Bubbles, Live Conversation #2 – 5/11 - Cherry Pie Edition

Dear @spheres readers:

A reminder that our next live conversation will take place this Thursday, May 11th at 12 pm MDT (time-zone conversion).

Here’s a link to the Zoom video conference registration and call-in instructions:


We can use this topic to post thoughts, questions, ideas, and suggestions for the discussion ahead of the call.

I, for one, am looking forward to discussing Sloterdijk’s remarks on a “philosophy of sweetness” (pp. 90-96).

Moreover, I’ve been preparing intensively for this discussion. Witness the scene of decadent scholarship from the Farmers Market in Longmont, Colorado this past Saturday:

“…what could seem more cloying, sticky and unheroic than the demand to participate in an investigation of the doughy, vague and humble-matriarchal space in which humans—at first and in most cases—have settled as seekers of security, good-natured inhabitants of normality and inmates of contentment institutions?” — Pete S.

(Eat your heart out, Ed Mahood!)


There’s no way you could know that cherry is my favorite fruit pie. Guten Appetit! :yum:


I found the first session thrilling. I’m hooked. Sadly my last committee meeting of the year was scheduled at the exact same time session two. Bummer. If it ends early I’ll try to zoom in without interfering with the ongoing flow.

Thanks, bro,

PS. Eating sweet cherry pie. What would PS say about your penchant for foody sweetness?! :sunglasses:

1 Like

Thanks for the heads up, @raphae1! I only wish the pie was a la mode :wink:

Hopefully see you next time~

Hello Marco,

I would like to inquire on our upcoming session on 25 May, I would like to
check if we will be discussing chapter 2 or are we going to go through
other chapters?


Hello Dona, we will be covering Chapter 2.

Here is the full schedule for future reference:

Hello Marco,

Thank you for sharing information.


Thanks Marco, one thing though draw my attention is when Sloterdijk states on page 185 “No trace of facial matriarchy, … finds its way into the oldest products of human visual power”.

Actually I am not a historian nor an anthropologist but I am not sure how true is this statement, especially when I think of Ishtar/Anana.

Any ways that was just a thought I felt I wanted to share.


1 Like

Let’s bring this up on Thursday, if you’re on the call. Hope you’ll be able to make it…

I know @johndavidebert recently wrote a poetic retelling of the Epic of Gilgamesh, so perhaps he’ll have something to say about this connection as well.

1 Like

Dona, hello!

(If I may - I don’t remember if your observation came up during the discussion; if it did my apologies to all and sundry for my lack of attention.)
I believe Sloterdijk refers on page 185 to the “Venus” figurines of the Paleolithic era (illustrated in the following pages) which predate our civilizations - and the mythological “systems” associated with them - by several millennia. What the figurines actually represent is open to speculation, but a common assumption is some kind of connection with human fertility. Sloterdijk uses the assumption to suggest that some distant ancestors curiously chose not to depict that most humanizing of images, the face of the mother, in their art. (So far as we know, of course.)
By the time Ishtar and other female deities with ‘faces’ arrive, it can be argued that the overall context is patriarchy: at least in Mesopotamia where Marduk has slain the ‘female’ dragon of chaos (Tiamat) to establish order…

1 Like

Thanks T J for clarification. I went back to one of the books I read long time ago “The Mystery of Ishtar” and yes you are right indeed the “face” arrived with the kingdom of Assyria…