Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

[Lump]

So, are you really saying you didn't comprehend the OP? Not even the gist?

If you really want me to, I will dumb it down for you.

OP is very clear, and it's even more clear it's pure fantasy, not suited for philosophy, more suited for Harry Potter movies.

[Erik_]

So, are you really saying you didn't comprehend the OP? Not even the gist?

If you really want me to, I will dumb it down for you.

OP is very clear, and it's even more clear it's pure fantasy, not suited for philosophy, more suited for Harry Potter movies.

Yeah - you are a troll.

First you insinuated it was inscrutable; now you claim it's perfectly fathomable.

You will be ignored, until you show evidence of sincerity and maturity.

[Erik_]

'Even Lacan's tragically presumptuous theorem about the mirror stage's formative significance for the ego function cannot overcome its dependence on the cosmetic and ego-technical household inventory of the nineteenth century - much to the detriment of those who were taken in by this psychological mirage'

He argues that in order to prove the valence of psychoanalytic theories in any cultures other than the Western ones we would have to first demonstrate the presence of mirrors (he argues that even until the Modern age few had mirrors and they were cloaked in secrecy – for much of human history S. argues that most of the human race had not seen their own faces [I think he oversimplifies here – e.g. reflection in another’s eyes for example ‘the other thus acts as a personal mirror’ p.200 – but there is certainly something interesting to be said about how the ‘interface’ of mirror technologies opens up new modes of self-encounter – ‘they no longer require completion through the present other, but can complete themselves through themselves so to speak’ p. 20] – says something similar about writing in thought transmission]), and then the emergence of mirror-subjectivities. S. also argues that if we reread the narcissistic mirror-narrative with this intervention in mind, we actually arrive at the stark opposite of narcissism in ‘pre-reflection’ cultures: the visage in the water is not an image of the self, but of another – ‘Looking at the entire history of human faciality, one can say that humans have faces not for themselves, but for the others’ p.192. So through this example we return again to the issues of ontotopology, spherological being and technicity which are of central concern to Sloterdijk’s Spheres

[Erik_]

The structural implication of the current earth-encompassing network - with all its eversions into the virtual realm - is thus not so much a globalisation as a foaming. In foam worlds, the individual bubbles are not absorbed into a single integrative hyper-orb, as in the metaphysical conniption of the world, but rather drawn together to form irregular hills.

Referring to a pathology of spheres displays a threefold focus: a politicological one, in so far as foams tend to be ungovernable structures with an inclination towards morphological anarchy; a cognitive one, in so far as the individuals and associations of subjects can no longer produce any complete world, as the idea of the whole world itself, in its characteristic holistic emphasis, unmistakably belongs to the expired age of metaphysical total-inclusion-circles, or monospheres; and a psychological one, in so far as single individuals in foams tend to lose the power to form mental-emotional spaces, and shrink to isolated depressive points transplanted into random surrounds (correctly referred to systematically as their environment). They suffer from the immunodeficiency caused by the deterioration of solidarities - to say nothing, for the moment, of the new immunizations acquired through participation in regenerated sphere creations. For sphere-deficient private persons, their lifespan becomes a sentence of solitary confinement; egos that are extensionless, scarcely active and lacking in participation stare out through the media window into moving landscapes of images. It is typical of the acute mass cultures that the moving images have become far livelier than most of their observers: a reproduction of animism in step with modernity.

[Orbie]

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?

[Erik_]

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 ).

[Orbie]

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?

[Orbie]

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.

[Erik_]

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?

Ah - you were talking to Mr. idiot boy ( Lump ).

Gotcha

[Arminius]

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.



http://www.amazon.com/Bubbles-Spheres-M ... 1584351047

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).

[Uccisore]

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?

Ah - you were talking to Mr. idiot boy ( Lump ).

Gotcha

Thought you were gonna ignore him. Don't call him "Idiot boy". Makes the forum look shitty.

