Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

For discussions of culture, politics, economics, sociology, law, business and any other topic that falls under the social science remit.

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Tue Jan 13, 2015 2:48 am

Before I answer, I have to know what you exactly mean by:

- "new ideology",
- "left",
- "middle".

And why do you think that "to resurrect the dialectic in any form ... is premature""? The dialectic does not need a resurrection, because it was never really gone.

B.t.w.: Bubbles can easily burst anyway. Look:

Image Image Image
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Orbie » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:32 am

The new ideology, is one which You essayed as the one resulting as a synthesis: the liberal democracy, as the product of the thesis , extreme liberalism, and extreme authorotiarinism. I do not think, that was the exact label, but it was close to it. The transendence of this ideology, based on the diialectic, depends on this, and post modern semiologies, as in Pierce and Seissure, may be set against the at last formally, as well.
In semiology, might as well start with that, the sign and the signal both depend on the object, in this case ,it is the object of the signal, to transmit the sign to the receptor, so, the object, is effected by the sign,(the puported use) and the receptor. The receptor alos effects the object, (or meaning)--meaning is both, desribed as the 'thing' represented, and the idea, which is interpreted.
This is also a kind of meta-dialectic, inasmuch as the evolving dialectic which occupies Sloterdijk mind, that is, of gross econo-political processes.

Whem these two types are again fom a third triad, a new ideology may be conceived. this is what i meant, by the bubble vs the foam, the foam consisting of many more, smaller semiological units.

I am intrigued by this thinker, and Eric suggested look into it, and this is but an initial view i have. Always like to start with the basics, and work upwards, and not the other way around, for the simple reason, that , to give You an analogy, I need to look at the trunk before i can try to understand the branches. After that, perhaps,I may take the liberty to see, if i can learn of the roots.

That a new ideology is sought is implicit in Your statement, that the dialectic is alive, but it is, a tree in the winter, it is barren, and thatis why i think that the questions regarding the dynamics involved are especially relevant. At the moment, such trrms as extreme liberalism a d extreme authoritarianism, do not, or have not reduced the meaning of the signs to the level,where another East German Philopher claimed of the emergence of the one dimensional man. In other words, we are not at the point of flat lining yet, and that is why, i do not think the terms can, at this time dress up the bare ideals into a post modern dress.

Extreme liberalism is very vague, and we may think that, the majority of private semiology which is indicated is still balanced by conservative views.

By dynamics, i mean questions such as, what causes bubbles on one jand foam on another? Is the dynamic mostly of historical-causitive, or, whther it is caused by theseeking for identification and attention, another interesting idea he brings up.

Mind you, i am only getting my feet wet in this regard, but i thought it would be of some interest to bring these and other peliminaries out, before wading into the actual causation, and possible objectives, if any.

The effect on Fukiama's views are relevant here, since his notions of the end of history depend to a large extent to a diminishing ideological relevance, brought on largerly by the demise of the EAST-WEST geopolitical stance. That stance, was the result of the prior stance whose dynamic was changed by WW1 & WW2. Also the new liberal democracy may mirror ceetain features of the prior national socialism, which was the synthetic product of pure capitalism and socialism. What seems to be going on, is the change of the dress, with the semiologies trailing in a foam like separatism, awaiting a kind of generic unification, which can foam a new semiology, freforming a larger bubble. Modernity can offer more libralism to be sure, as the economic bubble gets to be inflated.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Tue Jan 13, 2015 3:58 am

Sloterdijk is influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche. So his trilogy "Spheres" can also be interpreted as a dialectic, thus (1.) "Bubbles" as the thesis, (2.) "Globes" as the antithesis, and (3.) "Foam" as the synthesis. Due to the fact that bubbles (thesis) and foam (synthesis) are easily breakable, thus very much instable, the spheres Sloterdijk means can easily lead to a new Hegelian dialectic. Do you agree?

The following pictures may illustrate what I mean:

Image Image Image
Last edited by Arminius on Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Orbie » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:41 am

Thanks, for that!
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Tue Jan 13, 2015 4:50 am

So you agree, Obe (Orb) ?
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Orbie » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:06 am

Arminius wrote:So you agree, Obe (Orb) ?



