Globes, by Peter Sloterdijk – Conversation 5


(Geoffrey Edwards) #22

I love it! Along with your title. We may even be able to convince Ed @achronon to come back into the fold!

There’s nothing like being provocative with someone who is already a provocoteur!

(Douglas Duff) #23

We could start by adding the word “Spheres” to the title to create a merdocratic acronym…After Sloterdijk’s Spheres

Too…uhh… “cheeky”? Provocative? I think ole Slotty deserves it after what he has put us through!

(Ed Mahood) #24

He’s still snooty, snotty Slotty to me. :smiling_imp:

(Eduardo Rocha) #25

I get it. I agree with you that sometimes philosophers may have genius ideas but that this does not represent pleasant or appealing writing, not a very good writing. Others are good writers and philosophers. I quite like Foucault, Tocqueville, James, Agamben, Sloterdijk and Marx. I would say that I have a preference for writers who work with argumentation of course, but who have something imaginative. If one day finish reading Sloterdijk (which will take a lot) I have the urge to read Spinoza, Pascal and David Hume. Sometimes I wonder how Europe has managed to produce so many people in the philosophical field. I think it bothered Tocqueville when he went to America. He noticed that all this had to do with what he himself understood as philosophy: Descartes, After all, Tocqueville was French, and Philosophy for him was nothing but to take all things for reason itself. In Europe there is a whole tradition of philosophical and economic schools. We have the Frankfurt School, Marxism, Existentialism, Rationalism, Enlightenment, Humanism, Positivism, Essentialism, the Austrian economic schools with Rothbard, Hayek and Menger and the psychoanalytic and psychological with Freud, Otto Rank and others. Thinking about Europe is something quite varied and diverse, giving diversity. Americans, while unaware of traditional European philosophical schools, seemed to have studied and incorporated this into their practical social body. I believe that pragmatism is considered more a current or a type of doctrine than properly a Philosophical School. Do you know any Brazilian authors? We have three or four good names, but in the literary field.

(john davis) #26

I’m afraid I know very few Brazilian authors. Freire has been an influence and Roberto Unger. Both write really well and make a lot of sense. I am enchanted by Pessoa and admire Saramago. I am grateful for any suggestions, Eduardo.

About reading, I am trying to integrate what I have read and read a lot about those who are trying to put it together rather than take it apart. I have been deconstructed enough. I like the Pragmatists, James and Pierce especially. I am drawn to systems thinkers and ecologists like Niklas Luhmann, Gregory Bateson, and Lyn Margulis. I like the Chilean botanists, Matuarana and Varela. I am drawn to cultural analysts more than I am to philosophers, like Gebser. I like theory and meta-theory. I like the Critical Realists, Margaret Archer and Roy Bhaskar. I have studied therapy in depth.

Study circles are of increasing importance as I am outside of academia and benefit from conversations about reading practices.

Sloterjdiik as you may guess irritates me a lot but I think he’s interesting. I am interested in the emerging field of Futures Studies. I have read lots of off the wall, weird writers like Bolano and poet Jaime Saenz. I am very interested in Enrique Dussell, who has much to say about emerging Latin American traditions. I admire magic realism styles of all kinds, Borges and Marquez made a big impression when I was younger. I have an interest in North and South American thinkers and the mutual resonances but am not an expert at all in either area.

I am ignorant of many writers I would like to explore. Reading is labor intensive and as I get older, although I read a lot, I tend to read more slowly, integrating so many styles and cultures is a challenge. Putting theory into one’s own words makes a difference. Then when we review the video of the conversation, new ideas pop up. This is a novel way of learning about ourselves at different levels of our becoming. A self -reflexive capacity is developing. Thanks again, Eduardo, for your participation. We need multiple descriptions.

