a representation of a state of near-absolute order, or of constricted possibility: constricted space.
Since matters is a form of interpreted order it can be understood as probability.
The pattern is possibility given a higher probability.
Expanding space would be an increase of uniform possibility, and so of diminishing matter/energy: cold and dark.
As possibility become uniform all possibilities become equally possible.

This is another way of saying: random.
Randomness (chaos) is an absence of patterns.
The absence of patterns is the absence of matter or energy.

This equalization of possibilities makes the emergence of a near-absolute just as possible as its non-emergence. This is another way of saying that a Big
Bang, whether we perceive it from the other end, as in as a Black Hole, is no longer a singular event but a common one.
I would say that the Big Bang is not a singular event, but a continuous one.
From the other end, it is experienced as we experience our own Big Bang: as a beginning.
This ties in with Multiverses and with the Theory of Branes…or at least it does in my mind in a very vague way.

The brain cannot fathom certain concepts such as multi-dimensional space which tends towards a direction other than increasing randomness, or entropy.
The human mind is a manifestation of the human brain, which is an ordering tool; an ordering in the disordering.
It can easily conceive the concept of a fluid space-time continuum but cannot grasp Flux, as Flux implies multi-directional fluidity…a reality where entropy is simultaneously increasing and decreasing.
All of this is metaphorical, of course, since all language is a reflection of human abstractions: simplifications/generalizations, or what I call interpretations of interactions.

The question often arises: What is flowing?
This shows the dependence of the human mind on ordering, or simplifying a dynamic experience into a thing, a particle, a substance.
The question itself pressuposes the answer it is asking for.
All scientific inquiry is polluted with this sort of prejudice.

Even the concept of a universe is misleading and a human fabrication, as it implies a thing, imagined from a vantage point “outside” of it.
“Uni” is the same as “thing” or as “one.”
Which is a mental abstraction.

In fact there is no-thing which is flowing, or changing…and even this no-thing is misleading, for it takes the presupposed “thing” and negates it.
The dualism of 1/0 is binary logic and it is the only way the mind can conceptualize. It starts from a primitive I/other…or good/bad.
Heraclitus could not escape this mental limitation, reflected in language. Language and what it represents causes all paradoxes.
Even Heraclitus had to conceptualize the cosmos as a substance…or visualize it as a river.
But this river has no boundaries, no shores, no particles, no things…it is only fluidity, (inter)acting with itself.
This is where thinking must become artistic. Like all art, philosophy must be representational and all language metaphorical.
It must indirectly and with artistry describe what is elusive. Like seeing through the corner of your eye.

This (inter)action is what produces uniformity.
As interactions continue attrition is produced. Attrition is the (inter)action itself producing lost energy as the stronger flow affects the weaker one and is affected by it.
In time, time being a way of understanding and measuring change, all this friction leads to increasing uniformity.


************************************

The human brain, the organic brain, experiences this Flux as need. Need is the sensation of an absence…the absent is the absolute, the singular, the complete,
the perfect, the whole...ORDER.
This is why the brain is attracted to order in all its interpreted forms: energy, power, beauty, symmetry etc.

Need turns to suffering/pain as an indication of attrition upon the organic emergent unity.
It is the sensation of being torn apart by entropy...or disordering eliminating the pehemeral order we call life and/or consciousness.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Space must be considered infinite in extent, otherwise one is obliged to describe the nature of the border of reality which space is expanding into.... also the nature of non-space/nothingness which lies beyond this border.

Nothing follows from the assertion of something, which it is the negation of. However, one cannot say that nothing "exists" because by definition it has no existential value in any way.

Nothing would not have dimensions, could not move in time, could not interact, would be totally inert. There is no example of this available so it is not demonstrable.

One is forced to conclude that it is an invented ontological concept, probably originating from causality theories which presupposed it without properly examining such a presupposition.

Quote :

Scientists glimpse 'dark flow' lurking beyond the edge of the universe

Something lurks beyond the edge of the observable universe, drawing unimaginable numbers of stars towards it.

Distant clusters of galaxies are all shifting inexorably towards the same spot in the sky, beyond the boundary of what we can see, a baffling discovery by Nasa scientists that seems to challenge our understanding of the Big Bang.