[Arminius]

This is really not much more than mental masturbation, this psychobabble using
all these big words and meaning nothing.
Einstein said it best, only those who truly understand a matter
can make it simple enough for everyone to understand.

Not Einstein but Schopenhauer said that, and more than a century later Einstein - who was a Schopenhauerian - quoted him.

Kropotkin: This is what i was trying to say in the Marx forum also. Before artists used to paint realistically, beliefing in ideal forms such as God, determinism, there was no abstaction, disassocation , there was no modern art to speak of , nowadays there are only private spheres, and where the private globus only represents within the many. (Where there is no comparison, there is no meaning) The deconstruction this dis-associative objective narrative, created the private narratives.

Mental masturbation?

Orb, are you familiar with this work of Sloterdijk?

Not really, but most of the moderns follow a similar line using pretty much similar analysis. But i will try to familiarize myself with it, will be interesting how it corresponds with the others'.

Bubbles/Spheres is a trilogy - consists of three parts, each of which is very dense, but jam-packed with innovative perceptions. There are copious amounts of reviews on the book ( the first one ), which give distillations and explanations of the technical jargon. Def. recommend this.

Sloterdijk's trilogy is called „Spheres“, not „Bubbles“. „Bubbles“ is merely one part of it:

1) „Spheres I“ = „Bubbles“,
2) „Spheres II“ = „Globes“,
3) „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.

[Erik_]

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.

[Erik_]

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.

[Erik_]

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.

[Erik_]

[Erik_]

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.

[Arminius]

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.

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.

untab

Human "spheres" (examples):

[Erik_]

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.

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.

untab

Human "spheres" (examples):

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:

[Arminius]

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.

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:

Your translation is clear, although Sorge is care in the sense of caring, paying attention; care as a standalone noun often means or implies medical care - a care home is a residence for people who need some form of ongoing medical care. I think a native English speaker would say something like "How should we recognise the end of the history? Perhaps it (is/will be) when we cease caring."

Should I conclude from your answer that you know the German language?

A little... I studied it at school, and speak fluent 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.

[Erik_]

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.

[Arminius]

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.

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.

Okay, for the most of the other ILP members:
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.

Maybe that the third part of "Spheres" is not translated yet. See:

Works in English translation
- Critique of Cynical Reason, translation by Michael Eldred ; foreword by Andreas Huyssen, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1988. ISBN 0-8166-1586-1
- Thinker on Stage: Nietzsche's Materialism, translation by Jamie Owen Daniel; foreword by Jochen Schulte-Sasse, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1989. ISBN 0-8166-1765-1
- Theory of the Post-War Periods: Observations on Franco-German relations since 1945, translation by Robert Payne; foreword by Klaus-Dieter Müller, Springer, 2008. ISBN 3-211-79913-3
- Terror from the Air, translation by Amy Patton, Los Angeles, Semiotext(e), 2009. ISBN 1-58435-072-5
- God's Zeal: The Battle of the Three Monotheisms, Polity Pr., 2009. ISBN 978-0-7456-4507-0
- Derrida, an Egyptian, Polity Pr., 2009. ISBN 0-7456-4639-5
- Rage and Time, translation by Mario Wenning, New York, Columbia University Press, 2010. ISBN 978-0-231-14522-0
- Neither Sun nor Death, translation by Steven Corcoran, Semiotext(e), 2011. ISBN 978-1-58435-091-0 – Sloterdijk answers questions posed by German writer Hans-Jürgen Heinrichs ....
- Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology, translation by Wieland Hoban, Los Angeles, Semiotext(e), 2011. ISBN 1-58435-104-7
- The Art of Philosophy: Wisdom as a Practice, translation by Karen Margolis, New York, Columbia University Press, 2012. ISBN 978-0-231-15870-1
- You Must Change Your Life, translation by Wieland Hoban, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7456-4921-4
- In the World Interior of Capital: Towards a Philosophical Theory of Globalization, translation by Wieland Hoban, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2013. ISBN 978-0-7456-4769-2
- Nietzsche Apostle, (Semiotext(e)/Intervention Series), translation by Steve Corcoran, Los Angeles, Semiotext(e), 2013. ISBN 978-1-58435-099-6
- Globes: Spheres Volume II: Macrospherology , translation by Wieland Hoban, Los Angeles, Semiotext(e), 2014. ISBN 1-58435-160-8