(Geoffrey Edwards) #27

I have read some Clarice Lispector, Jorge Amado and Paul Coelho. You are right, Brazil is better known for its literary writers than philosophers.
Perhaps you could tell us more about them, @Eduardo_Rocha

(Douglas Duff) #28

This is a humble response to your great note taking efforts, @Eduardo_Rocha. When you write and speak about Sloterdijk, one receives the notion that you have really chewed on the material and gotten a real taste for what Sloterdijk had intended. You also have the knack for creating your own language in the process…don’t think any translating tool can take away your original voice!

(originally hoped to respond to the whole 11 pages…found the first page to have a density that required more attention upon a re-read.)

Rationalization takes us from magic to metaphysics, to technology…
The essence of magic is tele activity. That is exactly what our technology does…
Magic is all about influence, about which we now think in terms of technology.

Technology is often circling us back to the days of magic.

The stars were thought to have influence in magical systems, now “stars”, that is, celebrities, are thought to do the same.

Yes! If this is your original thinking, then I think we have found our Brazilian “celebrity-philosopher” :star_struck:
…or our “anonymous thinker:”

If the exemplary human in the First Ecumene was the wise man, who meditated on his dysfunctional relationship with the absolute, and the saint, who could feel closer to God than ordinary sinners through grace, then the exemplary human in the Second Ecumene is the celebrity, who will never understand why they had more success than other people, and the anonymous thinker, who opens themselves up to the two key experiences of the age: firstly, to the constantly recommencing revolutions as the “presentations of the infinite in the here and now,”*and secondly, to the shame which affects every thinking life today more than original sin: never rebelling enough against the ubiquitous degradation of all that lives. – Sloterdijk, Globes p.948 (English translation) *Deleuze & Guattari, What Is Philosophy?, p.100

The idea of identifying our current exemplary humans was brought up in the Black Panther discussion at around the 53 minute mark (and I bring this up for you, Eduardo, as you mentioned an interest in graphic novels…though maybe not Marvel comics) This is a question I have been seeking answers for a couple years now: Who are the true heroes of our time? Why is the celebrity the only type of individual who can have the massive influence upon the world? Who or what can replace the celebrity? Zachary and Darrell in the Black Panther recording identify a few famous politicians to replace Avengers characters, with Barack Obama as the greatest example of a global hero.

Sloterdijk pointed out that we live in a “time of empty angels” or a “media nihilism” in which we forget the message to convey as the means of transmission multiply.

In the form of man-god there is no influence, but in the form of an idiot. The idiot (Jesus) presents himself as an angel without a message.
…The idiot makes himself a placenta, as he offers everyone on his way a friendly shoulder that functions as an intrauterine pillow, that is, an experience of closeness-intimacy

Perhaps Jesus comes closest to the exemplary “human” if considering the individual who reaches out to the greatest number of global residents. Yet, even those who take Jesus into their hearts cannot truly ever hear the message of God through him. I did not read the idiot segment in Bubbles but have read The Idiot by Dostoyevsky and understand that the world just simply cannot listen to such a simple beautiful message. Even in Dostoyevsky’s era, before the internet age, the entire cast of characters are too caught up in the daily drama to listen to Prince Myshkin’s voice of deep innocent care and sympathetic reasoning. They can only accept his intrauterine pillow when they are desparate or about to go to sleep at night and pray for forgiveness. The modern day families rush out from church services in order to beat the traffic and the fast food lines and to make it home before they miss the next episode of Touched By An Angel, or something…

Here in North America, the wise man is attempting to make a comeback, seen in tele-podcasted individuals such as Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson, but they can hardly be considered heroes or exemplary humans and are more along the lines of the not-so-anonymous celebrity: they tend to be popular because they court controversy and that appeals to our (North?) American adolescent intellectual minds. In other countries, it is more common to see intellectual celebrities rather than music and sports stars. Peter Sloterdijk might consider himself a bit of all four (wise man, celebrity, anonymous thinker outside of his home country/continent…though maybe not a saint!). But I think he is onto something with the anonymous thinker as defining the example of a true human. Your comments have influenced me more than any celebrity statement ever will. The intellectual interactions on this site among others have a strong influence and seem to be closing in on something: What happens when the anonymous thinkers go beyond the paradoxes of present day life-experience (“constantly recommencing revolutions”) and start to form a slow crawl of a revolution in a world that seems to have stopped revolving?