A survey of hundreds of moving galaxy clusters, each of which contains hundreds of millions of stars, shows that they are defying expectations by moving at roughly two million miles per hour towards a particular location that may lie beyond the horizon of our observable universe.

The universe is approximately 14 billion years old and the "cosmological horizon" is defined by the distance from where the light emitted at the moment of the big bang reaches us today - roughly 14 billion light years.

The spot is a patch of sky between the constellations of Centaurus and Vela and the strange finding flies in the face of the current theories of the universe which would predict such motions as decreasing at ever greater distances.

There are already two giant cosmic mysteries, sources of hard-to-account for anti-gravity and gravity, called dark energy and dark matter, respectively, which are ubiquitous in the universe.

In honour of this, and because the flow cannot be accounted for by the observed distribution of matter in the universe, the Nasa team that found the cosmic drift calls it "dark flow".

The find was made using data from Nasa's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), which maps out changes (anisotropy) in the microwave (heat) radiation left over from the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago, when the universe was born.

This energy can be used to chart galaxy movements by measuring a minute shift of the microwave background's temperature, which astronomers call the "kinematic Sunyaev-Zel'dovich (SZ) effect."

The Nasa team, with colleagues at the University of California, Davis, University of Salamanca, Spain, and University of Hawaii, used this effect to track 700 clusters.

"The clusters show a small but measurable velocity that is independent of the universe's expansion and does not change as distances increase," says lead researcher Dr Alexander Kashlinsky at Nasa's Goddard Space Flight Centre in Greenbelt, Maryland. "We never expected to find anything like this."

The astronomers detected bulk cluster motions of nearly two million miles per hour. The clusters are heading toward one spot in the sky.

"We find that the entire cluster sample moves coherently (within the measurement errors) in the direction of the sky between Centaurus and Vela constellations. (The patch width of 20º represents the error in the direction determination)."

What's more, this motion is constant out to at least a billion light years and "likely extends across the visible universe," Dr Kashlinsky says. "The distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for this motion," he says.

"We ruled out every possible systematic artifact that can mimic these results and it is not clear what the remaining suspect systematics could be that could contribute to our measurements".

"We conjecture that it likely extends across the entire visible Universe (horizon). This can be explained by the pull from the far-out inhomogeneities, well outside the current horizon of about 14 billion light years."

Cosmologists view the microwave background - the remnant of the flash of light emitted 380,000 years after the Big Bang - as the universe's ultimate reference frame, which scientists describe in a blend of space and time, called spacetime. Relative to it, all large-scale motion should show no preferred direction.

Big-bang models that include a feature called inflation offer one possible explanation for the flow. Inflation is a brief hyper-expansion early in the universe's history.

Dr Kashlinsky and his team suggest that their clusters are responding to the gravitational attraction of matter - the "far-out inhomogeneities" - and were pushed far beyond the observable universe by inflation.

"This measurement may give us a way to explore the state of the cosmos before inflation occurred," he says. "Such structures are expected to be there from pre-inflationary epochs, if indeed our observable homogeneous Universe formed as a result of inflationary expansion in the first moments of the Big Bang."

He likens the observation to one made in a calm ocean. "As far as you can see to the horizon, the ocean seems smooth and isotropic (the same in every direction) and you may conclude that the entire cosmos is like that you see. But then you find a small flow in some direction extending across the entire field of view.

"The flow would then indicate the existence of other very different structures (say ravines to sink to, or mountains to flow from) from your local part of space-time (ocean). In other words, the ocean (locally observed space-time) is just a part of the larger and very different world (cosmos)."

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I mean to correct my initial statement, giving extra credit to those texts, that we still cite today, that were written before the new scientific discoveries.

I just watched a lecture by a Physics Professor titled:" Why doesn't everything fall apart?" (in German).
-Because there are different forces at work, that prevent that from happening.

In Esotericism we've got the saying: "Pars pro toto." The part of a thing equals the whole. (Or at least from a small part, you can make a good estimate of what the whole might be like.) More precise: "Microcosm equals Macrocosm". So whatever happens on the subatomic level, the cell level of the body ..., can probably be compared to the vast galaxy our planet is in. Might be a little off topic.

This is an intimidating subject, but the fact is, that all cultures of all times had some sort of opinion on Cosmology. Some thought the sky was solid and sun and moon were hanging on strings. This sounds ridiculous to us today. But this is where a lot of Religion was founded on. Even cultures that where more noble than our modern one.