Original German titles
- Kritik der zynischen Vernunft, 1983.
- Der Zauberbaum. Die Entstehung der Psychoanalyse im Jahr 1785, 1985.
- Der Denker auf der Bühne. Nietzsches Materialismus, 1986. (Thinker on Stage: Nietzsche's Materialism)
- Kopernikanische Mobilmachung und ptolmäische Abrüstung, 1986.
- Zur Welt kommen – Zur Sprache kommen. Frankfurter Vorlesungen, 1988.
- Eurotaoismus. Zur Kritik der politischen Kinetik, 1989.
- Versprechen auf Deutsch. Rede über das eigene Land, 1990.
- Weltfremdheit, 1993.
- Falls Europa erwacht. Gedanken zum Programm einer Weltmacht am Ende des Zeitalters seiner politischen Absence, 1994.
- Scheintod im Denken - Von Philosophie und Wissenschaft als Übung, Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp), 1995.
- Im selben Boot - Versuch über die Hyperpolitik, Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp), 1995.
- Selbstversuch, Ein Gespräch mit Carlos Oliveira, 1996.
- Der starke Grund zusammen zu sein. Erinnerungen an die Erfindung des Volkes, 1998.
- Sphären I – Blasen, Mikrosphärologie, 1998. (Spheres I)
- Sphären II – Globen, Makrosphärologie, 1999. (Spheres II)
- Regeln für den Menschenpark. Ein Antwortschreiben zu Heideggers Brief über den Humanismus, 1999.
- Die Verachtung der Massen. Versuch über Kulturkämpfe in der modernen Gesellschaft, 2000.
- Über die Verbesserung der guten Nachricht. Nietzsches fünftes Evangelium. Rede zum 100. Todestag von Friedrich Nietzsche, 2000.
- Nicht gerettet. Versuche nach Heidegger, 2001.
- Die Sonne und der Tod, Dialogische Untersuchungen mit Hans-Jürgen Heinrichs, 2001.
- Tau von den Bermudas. Über einige Regime der Phantasie, 2001.
- Luftbeben. An den Wurzeln des Terrors, 2002.
- Sphären III – Schäume, Plurale Sphärologie, 2004. (Spheres III)
- Im Weltinnenraum des Kapitals, 2005.
- Was zählt, kehrt wieder. Philosophische Dialogue, with Alain Finkielkraut (from French), 2005.
- Zorn und Zeit. Politisch-psychologischer Versuch, 2006. ISBN 3-518-41840-8
- Der ästhetische Imperativ, 2007.
- Derrida Ein Ägypter, 2007.
- Gottes Eifer. Vom Kampf der drei Monotheismen, Frankfurt am Main (Insel), 2007.
- Theorie der Nachkriegszeiten, (Suhrkamp), 2008.
- Du mußt dein Leben ändern, Frankfurt am Main (Suhrkamp), 2009.
- Philosophische Temperamente Von Platon bis Foucault, München (Diederichs) 2009. ISBN 978-3-424-35016-6
- Scheintod im Denken, Von Philosophie und Wissenschaft als Ubung (Suhrkamp), 2010.
- Die nehmende Hand und die gebende Seite, (Suhrkamp), 2010.
- Die schrecklichen Kinder der Neuzeit, (Suhrkamp), 2014.

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 ( ).

( ) = Highly recommended !

I guess that there will be more books translated soon.

