Video

This entire series on Borges is one of the best on YT…thank you.

Borges mentioning of anti-semitism and naziism towards the end of the story, makes me believe that one of the many narratives he’s alluding to is ill conceived ideologies we make up arbitrarily or purposely for societal control . The rules of these ideologies are invented by man for men. The infection of these ideas spread from country, to the world then the universe (Uqbar, Tlon, Orbis Tertius).

In the future, children will eat candy bars called "Being."

B&T is best read while stoned.

Dread advances....dread recedes. -B&T

No, no, Martin, it's being on time! -Mrs. Heidegger

The unfocused mind is death-worship.

Poor audio why bother

Awesome, gonna listen it all in my next flight!

In short the triality of self liberal power +t was smothered out by top down down dualism grand unified theory to granting gov liberal power in a call to arms. We are definitely in a place where the dualistic approach of good & evil equations has been stuck in idle talk 1930-2010s. Going to school in 1970s-80 when the Prussian school models began a 3rd grade health class kids is sent to the office for asking where the code of life measure was . This economic alignment with the dualistic curriculum creates cogs in the wheel. It's the same mass sychosis newton looks at in pergatory doctorine curriculum alignment with medechi taxation in dark ages. . A fundamental feature in reality that esoterica America protected itself from and knew this physical mystification very well. Under a call to arms it's undermine military style. Literally what I hear in lectures today would get them blackballed by their peers in the duslism I grew up under. Defined city's by walls, cells personal actors or ethnicity, Prayer logic whataboutism conservatism vs cursed rationalism progressive interventionism while all pragmatic common sense objectivism proper was censored .even in issac newton works. It did get in the way with prescribing realism over anti realism to further over time lines of measure at the time and age. Founders seen 3 of measure as solutions to tune all precision instruments where as today all minds are doped to see 3 body problems. Top down form and shape dominant stop at the photon don't wade in the waters of deep. You can't say that snitch societies Karen's. Trapped in whatsboutism or nilhisms. What separates us from animals is an anylitical intellect but what separates us from robots is the animals devided in /individual soul agency driver of free will inertia that dictates our frame of reference to evolve we see fit. Primordial animals You won't get there in darwins duslistic spin on spiritual essence of plato. He reduces essence into natural selection and the spirit into a more babylonian evolutionary model

You tyguys are

Thanks

6:55 the “capital B” aspect is an idiosyncrasy to the German language and was a poor choice by the translators to retain as a capitalized noun has connotations in English which don’t exist in German. 8:36 the cruel tragedy of Heidegger’s nazism is that his ontology clearly didn’t preclude fascism. The tragedy, of course, is our own; but only so far as we’d hoped there to be some fundamental flaw we could point to and extricate (as this speaker says it) so we could keep the rest and be “safe”. Perhaps fascism is an inextricable contingency of Dasein; this would be an uncomfortable yet demonstrable truth.

Is there a way anybody could join to this? I’d be late to the club but I speak Swedish and have a Swedish copy which is much closer to the original, it would be interesting to read along with you guys.

thanks for uploading these

🌞🌙✨

do u guys still have this seminar? id like to join

So when are you guy planning to leave ?

What would Bataille say about the proletarian riot in which goods and belongings are destroyed?

It seems that a major underlining theme in Acephale was the preparation for the coming Facism as a form of resistance.

Y con este video me viy a suscribir

1:09:58 I never claimed that "Schopenhauer never addresses the genesis of subject/object". I specifically pointed out 15 mins before that (52:53) the Will is involved in how he explains representation, and that he has up to this point in the text given none. I like how everyone (with the sole exception of Eric) gangs up on me while ignoring what I say. Also ignored is that I brought up the idea of genesis in the context of Schopenhauer's criticisms of Fichte and Schelling to make the point that Schopenhauer is talking past them by not addressing how they are constructing their accounts according to a different problematic. I guess that got lost amongst the endless repetition of the factoid "there's no object without a subject"...

For the few people who watch this I wanted to give a clarification about the point debated regarding a genetic account and Schopenhauer's supposed endorsement of evolution. Schopenhauer presents an account of materialism in section 17 as mechanically following the law of causality to the point that it would form one extreme of a two-part antinomy. This part of the antinomy that follows the law of causality appears in natural science as the following assumption: "animals appeared before human beings, fish before land animals, plants before fish, and the organic before anything inorganic" (52). S thinks this naturally follows from the viewpoint of materialism following the law of causality, but the problem is it disregards the precious "subject of cognition," without which "the existence of the whole world," time, space, "the sun and the planets" would not exist because they are inconceivable without an eye to see them. This subjectivist account is considered to be the other extreme of the same antinomy according to S, who acknowledges that it contradicts the other extreme of how natural science explains (that's why they're antinomies) because "the primeval mass had to undergo a long series of alterations before the first eye could open... yet the existence of the whole world still remains dependent on the opening of that first eye". The first antinomy of causal alteration isn't resolved by doubling down on the other antinomy like Nevitt seems to think, for the simple reason that they are antinomies, but more specifically because you would have to have an eyeball floating around looking at the causal chain of alterations that leads to the formation of the first eye. Schopenhauer resolves them by asserting that both apply only to the world as representation which is only one side of the world. The other side of the world is the world as will, which is the "thing in itself" that gives meaning to the world of representation which is a mere appearance of the will (53). It's likely that Nevitt doesn't understand this because he claims earlier (7:05) that Schopenhauer is probably misusing the term 'thing in itself', which is the same term that Schopenhauer directly invokes to resolve the same antinomy whose extreme subjective pole Nevitt endlessly repeats, asserting that it is "obvious".

