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 MechanicalMonster » Sat Jun 20, 2015 2:38 pm

Yes, great thread. About the Fichtean self, or the intermedial and (subsequently) transitive-generative posited ground on which even pre-subjective "immanent" differentiations are supposed as derivative meta-orders of some receded being-itself qua being-in-the-world beyond the confines or reaches of any of that "primordial pre-subjective substantiality", it is possible to claim this posited sub-realm is that out of which fetal originariness is possible to come (in Deleuzean fashion, 'BwO' and so on) in the sense of what Peirce raised as the philosophical problem of identifying the logic of the cause of the possibility for consciousness to exist not saying anything yet about the natural-selective logics by which that consciousness folds into its existences. Is the fetus simply assumed its originary pre-subjective nucleus, as some sort of ontological necessity by way of extension of the fields of the mother, a kind of fracturing, or can we go deeper and posit a ground of meaning beyond even a rhizomatically-structured materiality? Peirce's distinction between dyadic and triadic relation-structures would at least frame the semiotic as principle of individuation at the site of dyadic rupture, in so far as being becomes self-divided and 'expansive' enough (not least in a temporal sense, see Kitaro's theory of the dimensional vectors-subject) in itself to at least produce logical possibilities for fundentally irreconcilable outcomes. Bergson, Deleuze, these guys are all pointing to the same thing here: self-valuing. A distinction between noise and voice would rest upon a pre-existing capacity for distinguishing differences in sensory stimulation in such a way as to play upon an entire process and universe of possible meaning, meaning in a semiotic and phenomenological sense remaining open to non-enfolded departures and entirely external flows (excess).

In other words where we want to draw the line of fundamental differentiation requires by definition a self-closure of meaning space by virtue of which being becomes inarticulate before the actual contexts and sums of influencing, causal factors by and out of which it is truly being created; furthermore I don't even think this can act alone as a ground of truth, not anyway until a wider logical clarity is allowed to remake a huge portion of our conceptual spaces.

The entire relationship speaking conceptually needs to be reversed, a kind of return to the Idea, for philosophy is already strained in its concept-making abilities (although S.'s metaphors are very nice). First question, Where do we seat the locus of ideas, 'what is a concept' and by extension a logic, a relation, a conditional materiality, a 'grid'? I'd rather posit difference itself as the ontic quantum, excess therefore being the subjective or materialogical quantum. What do you get if being's fundament is one of excessivity? Or said another way, if 'being' itself is nothing but a derived accumulative representation of an essentially excessive, disjuncted structure?

But the morality here is also reversed, we cannot reject that the kind of building in Heidegger's sense holds an especially moral-normative place in the existence of being, of beings, even if and especially because of how this building can never get deep enough into the ground or "repair" the abysses which are reflections of that ground. The impossibilities of morality are the conditions of its very necessity.

Private semiologies a la postmodernity and the "foam" (nice visual) has always been the case, even way back when the spheres of the individual principle were way less dimensionalized and far less articulate, far less "art-able". The inadequacy of the artability of the individual sphere against the domains of possible intersubjectivity available to that sphere (inadequate social construction including mythological and conceptual closures) brought about the necessity for monospherical pre-modern and modern structures, it became possible to produce a shared "dyadic individualism" because the milieu was insufficient to allow artful being in any other sense, thus the formation of comprehensive social-moral codes, the gods, death rites, honor codes, shamanism, etc. Now we have the kind of "end of history" or mass cultural dissolutions "post Europeanisms" (Valery) that express not some Nietzschean will to nothingness but closer to something like the Thanototic pull of the inescapability of one's own error, of the errors and impossibilities of the structure-positing cultural ego-machines whose ontological limits have been reached in an age where the speed and proliferation of information allows a new secondary kind of excessivity to outstrip the first, more primordial one. This is a "will" only if we choose to examine it only from the perspective of already given ends and from a psychological context already self-bound to the terminating self-reference: Being is a striving for reconciliation which need is produced by the always more basic and disperse self-valuing localities which beings concretize by virtue of the act of "being" at all, by virtue of acting as a loose tethering of disparate materialities; but to merely assume that view would be to hold analysis down to the rock bottom of itself and fail to raise understanding beyond and into the more universal spaces of logic and construction required if we are to really begin framing things "in the real". It is not enough to merely give passing reference to reality and then bury ourselves in the convenient dirt of already-cogent onto-epistemic formularies. It is "psyche" itself which much also be overcome, not simply the limitations of the common narratives, and a whole new kind of philosophy and vision-capacity is needed to even usher into existence the possibility for something for which the old limits are merely so much detritus, fuel and exclusive value, so much "joyous overcoming" perhaps if we want to evoke Nietzsche.

S. is doing nice work, but I'd like to see him building more toward that future requirement on the basis of which the possibilities for new kinds of philosophy will arise, rather than simply refine the old tools for new problems (this latter is still good work, of course, but truly capable minds are always called to something more noble). But you are more familiar with the body of his work than I am, so please keep posting quotes in here.
"He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences, collectively." --Peirce
User avatar
MechanicalMonster
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:25 am
Location: Disengaging from idiocy

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby MechanicalMonster » Sat Jun 20, 2015 4:04 pm

Regarding foam and monospheres it would be more correct to talk about tapestries of subjective determinations, tapestries not just in space but across times and ages, tapestries with variations in the ways in which private semiologies are able to organize and relate to the wider social conditions out of which they emerge, rather than reducing it to a sort of hard either-or distinction between pre- and post-modern setups. It seems to me that impossibilities for the maintenance of private spaces of meaning (always limited to certain contexts and domains) would secure the necessity for more all-encompassing "modern" semiotics and the value of master signifiers generally; but in fact private spaces culled from shared conditionality is the root structure and cannot really be inverted except in the sense of imposing more distance and concrete form to individual forms. Nowadays we have more significant conflict and compromise between individual spaces simply because of the sheer greater number and kind of them, but there still exist logical archeologies that bind them into possible configurations. It is on the basis of that by virtue of which such logics arise that we would need to found our philosophy, if we are to avoid becoming trapped in this or that particular configuration.

