But i would imagine that dilution would have had imminent and not transcendent ramification(s) You are talking about the Homeric age, not the Platonic?
My previous entry was in regards to the post-metaphysical age ( modernity ), the age of " foam " ( people rubbing up against each other with their own private semiologies ). The semiotics of imminence was in the pre-metaphysical age ( from the paleolithic till Plato ).
Well Yes, and i was referring to the other one,(not your comments) in terms of the broadening of meaning. Cross references are not that unusual?
But i was trying to idemnify Your Lacanian application as more then imminent(modern), by reducing it similarly, to the idea, the narcissitic dilemma, hence Narcissus’s fate, of a pool of water being reflective. So no dissent there.
Ah - you were talking to Mr. idiot boy ( Lump ).
Gotcha
You don’t need to refer to Lacan or Derrida in order to understand what Sloterdijk means. But it is useful to refer to Leibniz’ monadology, especially when it comes to understand the meaning of Sloterdijk’s „hubbles“ and „foams“.
For example: „Foams“. What doese Sloterdijk’s foam theory mean?
Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
„Die Schaumtheorie ist unverhohlen neo-monadologisch orientiert: Ihre Monaden jedoch haben die Grundform von Dyaden oder komplexeren seelenräumlichen, gemeindlichen und mannschaftlichen Gebilden.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004; S. 61 **).
Translation:
„The foam theory is openly neo-monadological oriented: Its monads, however, have the basic form of dyads or more complex formations of emotional rooms, communities and team unions.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p. 61).
Peter Sloterdijk wrote:
„Die Schaum-Metapher bietet den Vorzug, die topologische Anordnung von kreativ-selbstsichernden Lebensraumschöpfungen im Bild zu erfassen. … So evoziert die Schaumvorstellung sowohl die Ko-Fragilität als auch die Ko-Isolation der in dichten Verbänden gestapelten Einheiten.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Sphären III - Schäume, 2004; S. 255 **).
Translation:
„The foam metaphor offers the advantage of the topological arrangement of creative-self-securing habitat creations to gather the image. … In this way the foam idea evokes both the co-fragility and the co-isolation of the stacked units in dense associations.“ (Peter Sloterdijk, Spheres III - Foams, 2004; p. 255).
Thought you were gonna ignore him. Don’t call him “Idiot boy”. Makes the forum look shitty.
Not Einstein but Schopenhauer said that, and more than a century later Einstein - who was a Schopenhauerian - quoted him.
Mental masturbation?
Sloterdijk’s trilogy is called „Spheres“, not „Bubbles“. „Bubbles“ is merely one part of it:
- „Spheres I“ = „Bubbles“,
- „Spheres II“ = „Globes“,
- „Spheres III“ = „Foams“.
Sloterdijk’s trilogy „Spheres“ - the title is to be understood as an anthropological concept and cultural theory - refers to Sloterdijk’s Spenglerian main thesis, according to which life is a formality. And that main thesis suggests that life, spheres forming, and thinking are different terms for the same thing. This „Spheres“ could also be called „Space and Time“ because it is a connection project to Heidegger’s „Being and Time “ and describes the cultural development of mankind from a philosophical-anthropological perspective.
Yes, It’s called " Spheres " ( the trilogy ). I just like to, personally, call it bubbles.
Sloterdijk is a great philosopher - very unique and playful ( no homo ). Cool to see others, who know of him too.
Feel free to contribute to the thread with quotational entries from the books, if you have them in E-book form. I would, but I have the hard copy and don’t feel like typing in mountains of text.
Sloterdijk believes that the fundamental semio-sphere is, at least, dyadic in nature, that is to say, bi-polar or bipartite. Spheres of intimacy can be multi-polar, but as prior mentioned, they are, at the very least, dyadic.
An explication of a dyadic sphere of intimacy:
Sloterdijk proposes that bipartite spheres of intimacy can be intersubjective, that is to say, both subjectivities coalesce into one shared biune subjectivity. An example: A hypnotist and the hypnotized; the hypnotist forms a “magic” circle with his subject, he merges into the subjectivity of the other forming a shared subjectivity, a micro-spheric bubble of intimacy. Sloterdijk then argues that the subject hypnotized psychologically regresses to his primal state of communion within the womb, but that’s something to delineate later.
Towards the latter part of the book Bubbles, in the chapter: The Siren Stage, Sloterdijk describes the nature of the mythological creature the siren. In a synopsis, the siren is a creature that seduces and lures sailing men of the sea to come nearer, usually by jumping overboard and, thus, killing themselves by drowning, starvation on an island, etc. In the chapter, the case of Odysseus’ encounter with the sirens is explicated. He has his crew tie him to the ship, so that when the sirens begin to sing, he won’t jump overboard to get closer to them.