The new science is extremely painful and degrading for humans. First we were cast out of the center of the universe. (Galilei) Now the Universe is expanding. What next? Where do we still get meaning from? Being these insignificant dust particels on some insignificant little rock...

Psychology didn't re-establish our self-worth. And the whole "Century of the Self" may have been just a reaction to all these mortifications by science. The search for at least some hedonism in material wealth. As a surrogate.

And there are other advantages to a static Universe. Like Astrology. In the 12 Archetypes our whole human psyche can be found. There was meaning there, within occultism. A deistic world-view, where God could be deciphered as representative of all nature that surrounds us. Where everything was a meaningful self-expression of a cosmic unity. A God. Even Einstein still had deistic ideas and some physicists of today admire the "elegance" of the Universe. Slightly even hinting at a designer.

We're too easily dismissing the greatness of some of these ancient times. Like the mysteries of Eleusis and Samothrace. Or the tragedies by Sophocles. Prometheus and Edipo Re (watch the Pasolini movie!). Those were deep mythical cleansings for the psyche of the people back then. Like our Batman movies of today, that are rooted deeply in knowledge of the psychological needs of human beings. Freud didn't invent Psychotherapie. It has "always" been around, just not as obvious.

I am not promoting the idea of god. But people before our times had more structure, more order. I see part of the reason for things falling apart in our modern science and the nihilistic atheist worldview it promotes.

Meaning is another term for the absolute, which is missing/absent.
When we seek it outside ourselves we seek to find an authority, a leader, a dominant figure to follow.
Meaning is what we call our desire for our existence, out sensation of existing (pain/suffering) to have value.
We must give it value.

To seek it outside of ourselves is to seek it in the other.
The absence of an absolute is what makes freedom possible, for it is also another way of describing it.
If there were an absolute, a truth, a God, then there would be no possibility to create it on our own…we would simply have to find it and surrender to it – which is what most popular religions propose.

The way we see the world and (re)act to it defines who we are, for we are activity – (inter)activity – and how we act is what differentiates us.
The types of metaphors we use and the manner in which we use them is what delineates the memetic boundaries which separates us from them…or I from other.
This is why this is a memetic war…or why within all this increasing internal uniformity there is a fragmentary (re)action which is beginning to split humanity along idealistic lines.

It is also why I say that I am not interested in changing the world, nor the human world (artificial reality, Baudrillard’s simulacrum), because within this environment I find my niche; I exploit the resources around me, according to my needs and my talents, and I am as affected by the social environment as a primal man was by a thunder storm, or a dry spell, or a herd of buffalo moving into his territory.

I have ceased identifying with the term “humanity,” knowing that this is also part of the environment, and part of the internal structures of the herd I am forced to live within and to live off of.
I pretend, just as any hunter, forager, scavenger or forest dweller would, when we wears skins, and paints his form and covers his own scent with another species’ urine so as to remain undetected.

But back to the point.

Schopenhauer described the world as a symphony, each individuation being a note within it.
Today modern physicists talk of vibrating strings which are not strings but only vibration.
The similes, images, used change, their underlying message remains similar.

How each mind reacts to it is what makes us different – psychologically speaking.

Quote :

If there were an absolute, a truth, a God, then there would be no possibility to create it on our own…we would simply have to find it and surrender to it – which is what most popular religions propose.

It is a little more "complicated" than that. This is the very low Religion you describe here. I speak of something way more sophisticated. People who tried to integrate nature and the forces of nature into their thinking and being. The pagans. This is essentially the religion I am talking about. Also probably some shamans, like Carlos Casteneda described in his Don Juan series.

Quote :

The way we see the world and (re)act to it defines who we are, for we are activity – (inter)activity – and how we act is what differentiates us.

Our world-view, that shapes our actions. Most people today act towards the "simulacrum", the artificial man-made world. I try to live and act towards the natural world, the pagan world, nature, the forces of nature. And it is not that hard really. I see the masses as a pure source of confusion. I take a dive in the masses sometimes, to see if I am still similar.

I've had my fair share of teachers. But today I see them as part of the mass. I was their pupil once, now I am their teacher, or could be, if it wasn't for their huge egos, to prevent that.