59:24 🤣 nice response, I can't get over how unhinged all the facial expressions are

Hey man, came across your discussions while I was reading The Accursed Share and wanted to let you know how much I appreciated those discussions as well as these on Nietzsche. I don't know what the status of your group is for any future discussions but I wanted to let you know I'd look forward to listening to more and hope you continue to record them. Was also curious if you recall about the selections for these Nietzsche seminars. The sections discussed aren't contiguous, I was wondering if these sections of aphorisms were selected intentionally or if there were other discussion seminars that weren't uploaded. Anyways thanks again for providing these, I hope to look forward to more!

I think these discussions are great. It would be helpful if someone can put the reading lists in the description or comments. Thanks!

.. this is actually a very good informal, nonhierarchical introduction to one of Bataille's most important concepts..

very helpful keep it up

Definitely some exchange happening with the sun I’d imagine

great discussion!

Hello, what are these seminars? How can one participate?

An interesting question here might be: why do poor people tend to have more children? The poorest people on earth, in fact, produce the most children. There's a strong correlation here and it points to opposite forms of excess which depend on accumulated wealth or the lack thereof.

Where are the rest of the seminars?! I was loving this one

5:12 to 12:49 Yeah I think Hunter is missing his meds.

Why did the cat not contribute to this seminar? S/he slept the entire 2 hours! Rude. Reminds me of myself, when I was a university student.

what is this?

I enjoyed listening to this. Do you guys have a part two?

Is anyone willing to give an insight on the relationship between master slave dialectic with political corruption?

I only listen to the nonsensical "introductions"

Am here third time, trying to understand Hagel. Thanks alot for sharing.

Sensible commentary begins at 16:00. Eric for the win this week. Miller translates "unmoving consciousness" as "tranquil consciousness" and it has moreso to do with presuming itself or appearing unperturbed than it has to do with some sort of "unchanging Platonic form". No worries though, as it comes clear: Faith is in all kinds of motion qua liturgy, and also is readily disturbed and reminded by Insight how it's object is generated (even though Insight is wrong about this), and by the time that Enlightenment comes wholly on the scene, Faith is left "dissatisfied" - Enlightenment, however, will "taste the fruits of it's deeds" of rending-asunder Faith's object/nature and reducing it to "Matter" - which is, itself, ultimately and merely a "pragmatic gesture" on behalf of Enlightenment - albeit a necessary gesture that, through this negativity, moves Spirit onward beyond it's "nascent versions of the beyond". Hegel is giving a Phenomenology of how people appear to be "tricked by despots" - he does this phenomenological description from the perspective of those who consider other people tricked and deceived and then, in another moment from another perspective, Hegel is doing phenomenology from the perspective of those who _would only appear to be tricked and deceived_. Hegel quips that it's impossible for people to be tricked about their ownmost being i.e. Thinking. The tension in this section is that the "true object/nature of Thought" can be taken in a two-fold way: as Matter or as God in/as Thought. Evil is in the eye of the beholder; when folk suppose "culture'd" folk to be "full of shit", it is often just the fact that they _consider those others to be tricked and deceived_ in the aforementioned ways i.e. it's Enlightenment, a moment of culture, supposing that "others aren't as smart as me". Again, Hegel quips: Enlightenment doesn't, and can't, teach Faith anything that Faith doesn't already know. The "formalism" of Insight, though, wins the day simply because it is more Formally apparent; and succeeds in reminding Faith what it is that Faith does. Hegel, when he was an old man, lamented at the disappearance of "the Church" in a way akin to Nietzsche - not because such a God was actual, but, for Hegel, because without such an institution for Insight to learn it's true essence _we will be forever trapped at these lower stages of historical and personal development_. Thanks alot analytic philosophy, dragging us all the way back to the early sections of Reason on "Logical and Psychological laws". Pure Insight is undifferentiated Insight, diffused, spread-out. Hegel compares it to an "infection", an "epidemic" one might say. And, oh, will you look at that... It shows up at roughly the same point as the Enlightenment's struggle with superstition (i.e. in our time: conspiracy theory and paranoia). Turns-out that the "stories" of "God in Thought grounding the law-like regularities of the world" and "Matter grounding the law-like regularities of the world" _were just superstitions for "Rational People"._ Superstitions that, indeed however, "got things done"!... But this shows that their true reality is merely that of "being Useful". Incase it's not clear: both "faith and insight" are up their own ass believing themselves in contact with the nature of things; they are ultimately the same. "Self-Alienated Spirit" is a pun. It means that both, Faith and also Insight, are "alienated from themselves" (they don't recognize that what the other is doing is what they are doing and vice-versa), and it also means that they "alienate themselves from themselves by themselves _on the basis of what the others appear to be doing_" (and lastly, it means that people "at this level of development" unwittingly "alienate themselves from cultural belonging"). Imagine Narcissus for whom all reality is a mirror reflecting back someone other than Narcissus. Enlightenment believes that "Faith just comes-up with God in their thinking ex nihilo" - Faith does not. Faith, rather, practices, is actual, and realizes the product of their veneration but in their thought (Insight is this whole movement, but collapsed to it's own element of thought - which makes it essentially identical with Faith). Because Enlightenment doesn't recognize Faith's "generative, or purposive, activity" Insight, unwittingly, posits ex nihilo, from the void, the very idea of "matter" as the ground of the nature of things. Put simply, Enlightenment entitles itself to what it _believes_ Faith has done _even though Faith did not do that as Enlightenment charges_ - just like when the Bondsman comes to take itself as an object because it inwardizes what it presumes to be the gaze of the lord _about itself the Bondsman_. When Nevitt charges faith with "just making it up in your Mind" he is doing exactly what Insight has wrongly performed, but necessarily performed due to it's unwitting Self-Alienation from the topos of Culture. Consider "Religion" as Faith and Insight run-together through the Cognitions of Forgiveness (which hasn't happened at this point in the text yet). Asking questions about "what's up ahead in the text" is a pretty good way of losing sight of what's happening currently in the text lol... For what it's worth though, a close-reading of the Religion section has Hegel reconsider this "identity" of Faith and Insight" as both beholden to the Religion of The Void - which is to say, actually, they were both merely the ideological stories that lead to the erection and, ultimately, to the downfall of the state. An unspoken and unfortunately under-examined parallel in the Phenomenology Of Spirit is the parallax between "revolution" and "revelation of the incarnation".