Sloterdijk states that it’s not the song itself, that is to say, the way the song sounds that allures the seafaring men, but rather that the siren’s song taps into the psychological makeup of the individual, a specialized song meant just for the particular individual — arousing his innermost desire for completion, recognition and being-at-home. Sloterdijk then corresponds this to the micro-spheric relationship in the womb between mother and fetus/infant, how the pre-subject has a discriminating ability to decipher significant noises from insignificant ones, e.g., between the mother’s beating heart and her endearing talk/noises. This personalized psychoacoustic relationship fills the pre-subject with euphoria.
Thank you.
Unfortunately, I do not have them in E-book form, and I also do nat have any of Sloterdijk’s texts in English. Do you speak German? If not, then I will continue to translate Sloterdijk’s texts.
B.t.w.: Do you prefer the first part („Bubbles“) of Sloterdijk’s trilogy „Spheres“. This trilogy is divided into three parts (volumes) not only because of three different types of spheres but also because of three different ages. Sloterdijk’s trilogy „Spheres“ could also be called „Being and Sphere(s)“ or „Being and Space“ because it is the completion of Heidegger’s „Being and Time“. Especially the first paragraphs of Spheres care „the book that Heidegger should have written“ (Peter Sloterdijk), a companion volume to Heidegger’s „Being and Time“, namely, „Being and Space“. It has much to with the idea of „Dasein“ in the sense of Heidegger’s existential philosophy, especially his fundamental ontology.
[tab][size=150]Human “spheres” (examples):[/size]
[/tab]
Yes, I like the first one the most. I haven’t read the third one yet, but plan to. And no, I don’t speak German, unfortunately. It’s a pleasant language, and I have German ancestors, but yeah - I don’t speak the language. I could learn it easily, though - I believe; I’m adept at learning other languages, and sometimes it even resembles English.
(For those who don’t know) Peter Sloterdijk:
Not sometimes, but often, because both are Germanic languages. Especially the everyday language is very much similar. Low German and Dutch are even more similar to English than High German. I can also speak Low German and therefore also understand Dutch.
B.t.w.: Only Humean studied German and is fluent in Dutch:
Erik, you should read the third part (“Foams”) of Sloterdijk’s trilogy “Spheres”. You know that there are bubbles in a foam; so the first part recurs in the third part. I guess you have read the second part (“Globes”) because you said that you “like the first one the most”, and you can only know it, if you can compare it with others, and you said that you “haven’t read the third one”, and there are not more than three parts (volumes). The first part was published in 1998, the second in 1999, and the third in 2004. So we may suppose that Sloterdijk needed more time for the third part than for the other parts.
Arminius,
Ja, ich habe das zweite Buch zu lesen. Ich suchte nach dem dritten auf amazon.com , aber ich konnte sie nicht finden. Ja, das ist der dritte Teil heißt " Schäum " . Ich habe die Bewertungen auf sie , die ihre Destillationen gab gelesen , also ich bin vertraut mit bereits . Ich bin auf das Lesen seiner anderen Buch mit dem Titel " Zorn der Zeit " . Das scheint interessant.
=D>
[size=140]
Ihr Deutsch ist sehr gut, Erik. Und ja, “Zorn und Zeit” ist auch sehr gut. Das Buch ist vielleicht sogar das beste Buch von Sloterdijk.[/size]
Okay, for the most of the other ILP members:
[size=140]Your German is very good, Erik. And yes, “Rage and Time” is also very good. The book is perhaps even the best book of Sloterdijk.[/size]
Maybe that the third part of “Spheres” is not translated yet. See:
According to Wikipedia (but who or what is Wikipedia?) the translation of Sloterdijk’s “Schäume” is not published yet. I am sorry.
Among the translated books I recommend:
- Thinker on Stage: Nietzsche’s Materialism;
- Terror from the Air;
- Rage and Time (
); - Neither Sun nor Death ( );
- Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology ( );
- You Must Change Your Life ( );
- In the World Interior of Capital: Towards a Philosophical Theory of Globalization;
- Globes: Spheres Volume II: Macrospherology ( ).
( ) [size=90]= Highly recommended ![/size]
I guess that there will be more books translated soon.
Danke 
I think I might have found a site, that sells the third book " Foam " in English.
suhrkamp.de/buecher/spheres_ … ew=english
I def. want to get my hands on the third one, eventually.
That’s from a Wiki description of the book, which is what initially caught my attention about it 
But I’ve been interested in the concept of rage for some time, mostly in regards to its force in ancient warriors, e.g., Viking berserkers. But the book seems to provide an even more rich exploration of it psycho-politically.