Quote :

The types of metaphors we use and the manner in which we use them is what delineates the memetic boundaries which separates us from them…or I from other.

I am not trying so hard to be different from the herd around me. I am anyway. Maybe it's because I look different, that I never felt the need to distinguish myself actively. I was cast out, always. A curiosity. It was more the other way round, that I at least on the outside tried to belong, knowing that on the inside I never would. I don't feel unique though. I feel a desire to know what people knew long ago. The sense and meaning they were able to see in life and the world. There were ancestors of mine, who I feel very much related to. This is where my identity lies.

Quote :

This is why this is a memetic war…or why within all this increasing internal uniformity there is a fragmentary (re)action which is beginning to split humanity along idealistic lines.

I don't have this overview to be honest. I don't see this "war" you describe.
Could you be more specific.

Quote :

It is also why I say that I am not interested in changing the world, nor the human world (artificial reality, Baudrillard’s simulacrum), because within this environment I find my niche; I exploit the resources around me, according to my needs and my talents, and I am as affected by the social environment as a primal man was by a thunder storm, or a dry spell, or a herd of buffalo moving into his territory.

So you are affected by the environment. So you have to influence the herd? Like Nietzsche said (my translation): "Just because you can see through a person, doesn't mean, you can get around them." Or you have to find a memetic group that share your ideals, who somehow make the social environment more liveable?
Not followers, but "allies", who also fight for the same or similar reasons!?

Quote :

I have ceased identifying with the term “humanity,” knowing that this is also part of the environment, and part of the internal structures of the herd I am forced to live within and to live off of.

I do it, because I feel the exact same limits in sickness, old age and death, that all of humanity has. It may be my soft spot though. A weakness. Compassion.

Quote :

I pretend, just as any hunter, forager, scavenger or forest dweller would, when we wears skins, and paints his form and covers his own scent with another species’ urine so as to remain undetected.

It's the asian part within me that has helped me with that pretty good. The "female weapons", applied within reasonable limits.

Quote :

Schopenhauer described the world as a symphony, each individuation being a note within it.

I hadn't listened to Mozart in a while. But he's one hell of a coach!

Making use of Entropy

I know that in the movie "300" some Indian "God-king" is depicted as a symbol of decay and hedonistic decadence. I think this is a false perception. The pictures
of Indian gods in rich nature and with juwels and luxurious clothes were meant to symbolize the richness of nature. The "overflow" (maybe another term for entropy?) and that there isn't any scarcity within nature. Like the Lakshmi represents:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Scarcity is really manmade. Nature is rich, but man has gotten out of balance and invented the economic systems, that cut off some people from the wealth of the earth.

So entropy in another sense, may be just looked at as "overflow". Richness, even. Abundance. Excess. And not just in the negative connotation of: decay...

Laconian wrote:

It is a little more "complicated" than that.

I try to simplify my ideas, like an artist who tries to
capture the essence of a man with a few brushstrokes on a three dimensional
field.

Laconian wrote:

This is the very low Religion you describe here.

We live in “low” times.

Laconian wrote:

I don't have this overview to be honest. I don't see this "war" you describe.
Could you be more specific.

In the "melting pot" of the
U.S. we have a culture of no culture. We might call it a civilization; a later
stage of culture. It resembles a culture but is void of it.
It is a façade, pretending to be a culture when it is an absence of it.

Laconian wrote:

Or you have to find a memetic group that share your ideals, who somehow make the social environment more liveable?
Not followers, but "allies", who also fight for the same or similar reasons!?

Curious that you do not think there is a war going
on and then you speak of loyalty and fighting.

Laconian wrote:

Making use of Entropy

I know that in the movie "300" some Indian "God-king" is depicted as a symbol of decay and hedonistic decadence. I think this is a false perception. The pictures
of Indian gods in rich nature and with juwels and luxurious clothes were meant to symbolize the richness of nature. The "overflow" (maybe another term for entropy?) and that there isn't any scarcity within nature. Like the Lakshmi represents:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Scarcity is really manmade. Nature is rich, but man has gotten out of balance and invented the economic systems, that cut off some people from the wealth of the earth.

So entropy in another sense, may be just looked at as "overflow". Richness, even. Abundance. Excess. And not just in the negative connotation of: decay...