Joey ftw this week. Whatever Joseph is reading as supplement is very misleading. Here are some examples from "our time comprehended in thought" that fit to these sections in the text. An example of Nobles becoming ignoble and the Ignoble becoming Noble would be the right-wing rushing the capital while at the same time former "left wing intellectuals" jump on the gamestop bubble bandwagon. An example of Self-Alienated Spirits would be to take Sam Harris as Insight and Jordan Peterson as faith and running them together as "only doing what is Useful to them". Be careful to not use the term "Spirit" as if it just means "Subject". If one treats these terms as easily interchanged then they lose alot of significance. Hegel bewares the wish to be edifying and plainly tells the reader that bringing external philosophies to the text will squash the text into those philosophies. And if Hegel is correct, those philosophies _are already in there somewhere_ - and what this amounts to, is reading the whole of the text from one of the "lower perspectives along the path". Cognitions/Thought-determinations aren't representational although representations are results of the movements of cognitions. Cognitions/Thought-determinations are thoroughly conceptual and, as Hegel presumes to demonstrate over and over: so is Being "thought". Regarding "death and suicide", notice that over and over throughout the text, the "failures of mere understanding" produces Death, and when self-alienated, "gets oneself killed". Consciousness annuls the otherness of thinghood. Self-Consciousness reduces the other, first, to a mere thing, and then as Unhappy Consciousness reduces their mediator to an "unchanging thing". Observation kills the animal in order to understand it. Psychology reduces the other to an inert heuristic, Physiognamy reduces the other to their palm line. Phrenology literally "makes a bone". Antigone gets killed. The Absolute Monarch is born to die. Self-Alienated Spirits doubling-down into their epistemological foundationalism leads to the Terror. Morality is the only resting place where the killing stops. But Religion, being a shape that pervades all the other shapes, appropriates this "unwitting killing of the Bondsman, over and over over" through, to quip, "The Absolute Bondsman" themselves being born to die i.e. the Incarnation. The "dark jokes" were closer than one thinks.

read more phenomenology of spirit and less zizek/dolar lol

Dylan Dunn for the win. Hit me up if you've got PoS questions, pal. =]

Long time Phenomenology Of Spirit reader here. I've been enjoying y'all going through the text and it's been mostly pleasant and easy-listening. I heard at the beginning of this episode that y'all have a discord? I might love to be a part of this in the future if I could find a way to participate outside of hovering in the CZcams comments. I'd have requested earlier but the breakneck speed of the readings would be too difficult for me to keep up with. Either way, I hope to still be listening-in in whatever capacity by the time y'all are moving through Self-Alienated Spirit (Observing Reason, and the later sections of Spirit are my specialties).

Probably much too late, but the answer to the question by mihalkanin at about 1:36:00 (which was the original Spanish word which was translated in one English version as “scripture” and in another one as “handwriting”?) is “escritura”, which can mean both scripture and handwriting. The former meaning appears normally in the plural, but both are possible in this passage (“la escritura que produce un dios subalterno para entenderse con un demonio”) and it is very likely that Borges chose to keep this ambiguous.

I love this seminar guys! Awesome.

Love from Pakistan