Agree? I agree to disagree. Clearly, I agree, on general principles, but disagree on the specifics.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:23 am

My question was whether you agree to the statement that the spheres Sloterdijk means can easily lead to a new Hegelian dialectic.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Orbie » Tue Jan 13, 2015 5:54 am

Arminius wrote:My question was whether you agree to the statement that the spheres Sloterdijk means can easily lead to a new Hegelian dialectic.




As the resentiment grows over the inequality which is of course subsumed into the Christian ethic of guilt and self hate, the so called liberal democracy will become as fragile as the positions the other two find themselves. Semiology dictates the same thing, not that it will become relavant by then, or meaningful en masse, but the globe, squeezed between the two fragilities, may not be ableto equivicate the one from the other. When that happens, well, Your guess as good as mine, however,
my point is, that this depends,on whether there is still time, then, to see this as that, which has already been factored in. Just like surfing, the waves behind break behind, unless, you let them get ahead of you. Then, it's too late. The literal foam of the ocean cover the wavelets as they break> You can not see the shore then, and counter waves create complex and unexpeted results.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Erik_ » Thu Jan 15, 2015 3:04 pm

Sloterdijk describes this primordial differentiation of figure (the mother's voice) and background (the uterine ambient noise) as the fetus’s first act of subjectivity, or at least as an act that underlies the subjectivity of the fetus:

“Turning a deaf ear and listening are original modes of pre-subjective ability… With this primordial choice between devotion and rejection, the first distinction in communicative behavior comes into force.” (Sphären I, p.512)

Image
Heidegger’s insight into the constitutive importance of negativity for the intentional relation between subject and object is surprisingly absent from Sloterdijk’s phenomenology of the sphere-forming relationship between the subject and his significant other. This becomes especially clear, as we have seen, in Sloterdijk’s subjectivist description of the appearance of the mother's voice to the fetus through the active ‘nihilation’ of the ambient noise in the uterus. According to Sloterdijk:
“the field of insignificance [i.e. the background of uterine ambient noise, PS] comes into existence first through the turning away of the ear from the annoying presences of noise; these are thereby “posited” [“gesetzt”] as non-informative or indifferent and are subsequently excluded from wakeful perception.” (Sphären I, 513)

But – to repeat the Heideggerian point – precisely because the fetus’s first hearing of the mother’s voice is the beginning of its intentional subjectivity, this nihilation of “the field of insignificance” cannot be an intentional act by the fetus. The receding into the background of the uterine noise first presents the mother’s voice to the fetus, who is thereby lured into subjectivity, that is, into intentional directedness at the voice. It can therefore not be the case that the “field of insignificance” arises only after the “turning away of the ear” which thereby “posits” the field as “non-informative or indifferent”, as if we were dealing here with a Fichtean “arch-positing” (“Ursetzung”) of Self and non-Self – a Fichtean connotation that is also evoked by Sloterdijk’s use in this context of the terms “primordial choice” (“Urwahl”, p.512) and “primal act of the self” (“Urhandlung des Selbst”, p.513). To be sure, there is no ‘Fichtean fetus’ – the fetus is not some ‘absolute I’ who conjures out of himself by means of negation the very (m)other in which it can come into existence…
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Fri Jan 16, 2015 9:37 am

B.t.w.: Sloterdijk's "Insulierungen" (the processes of forming an island) have 12 dimensions, namely 3 superordinate dimensions and 9 subordinate dimensions:

Superordinate dimensions:
1.) Absolute islands.
2.) Atmospheric islands.
3.) Anthropogenic islands.

Subordinate dimensions:
1.) "Thermotop".
2.) "Uterotop".
3.) "Alethotop".
4.) "Chirotop".
5.) "Phonotop".
6.) "Erototop".
7.) "Ergotop".
8.) "Thanatotop".
9.) "Nomotop".
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Erik_ » Sat Jan 17, 2015 3:52 pm

In Bubbles, there is a lot of reference to theology, in particular, trinitarian theology. Sloterdijk states that the triadic relationship between " The Father, Son and Holy spirit " is the first spherological bubble of intimacy, without the dimension of space, as commonly thought of --- that the relationship itself IS the space, in a sense.