All value judgments, as it has already been stated, are judgments in relation to the one judging and evaluations based on comparison.
(Inter)activity can be considered “abundance” and yet in nature there is only scarcity in relation to an organism that requires specific elements to persist; specific types of ordering.

In my world-view entropy means a towards uniformity, which means a decrease in diversity, in patterns, in resisting pockets…called matter.
This increase of uniformity means a decrease in activity...a towards emptiness, the absolute aproached from a different direction.
The universe is cooling down, which means that energy levels are decreasing.

This decrease in patterns is the same as saying a decrease in order, since order is a repeating pattern. This is a “negative” in relation to life, or to a living organism doing the judging.
On its own it is neither positive or negative, it just is.

"Abundance" is only a reference to activity (inter)activity, because to exist IS to be active.

It is simply stating the obvious.
But abudnace when it refers to order is a mistake.
Order, and all that depends and assimilates it, is scarce.
Entropy means a decrease in order.
Life is an ordering...this is why it is attracted to order.
For life order is not abundant.

All creativity, procreativity, is a product of accumulated excess energies, once the emergent unity’s self-maintenance is
taken care of.
It is the product of a willful act.
"Overflowing" means the accumualted energies which can then be used to create or procreate.

From another point of view this same process can be understood as such:
Increased uniformity, increasing possibility, meaning an expansion of space, may decrease probability, since all is becoming uniformly possible - veering towards the infinite, the absolute - but it increases randomness.
This randomness can be understood as an excess of unpredictable, possibility.

The entire thing fails because it relies on human diochotomies: human abstractions, static mental models, trying to define the fluid.

This is the only place mysticism, spirituality, has a place.

Quote :

(Inter)activity can be considered “abundance” and yet in nature there is only scarcity in relation to an organism that requires specific elements to persist; specific types of ordering.

Charles Darwin looked at the society of his time to find his model for natural processes. He witnessed the Industrialization and projected it upon nature. He saw a few people getting super rich (predators), and the majority living in poverty, with struggle, fear and violence.
And he projected upon nature to be the same. But the human world is an arificial construct and isn't related to nature in this way.
In a balanced nature there might just be enough food for every animal on this planet, including the human one. If we'd stuck with a paleo diet and not invaded in nature like we did, with all our agriculture, to feed the overpopulation.

Quote :

In my world-view entropy means a towards uniformity, which means a decrease in diversity, in patterns, in resisting pockets…called matter.
This increase of uniformity means a decrease in activity...a towards emptiness, the absolute aproached from a different direction.
The universe is cooling down, which means that energy levels are decreasing.

I'd have to agree. This is the scientific explanation.

Quote :

This decrease in patterns is the same as saying a decrease in order, since order is a repeating pattern. This is a “negative” in relation to life, or to a living organism doing the judging.

You take the bottom-up perspective. I may have just taken the top-down perspective.

Quote :

On its own it is neither positive or negative, it just is.

Yes, we just know the pov of a living organism and no other cosmological one.

Quote :

"Abundance" is only a reference to activity (inter)activity, because to exist IS to be active.

And existence itself may be active too.

Quote :

It is simply stating the obvious.
But abudnace when it refers to order is a mistake.
Order, and all that depends and assimilates it, is scarce.
Entropy means a decrease in order.

Again: from a human pov.

Quote :

Life is an ordering...this is why it is attracted to order.

Aren't you attracted to abundance? Isn't that what "Eros" is all about?

Quote :

For life order is not abundant.

That's true, but the living organism needs abundance to live. Today most of us are so poor, we are in survival mode. We calculate and save where we can. We are forced to live a spartanic livestyle of ascesis and modesty. But is this Life? Doesn't living start, where there is abundance? And isn't that also what the original Spartans strived for!? They subjected themselves to a harsh livestyle, they practiced Eugenics (in the movie at least), to maintain their tribe and succeed in battle, to one day make the earth a better place (a utopia, if you wish to call it that). The Spartans were a warrior tribe, because they saw the unbalanced life in the cities around them, who were living in an abundance, they could not afford! An abundance, that wasn't there. A luxurious life for some, that depended on the masses being poor and enslaved. Just like today. Only the numbers have changed and today the majority (even though living in scarcity already) still already live a life out of balance with nature.

