Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

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 ( :exclamation: );
  • Neither Sun nor Death ( :exclamation: );
  • Bubbles: Spheres Volume I: Microspherology ( :exclamation: );
  • You Must Change Your Life ( :exclamation: );
  • In the World Interior of Capital: Towards a Philosophical Theory of Globalization;
  • Globes: Spheres Volume II: Macrospherology ( :exclamation: ).

( :exclamation: ) [size=90]= Highly recommended ![/size]

I guess that there will be more books translated soon.

Danke :slight_smile:

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 :laughing: 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.

From another thread:

|=>#

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.

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:

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.

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:

Thanks, for that!

So you agree, Obe (Orb) ?

Agree? I agree to disagree. Clearly, I agree, on general principles, but disagree on the specifics.

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.