Globes, by Peter Sloterdijk – Conversation #1

Not quite yet. :grinning: (Though the old stamina is nowhere near what it once was, it is Saturday night…)

This is late night mind (10PM is practically 4AM these days @patanswer) at work here…bear with me!

At the 33 minute mark, @Geoffreyjen_Edwards mentions the convergence of parallel lines as ‘the monstrous’ that becomes the reality…the destruction/engulfment of the previous perspective (Euclidian) into the new perspective (Projective Space). At 1:03:40, @johnnydavis54 mentions that he, personally, is searching for what is next…looking ahead to see the possible rebirth out of our most recent ‘global’ mess. Here’s my 2 cents:

This convergence of parallel lines is quite similar to my mental image of how fractal images or projections in time work. To the naked eye, the fractal will seem to converge into a point…if we creep along further down the fractal ‘line,’ we see that there is both a non-convergence and a further point of convergence in the distance. Maybe Sloterdijk is wanting us to see the timelessness of this process, the ability to be at any given point (space) on this forever converging and not converging line, able to go forward or backward without a concern for what was before or after in time…it is all around us, already there, we only need to navigate the space. John and most all of us feel this urgency to find out what is around the corner, to discover the solution to our ailments (or at least die trying). Maybe the rebirth is found precisely in this lack of urgency.
Urgency is a bubble that easily encircles us…we are trapped within this bubble. Sloterdijk (another maybe!) wants us to end time. For “purely analytical purposes” … maybe. There are many versions of time. I do not even know where to begin with the various forms…but it seems important for Sloterdijk to help us to remove a certain version of psychological time. Is this the global answer, to slow down the rotation of Earth, of our spinning minds, etc. to reach a new understanding of time?


Had a few questions and more comments on the conversation #1…busy weekend has me answering at another time.


Here’s another haiku I wrote, pertinent but tangential. I have been inspired to work on poetry because of @hfester joining our group, and because I want to shift the dialogue into non representational forms (hence this haiku) :

mired within the words,
representation asleep
while you come running


Thank you for the shift…
On a raft floating Dijk’s “draft”
Stuck within a rift.


Monstrous is the world,
Without beginning or end—
It shits on your head! :bird:


Taking a break from Bubbles & Globes catch-up…
Found this image last month before muckling with Spheres… Speaking of the monstrous…


Though not the bearded seven…(please don’t defecate this “head”!)
This might belong in Volume 4: Ultimate Sphere Deflation.

Added bonus: A semi-Sloterdijkian image analysis


I have not been able to message you directly, Doug, so I hope you get this. At the Globes event this Thursday I thought I would invite a clean start from each participant and invite you to read a poem that is related to the text, that creates a mood of discovery? Does that sound good to you? I look forward to our participation on this happening!


I shall be prepared!


We have a phrase from the pre-Socratic Thales of Miletus: “Everything is full of Gods”. The term “pre-Socratic” is not a term in chronological order, but thematic, created by Aristotle to designate thinkers who do not necessarily lived before Socrates, but who thought second cosmological canons, and not according to the method and the mode of philosophizing of Socrates, who thought from the investigation of human things. But the disciple of Anaximander, Anaxímenes, chose to return to the philosophical grandfather and find something between the indefinite completely and water, and then chose the air as cosmological principle. Water, ápeiron and air - The first philosophy was not concerned with the appearance and essence (Plato), nor with substance (Aristotle), still less to speak of the subject as a producer or organizer of the knowledge of the cosmos (Kant). In contemporary philosophy everything that stayed behind, there is what today we call a “philosophy of between”, a “theory of the means”, the environment.

So, if we look at the vocabulary proposed by Peter Sloterdijk in his “theory of spheres”. Incidentally, the name “spheres” is good if we never forget acoplarmos him that his virtue, to be a “theory of the media” (Bruno Latour, friend Sloterdijk works that much). Because more than there of being-there is history and, thus, to give us the Dasein as it shows outside of traditionally abstractions that seek to describe the man, putting him always in a line of labeling of preconceived ideas - “Son of God”, “rational animal,” “political animal” (substancialists and essentialist ideas), the historicity complete need to stick to the space. Beyond that, the “there” of being-there would still, also, an abstraction.

The dasein cannot squander historicity if not wasted spatiality. Take the Dasein as what is not something added to their conditions, but it is what we call “there”, is to take the man as what is a continuous existence, he is nothing but what dwells and co-inhabits.