Quote :

All creativity, procreativity, is a product of accumulated excess energies, once the emergent unity’s self-maintenance is
taken care of.
It is the product of a willful act.
"Overflowing" means the accumualted energies which can then be used to create or procreate.

I agree.

Quote :

From another point of view this same process can be understood as such:
Increased uniformity, increasing possibility, meaning an expansion of space, may decrease probability, since all is becoming uniformly possible - veering towards the infinite, the absolute - but it increases randomness.
This randomness can be understood as an excess of unpredictable, possibility.

I don't understand 100%, but tend to agree.

Quote :

The entire thing fails because it relies on human diochotomies: human abstractions, static mental models, trying to define the fluid.

This is the only place mysticism, spirituality, has a place.

I never meant to use it for any other purpose, even though I have been through a number of teachers and guides in the past who have misused this for attaining power, when I was struggling myself and became their willing prey (who was eager to reach some empowerement and feeling of security myself). My spiritual guides (inspirations) at this point are: Plotinus and Buddha. Ancient Greece and India. I may have finally arrived at the real deal. No decadence there, but an abundance of knowledge, that pretty much lies untouched in our modern days, where people search for quick and easy ways, to make them feel better.

Satyr wrote:

Laconian wrote:

This is the very low Religion you describe here.

We live in “low” times.

Exactly! Very important point!

Quote :

In the "melting pot" of the
U.S. we have a culture of no culture. We might call it a civilization; a later
stage of culture. It resembles a culture but is void of it.
It is a façade, pretending to be a culture when it is an absence of it.

Yes, my view is, that we shouldn't struggle, to even try to establish a culture, but go with the flow and work with what is there.

Quote :

Curious that you do not think there is a war going
on and then you speak of loyalty and fighting.

I think we are still trying to find out, what the "war" is all about. I'd like to see it as a war for the spirit. The spiritual essence of life. The soul. Because we live in "low times", the battle must be a metaphysical one. Bodily survival is just one part of it. I tend to dislike the term "meme" here too. It doesn't do justice to what I am thinking about: the soul. Not just traditional ideas or ideals (or complicated political structures even). That is too low from my pov. In our low times what is at stake in this war is as high as it gets: the soul of man.

Laconian wrote:

Satyr wrote:

In the "melting pot" of the
U.S. we have a culture of no culture. We might call it a civilization; a later
stage of culture. It resembles a culture but is void of it.
It is a façade, pretending to be a culture when it is an absence of it.

Yes, my view is, that we shouldn't struggle, to even try to establish a culture, but go with the flow and work with what is there.

Remember that historically culture around the world has had a fantastic basis... centered around creation myths. It was scientific progress which led to the collapse of these cultures. The question is why, after so many thousands of years, did only certain racial groups see through these myths and were consequently able to bring reality into clearer focus. This resulted in an increase in their power and influence.

Post modern culture is enslaved to liberal science, wherever science goes it will follow, until braver and freer minds can liberate it.

Yes, Modernity/PostModernity and New Atheist Materialist Science Whoreship (typo intended), is exactly what we deserve at the moment. I rely on Spengler, for all my info in this area.
The "Winter" of our Culture, which has been a Civilization since then, was marked by the in the history of thought names and systems of:

Bentham, Comte, Darwin, Spencer, Stirner, Feuerbach.

Followed historically by: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Socialism, Anarchism, Hebbel, Wagner, Ibsen.

Followed by: Gauß, Cauchy, Riemann

Followed by: Kantian thinkers, "Logic" thinkers and Psychologists

And since 1900 by: Ethical Socialism.

You're right about the "brave men". Bravery will be necessary for survival. And a free mind/spirit.
The state is something that controls violence. The state IS violence. The power and influence of our "democratic" states relies on Economy and Money though. With the "End of Money" this monopoly on violence is no longer with the state. And the potential for violence isn't gone either, like New-Age idiots would like to believe. The potential is spread more widely. And it is going to be the brave (and organized) men and women, that will survive the coming centuries. The "New Right" takes on the reactionary postition in the spectrum. Whereas the radical left are revolution (chaos) enforcers. My sympathies lie with the "New Right", but I don't want to get weakened by an intellectualism, that deludes itself about what is about to happen in the coming years in the West. And it's not going to be "nice". The "New Atheists" are anti-nature, like Judeo-Christians. They deny human nature, like New-Agers. Even Biologist Dawkins opposes Darwinism and seeks refuge in leftist statism.