Image
"Therefore, places of God -- in non-theological terms, places of co-subjectivity or co-existence or solidarity -- are not things that simply exist in the external space. They only come about as sites of activity of persons living together a priori or in a strong relationship. Hence the answer to the question 'Where?' in this case is, in one another. Perichoresis means that the milieu of the personson is entirely in the relationship itself. The persons contained in one anther in the shared space locate themselves in such a way that they illuminate and pervade and surround one another, without being harmed by the clarity of difference." (Sloterdijk, Bubbles, p. 607)
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Erik_ » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:56 pm

Image
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Fri Jan 23, 2015 4:25 pm

According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by "interaction" or "communication"; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Sun Mar 01, 2015 10:45 pm

„Wenn »es« den Menschen »gibt«, dann nur, weil eine Technik ihn aus der Vormenschheit hervorgebracht hat. Sie ist das eigentlich Menschen-Gebende .... Technik, hat Heidegger doziert, ist eine Weise der Entbergung. Sie holt Ergebnisse ans Licht, die von ihnen selbst her so nicht und nicht zu dieser Zeit an den Tag gekommen wären.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Nicht gerettet - Versuche nach Heidegger, 2001, S.224, 228.
Translation:
„If there »is« the human being, then only because the technique / technology has brought him out of the pre-humankind. That is actually the human-giver. .... Technique / technology, Heidegger has teached, is a way of unconcealing. It brings results to light that would not have come to light by themselves and not at that time.“
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby James S Saint » Sun Mar 01, 2015 11:20 pm

Arminius wrote:According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by "interaction" or "communication"; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.

Humans live in 3 "parallel realities" at the same time;
1) physical
2) psychological
3) social

Each has its own design and set of rules.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:35 am

James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by "interaction" or "communication"; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.

Humans live in 3 "parallel realities" at the same time;
1) physical
2) psychological
3) social

Each has its own design and set of rules.

What do you think about a quadrialism?

I) natural (physical and chemical),
II) natural-cultural (biologic[al] and economic[al]),
III) cultural (semiotic[al] and linguistic[al]),
IV) cultural-natural (philosphic[al] and mathemathic[al]).

So your "1)" would be in my "I)", your "2)" would be a part of the last part in my "II)" and a part of the first part of my "III)", your "3)" would also be a part of the last part in my "II)" and a part of the first part of my "III)", and my "IV" is what is called "consciousness", "mind" - we already discussed this (=> "Geist").

Maybe that some parts do not belong to reality, but that doesn't matter, because it is plausible, if all that parts are interpreted as parts of our world (universe and so on).
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby James S Saint » Mon Mar 02, 2015 12:43 am

Biological and economical seems an odd grouping.
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:04 am

James S Saint wrote:Biological and economical seems an odd grouping.

Yes (and the concept "natural-cultural" already indicates it), but it simply means that living beings try to remain living beings, thus try to do their self-preservation biologically and economically - biologically by the processes in the organism (cells and so on), economically by getting food (e.g. hunting and gathering), making and getting goods, money, war, and so on.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby James S Saint » Mon Mar 02, 2015 1:55 am

My grouping is more centered around:
1) Physical laws, objects, motions, and situations (would include physics, mechanics, chemistry, biology, physiology, physical tools, medicines, diseases, weapons).

2) Mental reactions, beliefs, incentives, and conditions (would include psychology, spiritualism, hopes and fears, strategies ("angels"), mental tools (mathematics, logic, romance), personal philosophies).

3) Group interactions, agreements, devotions, and current states (would include economics, language, semiotics, religion, politics, diplomacy).

Although I often separate physical from physiological (due to the fluid molecular mechanics involved), each of those categories obey the exact same inherent laws...
Image
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:44 am

James S Saint wrote:My grouping is more centered around:
1) Physical laws, objects, motions, and situations (would include physics, mechanics, chemistry, biology, physiology, physical tools, medicines, diseases, weapons).

2) Mental reactions, beliefs, incentives, and conditions (would include psychology, spiritualism, hopes and fears, strategies ("angels"), mental tools (mathematics, logic, romance), personal philosophies).

3) Group interactions, agreements, devotions, and current states (would include economics, language, semiotics, religion, politics, diplomacy).