(Douglas Duff) #30

This relates closely to the magic/technology connection explored by @Eduardo_Rocha. I think you are right @johnnydavis54…true magicians will save the world. Glad to have a few making their presence in the Infinite :mage: :woman_mage:

Quotes from the video and additional quotes from Robert Moore’s and Douglas Gillette’s book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover :

We often mistakenly think that we are very different from our ancient ancestors, with our great knowledge and our amazing technology. But the origins of our knowledge and our technology lie in the minds of men like the old aborigine. He, and all those like him in tribal and ancient societies were accessing the Magician energy.

The energies of the Magician archetype, wherever and whenever we encounter them, are twofold. The Magician is the knower and he is the master of technology. Furthermore, the man who is guided by the power of the Magician is able to fulfill these Magician functions in part by his use of ritual initiatory process. He is the “ritual elder” who guides the processes of transformation, both within and without.

Ours is, we believe, the age of the Magician, because it is a technological age. It is an age of the Magician at least in his materialistic concern with understanding and having power over nature. But in terms of nonmaterialistic, psychological, or spiritual initiatory process, the Magician energy seems to be in short supply. We have already noted the absence of ritual elders who can initiate men into the deeper and more mature levels of masculine identity. Though technical schools and trade unions, professional associations, and many other institutions that express the Magician energy in the material world flourish and provide initiatory processes for those who seek to become “masters” in this sense, the Magician energy is not doing so well in the area of personal growth and transformation. Ours is an age, as we’ve said, of personal and gender identity chaos. And chaos is always the result of inadequate accessing of the Magician in some vital area of life.

(Ed Mahood) #31

You should know that I agree with @johnnydavis54 to the extent that “true Magicians” will contribute to our salvation, but those true Magicians will be (will have to be much) more than just Magicians.

Before reading any of the authors mentioned in the clip – all of whom recommend themselves – read Gebser on the Magic structure of consciousness. I’m not saying he’s “right” (that would be too rational); what I’m saying is that he, as far as I can tell, lays the best foundation for then understanding what the others are talking about. This all goes much deeper and is much more fundamental than thinking about an archetype would lead us to believe.

They, for the most part, don’t … they can’t. There is no mastery in the real sense of the word if there is no personal mastery, which, as the quoted observe, is not doing so well.

Magic is about one thing, really, and one thing only: power. Magic, make, might (in the sense of power) all stem from the same root. There is a reason why the root word from which “sacred” derives and that expresses such an important notionality in the clip (and in most of the referenced books) … sacer means BOTH “blessed” and “cursed”. This isn’t a paradox to be overcome, by the way, this is an existential reality which we must resolve.

What I’m saying (I think) is that the clip and the references therein (at least the ones I’m familiar with) treat the subject way too glibly. They make it sound like all you have to do is give yourself a shove and you can get in touch with your “inner magician”, and you’ll be on the yellow-brick road of betterment. I’d caution you to not let that thought even cross your mind. The “energy” (to use this hackneyed, overused and underestimated notion in this context) is anything but in short supply. That energy is slaughtering thousands and oppressing millions of human beings everyday and it is debilitating and destroying psyches at a rate unparalleled in the history of humanity, precisely because we have already or are in the process of deifying our technology (especially, and most dangerously, the digital). There’s a current flowing behind the wall of manifested reality that I’m not sure I’m ready to suggest to others that they just poke their self-improvement screwdriver into.

(john davis) #32

I tend to agree, Ed, although I admire Gillette and Moore and Carol Pearson. it should be noted that women can also experience these energetic templates, too, except that the King becomes Queen. What follows is a development of the themes we are wrestling with through SLoterjdiik’s odd readings of these archetypal displays. I find he is reprising some of the major constellations of archetypal figures but seems to sink more often than he swims. He is working these out in his own fashion as we all are.

