First of all, let me extend a big THANK YOU to everyone who participated in this intersubjective (maybe even inter-intelligent ) reading experiment, especially within the rather improvisatory (but not aimless) parameters set forth, and which emerged, to help determine what we might even be talking about in the con-text of Sloterdijk’s Bubbles—and why.
Womb-theory while the world is burning?
To grasp the essence, I think we had to plunge into the nobject. Through doing so, we discovered where our lines of thought clashed or meshed. (This clashing and meshing—does it not produce a foam effect? Aren’t we all Shaumenshagers now?) But what is the essence of interbeing? Did we need to go from essence to effervescence to not-grasp the nobject—to generate a frothy milieu?
I would prefer to regard Sloterdijk as a particular kind of Brewmeister. There is a fermented, hoppy-malty, mildly intoxicating quality to his prose, a bronze hue that reflects the light just so. What better metaphor for collegial sociality than a philopoetic symposium over a beer, or two or three? Is there a good German word for “one who sucks up a foam”? Bartender, I’ll have another!
It’s only prudent, of course, to have a designated driver in such a group, and @achronon, I’m glad you volunteered.
To mix metaphors, perhaps your powers of curmudgeonry also served a vaccinating function against our little spherological milieu becoming too ‘thick-headed’—all bubbles and no beer. Thanks for sharing the first round with us!
And @patanswer: like you I’m ‘hopelessly drawn to incorporating overviews’ and questioning ‘the limits of my of transference.’ In some ways—given the limits of scheduling across time zones—you’ve been like the presence in the background of the intimate surrealist painting of this conversation, but thank you for sharing your own ‘suggestions, weird connections, and linkages’ here in the forum space. I hope we’ll get to see you again, sometime, when we reconvene.
@raphae1: I really like your formulation, which TJ also highlighted, advocating for looking at how we can have individuation within strong relationships. To my ears, this is a formula for the future, especially if we could nest this kind of emergence within just systems and healthy meshworks at larger scales. I imagine the story gets more complex—and interesting—as we move from womb to world.
One question I’m curious about, which might complicate your acorn-oak metaphor slightly, is how emergence and ‘genuine novelty’ relates to code (or encoded telos, i.e., the language-pattern or plan for the oak as ‘desired result’) which already exists genetically at origin in the acorn via DNA? I also wonder whether Sloterdijk’s womb-theory-first approach necessarily ends anthropocentrically. Might emergence-theory require a deeper, higher, wider, or otherwise-located origin? But if so, is this something ‘ever-present’? Or is it dispersed? If so, do we gather it? Re-weave it? Make it our authentically our own?
@Geoffrey_Edwards, thanks for showing up when you did! Perhaps our comings and goings belong to lines of becoming which are squiggly and circuitous by nature. I’m also glad that you are presencing academic and scientific perspectives (in addition to others), which I often feel deficient in. One of my personal nobjects in this whole endeavor is the recovery of the kind of intellectual community I experienced in university, with a handful of teachers and friends whose minds were similarly alive to the ‘infinite conversation’, and thus coaxed my mind to greater life too. I hope we can continue to conjure that spirit here.
And @johnnydavis54 and @wronitz: thanks for your own sponsorship of these efforts in your various ways. I feel the Cosmosphere is enriched and blessed by your subtle and overt contributions!
I do believe there is a ‘holy spirit’ which moves us, and I’m moved by all your participation in AND critiques of my not-always-obvious participatory reasoning as I follow the inspiration of my own genius. Whether this experiment is ultimately sticky enough, and not too sweet, but fruitful and nourishing, remains to be seen. I’d say, though, after Part 1, we’re off to a good start.