Sloterdijk makes a question by space, by the suspension of each vitamin that serves as a pool for what itself is, the suspension, and elements that form; a “water”, a “air” and “apeiron”. It’s a means, less as arkhé, but surely as that gives us the cosmos, leaving behind the chaos. Something that works before as “home” which itself as house. Something of which we can say “Dasein ist Desiner”.

The man is one who manifests as an “interior designer”. Sloterdijk defines the sphere as a medium that has at least a dyad, two poles; but there are these poles the starting point of the narrative, because they are guided and, say, generated by that causes the ball to be a sphere: the resonance. The esferology is composed of “bubbles”, “globes” and “foams”. The bubbles are what fits to investigate within the framework of a microesferologia, in this case, then, the intimacy. But the intimacy here seen spatially, must be studied by historian of space, the archaeologist. Sloterdijk makes himself a philosopher to the extent that arises as an archeologist of intimacy.

It’ s a professional that seeks to find antique pieces that interior designers (proto-hominids and apes; animals with kinship with the primates and sapiens) who lived in the past left as relics, to improve the environment in which they were in suspension. The whole point is to investigate the mutations of the “between”, “the environment”, the sphere which we call intimacy, in several phases. This “between” is what fills the whole sphere and the constitutions for resonance. Thus, “everything is water.” It is when our ontological narrative begins in the intimate sphere, as a surrogate in “floating” elements of the amniotic fluid, as in the case of the umbilical cord, the soft parts, fetal blood, the semi-elastic walls. Everything is sound, both in this phase and after. The sound resonance creates the place. If we ask ourselves “where are we when we listen to music?” (a gospel, the good news is present as the “song of the mermaids”), we know that we are in music and it in us, involving and penetrating. It’s the great continuous resonance in the processes of mutation of the spheres.

In a third moment, already outside the womb, we are in the air and on earth, but we maintain the spherical “interior” not only with the air but also with the mother’s skin and the sound of the world and a new one, cranial baby box. The placenta, the companion and initial amplifier, is lost, but one gains what one already had in part, the sound. Voices are then the second pole to a first pole, now that is the baby. This sound is soon to be the voice of the daimon, guardian angel, genius, etc. The placenta can disappear without the sound, which is the “between” continuous, cease to maintain the current resonance, generating a second spherical medium, which now contains some effort, at least what another means, the air-earth (such as, sucking, breathing, biting, talking, crying, walking, standing up, etc.).

Before in a fetal situation we were “suspended” in the water where the effort almost does not exist, food comes from the umbilical cord, water, oxygen, blood, among others). Incidentally, Sloterdijk works with a kind of “amphibian anthropology” for humans with the three elements (water, earth and air) much because the first aquatic animals come to earth, an ancient relative of sapiens. It separates a history of the individual (intrauterine environment), called “ontogenesis” and a history of the species, called “phylogenesis”. In all religions, there is something like the third, which is very similar to the umbilical cord, which we manipulate in the uterus, and look like sexual paraphernalia - the famous balls. Religion is therefore a re-ligation of a cut. In both, we have the aquatic transmutation to the terrestrial-air.

Animals developing “paws”, “braces” or “limbs” to start crawling, as well as man to be a biped. That outside, the outside, depends on work and effort to carry their own bodies, to breathe, influences of space-time (heat, snow, etc.). In their old environment they let themselves be carried by the waters or a little effort of tail for locomotion, nevertheless, once in earth, they had to create legs and to rise on them, to load their bodies in a much more difficult situation. On earth, they needed calculus (go from x to y to z) for the pursuit of food and for an adventure in space. Perhaps it has arisen out of how man can think metaphysically by forms (a kind of imaginary 3D geometry). A sort of “launch of man in the world” in an unknown environment. I think Heidegger said that “the stone is without world”, “the animal is poor of world” and “men are world builders”, I prefer “design. A designer never gets an interior from scratch, is not a construct or make, but a remoldar or redo something that was already there.

Infinity is represented in the figure of the sphere that encompasses everything, in which simply no exteriority can emerge, a model that guarantees both the absolute intimacy and the mutual immanence of divine persons. To understand these initial resonances is to understand the possibilities of a philosophy that is a theory of the media, something that says that it is possible to make an ontological narrative if we do not lose sight of that we do not have to start with poles, but for everything it is water, air, etc., as if we wanted to keep in mind “physiologoi” and also the parmenídica-Heideggerian tradition. The latin word “existêntia” and the Greek “skestasis”, to characterize the ecstasy as one of the elements of the characterization of the existing (from being in this open or caotic exterior but also of being in the air and land environment). Ecstasy is a state of tension by traffic, that is, by coming and going, by the fact that if we speak of Dasein, we must see it with Da-Sein: being-there-in-nothing. Thus, Dasein, the Heideggerian being, is to be thrown into the open and disturbed by the open. There is a nostalgia for Ionian cosmology in Sloterdijk’s media theory, its spherology. I believe that the beginning of Spheres II talks with the end of Volume I and with the books:

Genealogy of morality – Nietzsche (pp. 72-85).
Sloterdijk: The Strangeness of the World. Water Clock Editors, 2008, p. 157, seq.).
_____. The Sun and Death. Water Clock Editores, 2007, p. 118-122.
_____. The Infinite Mobilization. Lisbon: Clock of water editors, 2002, pp. 180-200, (Chapter V, entitled Paris Aphorisms on Rationality).
Strauss, Leo. On Plato’s Symposium. Chicago: University Chicago Press, 2011.

Sorry, I use a translator because


Thank you, Eduardo. It is to be wished that you could lend your voice to one of our video conferences.


some notes about the chapter: “the atlas”.

“God did not die, he became money”. Agamben philosopher’s phrase about money is quite inviting. If we take Walter Benjamin by saying that capitalism has become religion (one of the most perverse), it is not just to say and see aspects of power and domination in this situation. I believe it indicates that we are still the same, humans, now not just sons of God (as absolute or universal), but children of money, because the market is governed by laws and economic theses also universal and abstract. Money is a vehicle of an abstraction, which is the hours of work that show what each commodity is worth (the idea that value is the value of exchange and no longer the value of use), becomes the universal market. He steals the universality previously guaranteed only by God. He steals the paternity of the community of children of God. This is how it replaces God. We are socialized on Earth by the market. Now we are all one again, not in God, but in the new ethical producer, the market and its most visible expression, money, something typically human. It is no coincidence that in modernity a work-centered anthropology (Marx) and entrepreneurship (Weber) are born, both activities that we learn to naturalize as what makes us live, that is, to have money. Abstraction was a mental operation before capitalism. But now, it is a practice of approach to everything we look, feel and do. Money is the form of empire of our practice. It is the abstract that imposes itself. This is Marx’s “philosophical secret”. about the market society. In postmodernity or contemporaneity, there is precisely the end of metanarratives (Lyotard) based on some work ethic to have the market and money as universal. Marx in “The Capital” in a way, creates a theory of systems of adventure. The journey through the soul world is superimposed by the journey in the world of money which consists of a world in the conception of metamorphoses. Homer gives us two of the greatest epithets ever made to a person about his Odysseus, which in Latin is Ulysses. One of the epithets is “polymetis” - which has a lot of cunning and “polymechanos” - the man of many strategies, a strategist, one who uses the audacity to make the material do something that he himself would not do himself, and is the which money does too, is a great strategist, a great artist of transformation. We may think that the world possesses forces that generate transformations by themselves, that is, they invite matter that is volatile, malleable and invites matter to the largest dressing room ever seen, capitalist industry to assume forms never thought (a theatrical postulate of man). This is the key to understanding capital. The continuous irruption of one thing into another. It shows that nothing is what it seems to be. That everything is disguised. We always find the matter disguised, minus the case of the first state of raw materials and natural resources which is very interesting because it is a bourgeois metaphor with its conception of nature as a treasure chest. But if we look beyond all this, everything we find in the world of value, in the world of commodity is already transvestite and enveloped. It is a type of matter disguised as this “theatrical history” of value and valued matter. Marx was one of the inventors of the bourgeois figure as a dramatic character in some respects. This can be seen in Balzac in the figure of the miser of the century. XVII and XVIII. Balzac transfigures it to the figure of the banker to whom the act of giving is a torture, by the human incarnation of accumulation. Marx is not theorist of class struggle or communism. Marx is the theoretician of value and the possibility of thinking about culture under the aegis of the commodity. Priority, his originality in philosophy lies in his critique of the market as an institution that can generate fetishism and reification, and in the question of the added value generated in capitalism. Marx also dialogues with Guy Debord, Richard Sennet, “The Letter of Tolerance" by Locke, Mario Manacorda and John Dewey.

There is a tale known as that of Fortunatus, dating from 1509. He goes to a certain and chosen forest, makes fortune, money. He has a magic purse, received from the Fairy, which always replenishes forty already spent gold coins. The hero goes out to the world for adventures of all kinds, loving and police. Money makes money, there is reproduction, in a continuous magic. Money generates interest. The modern fortune in modernity the modern world is the world in which to be lighter for wealth, to have fortune, is something that comes through marriage, the social rise from it, or ways of earning inheritance, lottery tickets, casinos, gambling, oil discovery and things like that (the institutionalized fortune).

1 Like