I do not believe Magician will save the world without the help of other archetypes. Magician can cast spells, enchant with story, not to be confused however with the Bard, who has a much more relaxed and poetic character.

Magician can be fierce and if inflated become deceptive. Think of Prospero, the great enchanter of Shakespeare’s play, The Tempest Shakespeare may have modeled Propspero after the great alchemist, John Dee. Prospero tames his ego and stops using his powers to satisfy revenge.

The pathological version of Magician as he slides into the Trickster is not pretty. And that is when we see a lot of deconstructive dynamite, which is almost always embodied through an adolescent male persona. I see much Trickster energy in current AI fantasias and I am not hopeful that we have enough stability to re-balance if they continue to dominate society through their techno-narcotic products, capturing and holding prisoner the attention of large portions of society. The digital addictions we see rampant among all age groups should alert us one of the great struggles of our time. If we have enough stability in the system, it may be possible, to re-generate, but we are coming perilously close to the abyss.Trying to oversimplify complexity drives us into chaos. Chaos is not where we want to go!

Trump for example is a classic Trickster figure and he has stirred up a hornets nest. Though he is 70 years old and has lots of power he is an adolescent and loves chaos.

Obama had a strong Kingly quality but he became too much above the fray and failed to drop into the pelvis and kick ass as a good Warrior does to protect the people. He basically preserved the status quo, masking the Neo Liberal regime, which created conditions for the rise of Trump.

Clinton, ironically, embodied the worst aspects of the Warrior archetype, as she worked very hard to protect herself and her allies, through violence or the threat of violence. She was a dark Warrior, not to be trusted. The ultimate Boss Lady. It is a great pity that she had so little of the Queen energy, a stable quality, from which the people could receive blessings. The dark side of the Queen is tyrant. Off with their heads! She was almost a parody of that great cartoon character created by Lewis Carrol.

And each archetype has a relationship to the other archetypes, and when we see someone get stuck we might want to open ourselves or invite each other to be curious about an undeveloped Archetype we have not experienced fully. Gently disengaging from one archetype we pay attention to the others. And we can ask what wants to happen in this situation? And try to find the balance with the forces that others are activating in the cluster of patterning that are getting expressed in the matrices we find ourselves working with.

Magician will not save the world all by himself. He needs the other archetypes as well to create a dynamic flow. We must never be ruled by the archetype.

We can step into the Archetype and then step out of it as the occasion demands. To get overly identified with any archetype leads to imbalance or inertia. We notice that great performer may use their talents to glorify themselves in the art and become parodies of themselves or get stuck in a rut. A great singer sings behind the music not in front of it.

We can feel when we are in the presence of someone who has integrated an archetype. It is a wondrous unfolding quality. MKL or Mandela comes to mind. But we must not, I believe, wait for great leaders to emerge.

I am hoping we can move beyond the Archetypes we using to hold the Mirror up to Nature. That is why I am so keen to continue to model people at the level they are at. Modeling peak performance in real world is probably more necessary now than getting hooked into the Medieval World view from which many of our current archetypes emerge. WIlber I believe may be right when he makes us alert to what he calls the Pre/Trans fallacy. Archetypes are ancient and powerful but not to be confused with Transcendent and subtle realms. This is a great research project.

(Geoffrey Edwards) #33

I agree with Ed on this. Although there is a necessity to have a “counter discourse” about the need to allow magic back into our lives, and the role of traditional “magicians” needs to be acknowledged, I find much of the argument presented here more disturbing than inspirational. First off, the tone is authoritarian - “here are truths” it seems to say. This is not what we are about, we are trying to invite multiple truths back in, not one set of truths. Multiple truths often contradict each other, but I see this as a good thing. “The first right of humans is to be inconsistent.” The argument in favor of reinforcing the centre is also suspect. “Centre is good; non centre is bad” the argument seems to go. This is a binary view… centre comes with lots of problems and the push to decentralize has much that is valuable. In fact, the focus of this clip is on the “major” not the “minor”, to use Erin Manning’s terminology. Magic is important, but not as a closed form, it needs to be open, creative, and to escape fixed forms. We don’t need a new class of “magician experts”, we need new practicioners willing to take the risk of stepping outside standard modes of being, whether these be technologically mediated as in much of contemporary society or anchored in older traditions that can as easily be oppressive as life affirming.