And it is also here where extra-subjective points and flows can be determined, by seeing into the conditional nature of previously supposed certainties and givens or "doxa". Does S understand this? What is his analysis of rage, for instance, in an existential or "psychological" sense? I'm looking for more universal concepts and less assumptions, less merely utilitarian or egoic-pathological ideas. Saying rage-banking is a basis of Christianity is a nice observation, but let's be careful not to replace a larger view of the picture with one small part of that same picture. That is the danger the philosopher faces, and it is two-fold: that he would substitute his own view for the view itself, and/or that he would substitute one partial truth for the larger truth of which the partial is partial. Very rarely have I come across thinkers, past or present, who truly work with regard to these dangers.
"He who would not sacrifice his own soul to save the whole world, is, as it seems to me, illogical in all his inferences, collectively." --Peirce
User avatar
MechanicalMonster
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Sat Aug 17, 2013 2:25 am
Location: Disengaging from idiocy

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:45 am

"Spaces of Transformation: Spatialised Immunity".

Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophico-morphological theory is based on an understanding of the history of culture as spatialisations of forms. The world in which we live now requires us to design new types of ‘spatialised immunity’. More broadly, the concept of a spherical logic of space – a polymorphologic of form, order and thinking – is explicated in Spheres, his three-volume archaeology of the human attempt to dwell within spaces, from womb to globe. The Spheres project (Bubbles, Globe, Foam) is a significant topological turn in the field of contemporary philosophy, ‘a super-workout for communicative energies capable of finding contact throughout the entire world.’

- http://www.tate.org.uk/context-comment/ ... d-immunity .
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 The Golden Turd » Wed Jul 29, 2015 4:08 am

Turned my phone up and immediately this pops up? Odd, never bother with these threads.

Peter Sloterdijk’s philosophico-morphological theory is based on an understanding of the history of culture as spatialisations of forms. The world in which we live now requires us to design new types of ‘spatialised immunity’. More broadly, the concept of a spherical logic of space – a polymorphologic of form, order and thinking – is explicated in Spheres, his three-volume archaeology of the human attempt to dwell within spaces, from womb to globe. The Spheres project (Bubbles, Globe, Foam) is a significant topological turn in the field of contemporary philosophy, ‘a super-workout for communicative energies capable of finding contact throughout the entire world.’


I don't know the context of the rest of this thread, as I didn't read it, but this isn't exactly original. Its your basic Politeia as roughly described by Aristotle and then the Stoics.

Sloterdijk.... isn't he a German Borg, wants to fuck toasters and blenders and make cyborg babies?
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Erik_ » Wed Jul 29, 2015 3:37 pm

The thread deals mainly with his book Bubbles .

It's part of a trilogy on spheres ( spaces of co-existence ) and is a follow up to Heidegger's Being and Time .

Imagine Sloterdijk's trilogy being called Being and Space.
Erik_
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2380
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2014 2:27 pm
Location: Kingdom

Re: Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

Postby Arminius » Fri Oct 02, 2015 6:56 pm

Primal Rage wrote:Imagine Sloterdijk's trilogy being called Being and Space.

Yes. It is a continuation of Heidegger's "Sein und Zeit" ("Being and Time").

Sloterdijk's Sphärologie (logic of spheres) is the method that increases the spaciousness of the world very much, while the usual discourses of the globalization decreases the world disgustfully.
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 Jan 03, 2016 7:02 am

Happy new year.

The following book should be translated soon, or you read in German: Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit (my translation: The awful children of the modern era) - by Peter Sloterdijk, 2014.

And the follwing video I already posted in your other thread refers to the said book:

Arminius wrote:My video contribution to your thread is the following video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUrj0whdmxQ
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 Ultimate Philosophy 1001 » Mon Jan 04, 2016 1:49 am

Primal Rage wrote:According to Sloterdijk, the contemporary age is an age of foam, i.e., a multiplicity of people, who rub up against each other with their own private semiologies. The metaphysical age was a bubble, i.e., God as the transcendent signified, who encased the Earth, like a dome. This divine macro-sphere provided a psychological immunization to the Lacanian ' real '. But now, since all the grand meta-narratives and transcendent signifieds have been deconstructed, in the contemporary age, we are in a state of existential nakedness, exposed to the Lacanian ' real '. The grand bubble has popped and now what remains is foam, the multiplicity of semio-spheres, which contain their own idiosyncratic logic and meaning. Understanding this macro/micro symbolism is conducive to the understanding of contemporary art. Much of modern art is extremely perplexing and ambiguous, even absurd - it isn't confluent with the metaphysical grand narratives and transcendent signifieds. The deconstruction of the transcendent signified has allowed room for play, as Derrida would say - the signifiers can now play around and create their own semiologies. Once you understand the personal bubble of the contemporary artist, his logic and meaning, you can begin to become part of his semio-sphere.


This sounds like new-age anita sarkisian feminist speak. Point out the posts pertaining to consciousness so I can eat this topic, without the barbs.
trogdor
User avatar
Ultimate Philosophy 1001
BANNED
 
Posts: 8311
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 10:57 pm

Previous

Return to Society, Government, and Economics



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users