Although I often separate physical from physiological (due to the fluid molecular mechanics involved), each of those categories obey the exact same inherent laws...
Image

Yes, I know, James. It is just another approach of the same issue. Our "groupings" can be easily arranged, I think. There are merley little differences which can be neglected, at least in most cases. In former times (before 2000 when I started to design my quadrialistic spiral-cyclical philosophy) I had an approach which was very much similar to your approach.
Last edited by Arminius on Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby James S Saint » Mon Mar 02, 2015 3:58 am

Arminius wrote:It is just another approach the same issue. Our "groupings" can be easily arranged, I think. There are merley little differences which can be neglected, at least in most cases. In former times (before 2000 when I started to design my quadrialistic spiral-cyclical philosophy) I had an approach which was very much similar to your approach.

Ahhh.. I see. So where did you go wrong? :-s




...sneeker :wink:
Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony :)
Else
From THIS age of sleep, Homo-sapien shall never awake.

The Wise gather together to help one another in EVERY aspect of living.

You are always more insecure than you think, just not by what you think.
The only absolute certainty is formed by the absolute lack of alternatives.
It is not merely "do what works", but "to accomplish what purpose in what time frame at what cost".
As long as the authority is secretive, the population will be subjugated.

Amid the lack of certainty, put faith in the wiser to believe.
Devil's Motto: Make it look good, safe, innocent, and wise.. until it is too late to choose otherwise.

The Real God ≡ The reason/cause for the Universe being what it is = "The situation cannot be what it is and also remain as it is".
.
James S Saint
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 25976
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 8:05 pm

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:36 am

I did not go wrong. And as I said before: our approaches are compatible:

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:
Arminius wrote:According to Peter Sloterdijk human beings live in symbolic immune systems and in ritual hulls / shells. If it is right that humans yield or produce humans, then they do it not mainly by work and its products and also not by work on themselves or by "interaction" or "communication"; they do it by their lives in exercises / trainings. So humans arise out of repetitions /recurrences, Sloterdijk says.

Humans live in 3 "parallel realities" at the same time;
1) physical
2) psychological
3) social

Each has its own design and set of rules.

What do you think about a quadrialism?

I) natural (physical and chemical),
II) natural-cultural (biologic[al] and economic[al]),
III) cultural (semiotic[al] and linguistic[al]),
IV) cultural-natural (philosphic[al] and mathemathic[al]).

So your "1)" would be in my "I)", your "2)" would be a part of the last part in my "II)" and a part of the first part of my "III)", your "3)" would also be a part of the last part in my "II)" and a part of the first part of my "III)", and my "IV" is what is called "consciousness", "mind" - we already discussed this (=> "Geist").

Maybe that some parts do not belong to reality, but that doesn't matter, because it is plausible, if all that parts are interpreted as parts of our world (universe and so on).

Arminius wrote:
James S Saint wrote:My grouping is more centered around:
1) Physical laws, objects, motions, and situations (would include physics, mechanics, chemistry, biology, physiology, physical tools, medicines, diseases, weapons).

2) Mental reactions, beliefs, incentives, and conditions (would include psychology, spiritualism, hopes and fears, strategies ("angels"), mental tools (mathematics, logic, romance), personal philosophies).

3) Group interactions, agreements, devotions, and current states (would include economics, language, semiotics, religion, politics, diplomacy).

Although I often separate physical from physiological (due to the fluid molecular mechanics involved), each of those categories obey the exact same inherent laws...
Image

Yes, I know, James. It is just another approach of the same issue. Our "groupings" can be easily arranged, I think. There are merley little differences which can be neglected, at least in most cases. In former times (before 2000 when I started to design my quadrialistic spiral-cyclical philosophy) I had an approach which was very much similar to your approach.

I am not going to go into the details, because I do not want this thread to derail.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Thu Jun 11, 2015 12:24 am

"Wo immer das Interesse an Enterbung und Neubeginn aufflammt, stehen wir auf dem Boden der authentischen Moderne." - Peter Sloterdijk, "Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit", 2014.
Translation:
"Wherever the interest in disinheritance and a new start flares, we stand on the floor of the authentic modernity."
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Erik_ » Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:05 am

This was a great thread. I should help revive it with more Sloterdijk entries.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2379
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:23 am

A very good idea.
Image
User avatar
Arminius
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5732
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:51 pm
Location: Saltus Teutoburgiensis

PreviousNext

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users