[Erik_]

Danke

I think I might have found a site, that sells the third book " Foam " in English.
http://www.suhrkamp.de/buecher/spheres_ ... ew=english

I def. want to get my hands on the third one, eventually.

Importantly, for Sloterdijk, Judeo-Christian conceptions of God ultimately "piggyback" on the feelings of rage and resentment, creating "metaphysical revenge banks". For Sloterdijk, "God thus becomes the location of a transcendent repository of suspended human rage-savings and frozen plans of revenge.

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.

[Arminius]

From another thread:

Do you know Francis Fukuyama and his thesis?

According to Hegel's "Dialektik" e.g. Fukuyama interprets the "extreme liberalism" as the "Thesis", the "totalitarianism" as the "Antithesis", the "liberal democracy" as the "Synthesis". So for Fukuyama the "liberal democracy" is the final stage. According to Peter Scholl-Latour Fukuyama's thesis has been absurd since its beginning; the global spread of parliamentary "democracy" and an uninhibited market economy would bring mankind a final state of wellfare / wellbeing and harmony; thus, the final line would be drawn under the obsolete antagonisms. In this way Fukuyama's notion of the "End of History" can be resumed. (Cp. Peter Scholl-Latour, Koloß auf tönernen Füßen, 2005, S. 47). In addition, Peter Scholl-Latour found - to his surprise - that Peter Sloterdijk coined the phrase: "By 'nation building' you get at best democratically cladded dictatorships with market economy." Scholl-Latour: "I would have added: 'Serving the market economy'." (Ibid., 2005, S. 50). Fukuyama's bold thesis of the "end of history" of eternal fights, because the Western model (i.e.: Western culture) has triumphed globally, provides at least for Huntington no substantial analysis. Rather, Huntington sees in the clashes, frictions, conflicts between the great cultures on the basis of different religions and divergent world views, the main role of future disputes.

Fukuyama's thesis is assessed by Norbert Bolz in this way: "In the initial diagnosis, there is a surprisingly large consensus among thinkers. The famous title of Francis Fukuyama's book - The End of History and the Last Man - summarises quite simply together the positions of Hegel and Nietzsche." (Norbert Bolz, Das Wissen der Religion, 2008, S. 53). This world has been defined as "housing of servitude" by Max Weber. The "Gestell" (something like "frame" / "framework" o.s) by Martin Heidegger, the "managed world" by Theodor W. Adorno, and the "technical government" by Helmut Schelsky are only different names for the end product of a specifically modern process, which Arnold Gehlen has brought on the notion of "cultural crystallisation".

Peter Sloterdijk sees Fukuyama's work as "the recovery of an authentic political psychology on the basis of the restored Eros-Thymos polarity. It is obvious that this same political psychology (which has little to do with the so-called "mass psychology" and other applications of psychonalyse to political objects) has been moved to new theoretical orientations by the course of events at the center of the current demand. .... The time diagnostic lesson, that is hidden in 'The End of History', is not to be read from the title slogan, which, as noted, citing only a witty interpretation of Hegelian philosophy by Alexandre Kojève in the thirties of the 20th century (who for his part had dated the 'end of history' in the year of publication of Hegel's Phänomenologie des Geistes ["Phenomenology of Spirit"], 1807). It consists in a careful observation of the prestige and jealousy fights between citizens of the free world, who just then come to the fore when the mobilization of civilian forces has ceased for fighting on external fronts. Successful liberal democracies, recognises the author, will always and because of their best performances be crossed by streams of free-floating discontent. This can not be otherwise, because people are sentenced to thymotic restlessness, and the 'last men' more than all the rest ...." (Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 65-67).

For Fukuyama "thymos" is nothing other than the psychological seat of the Hegelian desire for "Anerkennung" (appreciation, recognition). (Cp. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History, 1992, p. 233 ); this is the "real engine of human history" (ibid., p. 229). The main features of which Fukuyama is based and from which he derives his ideas are the Hegelian view of history and the Platonic-Hegelian conceptual constructions, especially that what is concerned with thymotic. Something near that is what Sloterdijk has done in his work "Zorn und Zeit" ("Rage and Time", 2006). Both Sloterdijk and Fukuyama are also influenced by Hegel and Nietzsche, Sloterdijk in addition by Heidegger.