So what will happen?

Caesarism. A politics of violence. More primitive political forms. (Look at Golden Dawn in Greece. They are exemplatory of what's going to come.) Inner decay of the Nations into formless masses. And the Rise of an Empire out of these.

You put your emphasis on race. I don't think this is going to be it. The races are too mixed already. (Hitler tried this and failed miserably.)

The survivors will be those that keep a strong spirit. Maybe even Islamists, who strongely believe in their prophet or other lesser cultures. It's a war on the Soul of Man. Your enemies / the socialist system is there to break your spirit. You have to resist. And therefor, even with all the outer events going on, it is a metaphysical war on your soul. NOT a memetic one. Memetics is a nice tool for intellectual games, learning and so on. But it is too low to describe this war. Ideas and ideals are too intellectual, to be heartfelt, like the soul. It is a war for everything valuable in this world. Our families for example. My father for example feels heavily insecure about his value as being my father. I have to reassure him that I value him and tell him about the systems that are in place, why he feels this way. (This only gives him a little relief, but he is too emotional, to even follow my explanations.) His spirit is half broken. Like with most of us. Satyr calls this Nihilism. Nihilism is another word for "broken spirit". We're all half broken in our spirit, by the force of the systems that are in place to make us doubt ourselves and belittle our worth. Atheism/New Atheism/Science Whoreship is ONE of these systems. It declares a scientific elite you and I do not belong to. Libertarianism declares Gold as the highest value. That too is a mortification of mans worth. Institionalized Religions belittle us before the man on the cross and so on and so forth. Your spirit is something very personal, that only YOU know what it consists of and only YOU can fight for, yourself. Peer groups can just be memetic alliances, but do not touch on your spiritual core. They are a means to an end, to help you save your core. Your soul. But only you know, what that is.

Krauss is fun!

The Helical Model


[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

he solar system is a vortex converging upon a non-existent central point, a singularity which is never attained because the vortex is also veering towards another vortex, another unrealized absolute, at the central point of the Universe...the Big Bang.

This spiraling creates attrition as it (inter)acts with other spiraling vortexes.
The (inter)action and the attrition produced, the heat, the light, creates uniformity, as the disparity in energies though attrition tends towards a uniform state.

This towards the universal center, is a towards absolute randomness...which is the Near Absolute Order, the Big Bang approached from a different direction.

I imagine it as a river creating liquid vortexes as it flows towards the ocean.
The ocean is a Near Absolute Randomness, which makes the emergence of Near Absolute Ordering, within it, part of the randomness.

Every emergent near-singularity is an emergent Universe...which then dissipates back towards the Ocean of Near Absolute Randomness.

Satyr wrote:

This spiraling creates attrition as it (inter)acts with other spiraling vortexes.
The (inter)action and the attrition produced, the heat, the light, creates uniformity, as the disparity in energies though attrition tends towards a uniform state.

Yes, perfect.
Unequal quanta sets up an interactive flow that creates the semblance of a near-con-verge-nce; a temporary life-creating/life-sustaining vortex; but this vortex is already disorganizing creating more disparity, more near-convergences, more such vortices...

Nietzsche wrote:

"Retreat from the high point in becoming to be represented as a consequence of this highest force, which, turning Against Itself when it no longer has anything left to organize, expends its force on disorganization -

a. The ever-increasing conquest of societies and subjection of them by a smaller but more powerful number;
b. The ever-increasing conquest of the privileged and stronger and the consequent rise of democracy, and ultimately anarchy of the elements." [WTP, 712]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

For the first time in history, a spacecraft touched the Sun. NASA’s [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the first spacecraft to fly through the Sun’s outer atmosphere, or corona.

This milestone in 2021 will help scientists more about our closest star. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— NASA Goddard (@NASAGoddard) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The Dance of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] & [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Credits - kollepara [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Space_Hub (@SpaceHub_SL) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

How the solar system moves in space relative to galactic center
by Dawn__Amber [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Amazing Physics (@amazing_physics) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Physicists are surprised to find that protons in some types of helium and hydrogen pair up far more than expected – which may mean there’s something strange going on with the strong nuclear force [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— New Scientist (@newscientist) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]