Modernity, Sloterdijk and Private Semiologies

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.

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”.

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.

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.

„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.“

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).

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.

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…

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.

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

[size=85]…sneeker :wink: [/size]

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

I am not going to go into the details, because I do not want this thread to derail.

“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.”

This was a great thread. I should help revive it with more Sloterdijk entries.

A very good idea.