But Sloterdijk's work mentions also the Christian era refering to revenge and resentment:

„Vor allem muß heute, gegen Nietzsches ungestümes Resümee, bedacht werden, daß die christliche Ära, im ganzen genommen, gerade nicht das Zeitalter der ausgeübten Rache war. Sie stellte vielmehr eine Epoche dar, in der mit großem Ernst eine Ethik des Racheaufschubs durchgesetzt wurde. Der Grund hierfür muß nicht lange gesucht werden: Er ist gegeben durch den Glauben der Christen, die Gerechtigkeit Gottes werde dereinst, am Ende der Zeiten, für eine Richtigstellung der moralischen Bilanzen sorgen. Mit dem Ausblick auf ein Leben nach dem Tode war in der christlichen Ideensphäre immer die Erwartung eines überhistorischen Leidensausgleichs verbunden. Der Preis für diese Ethik des Verzichts auf Rache in der Gegenwart zugunsten einer im Jenseits nachzuholenden Vergeltung war hoch - hierüber hat Nietzsche klar geurteilt. Er bestand in der Generalisierung eines latenten Ressentiments, das den aufgehobenen Rachewunsch selbst und sein Gegenstück, die Verdammnisangst, ins Herzstück des Glaubens, die Lehre von den Letzten Dingen, projizierte. Auf diese Weise wurde die Bestrafung der Übermütigen in alle Ewigkeit zur Bedingung für das zweideutige Arrangement der Menschen guten Willens mit den schlimmen Verhältnissen. Die Nebenwirkung hiervon war, daß die demütigen Guten selbst vor dem zu zittern begannen, was sie den übermütigen Bösen zudachten.“ - Peter Sloterdijk, Zorn und Zeit, 2006, S. 4.
My translation:
„Especially must now against Nietzsche's impetuous résumé be considered that the Christian era, on the whole, just was not the age of the force exerted revenge. Rather, it represented a period in which very seriously the ethics of revenge deferral was enforced. The reason for this must be sought not for long: It is given by the faith of Christians, God's justice will one day, at the end of times, make the correction of the moral balance sheets. With the prospect of a life after death in the Christian sphere of idea the expectation was always connected of an hyper-historical suffering compensation. The price of this ethic of renunciation of revenge in the present in favour of a backdated retribution in the afterlife was highly - Nietzsche has clearly judged that. It consisted in the generalisation of a latent resentment that projected the repealed revenge desire itself and its counterpart, the damnation fear, into the heart of the faith, the doctrine of the Last Things. In this way, the punishment of the proud in all eternity became a condition for the ambiguous arrangement of people of good will with the dire conditions. The side effect of this was that the humble good ones (do-gooder) began to shake theirselves against what they intend for the wanton evil.“

|=>#

[Orbie]

Arminius: My belief as recently as now and as early as ten years ago coincided with the belief of two strains of politico-economic process. One, is what i am inferring from Fukiama et al and of course Sloterdijk, that the flattening effect of becoming a
foam like miasma, is an effort to de-structure the field of dialectic re sentiment. The question is, whether this analysis by Sloterijk is a open ended
effect of historical development, or, a pre planned
program of strategy. My feeling is , that the new ideology, is more an effect of the later then the former, and the center is steering toward the left. The middle, is not yet established clearly enough,
within understandable bounderies, to be of sufficient significance, to call it anything. Therefore to resurrect the dialectic in any form, at this point, in
my opinion, is premature. What do You think? The
bubble would certainly burst, if such demarcations would be clearly visible at this point. Whether such a bubble will ever be blown up to critical levels,
anytime in the near future, is also questionable.