(Douglas Duff) #34

So…did not really expect the counter argument, as I felt this video was an interesting reflection on magic and technology as explored above and not to be taken too deeply. (edited out the “must see” comment, for that alone may have thrown you off onto a wild goose chase. It is a must see in the sense that it related quite nicely with the discussion on magic/technology and also tied in with finding the true heroes or “exemplary humans” in the world). I was more interested in the “anonymous thinkers” portion of Sloterdijk’s quote, which I consider all here to be part of that group. There is much that is left unsaid, and for good reason…the quote from p 948 in Globes is part of a 200 page chapter… Part of the disagreement, maybe, is with the overloaded words “magic” and “magician” …Gebser’s magical structure humans are not magicians in the archetypal sense described here, at least not completely (don’t want to focus on that though)…plus you are dealing with a fella (me) who is working on the articulation of basic thoughts, let alone thoughts on geophilosophy, magical realms and Sloterdijkian tangents. I often spend an entire night trying to convey what I wish to say, going off on tangental readings, then end up muddying the original concept with many tangental writings of my own along with a condensed version of the original idea that often doesn’t make much sense.

No longer being fully in the world into a new having of the world is a big structural change of consciousness and Gebser’s disclaimer that, perhaps it would worthwhile to define the pre-magical structures, is well noted. This is heavy lifting for the writer and the reader to fathom…just as we cannot know what it is like to be a snail, we cannot know what it is like to be a human in magical times…close to pure speculation, though Gebser brings us quite close. I would say, too, though, we can have an experience of this “realm,” but to live in the egolessness, the “point-like unitary world” is outside of the rational mind, so cannot be described so easily.

Part of the magic of cinema, though, is the dramatic effect it has on our being. Gebser states “it is impossible to evoke the abundance of auditory effects, the entire field of magic-acoustic-symbols.” (p.52). A powerful movie or even this 15-minute clip has music throughout, emotions are elevated, rationality is suspended…thus it is another attempt, like Gebser’s aperspectival prose, to tap into that particular consciousness structure. It might convey that these are the truths to be known, that the archetype is right, but I believe most individuals watching this will appreciate the editors efforts (which are quite admirable) and the cinematic effect. And the video doesn’t say get in touch with your inner magician; it is conveying that we have been out of touch with the magical and it can be beneficial to seek out the sacred spaces in our lives. There are plenty of warnings of faulty pseudo-initiation schemes (military) and shadow magicians seeking only power and the trickster seeking to destroy only. @10:20 the question is asked what are the qualities of the good magicians, and what function can they serve in a society without sacred space or rituals of initiation?

This video (and the book King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, the video’s main dish) is one of four main archetypes explored as a Jungian introduction to the psychological foundation of a mature, authentic, and revitalized masculinity. I cannot say I have read the entire book, but feel they are tapping into many of the missing pieces of the modern male. I was interested in this series of videos and the book when @johnnydavis54 first posted the Lover archetype video back in November or December. I recognized immediately the missing elements of the tired, powerless, fearful, angry, “worthless” mass of males I see around me, unable to manage a healthy relationship with most anyone. I am not exaggerating when I say these individuals are abundant in Kentucky. One aspect of the magic that is not covered by Gebser is fear. Power over nature might be the end result, but fear (not just anxiety in the modern sense) is a crucial emotion that develops before rage and power drives. These folks are fearful.

On archetypes: it can be useful to have a map such as Jung’s great efforts…but these are old and dusty…I’d rather use them to start a fire to keep warm on my journey than read them to find a destination. Moore and Gillette have provided us with newly explored territory for our time and have many new insights and they recognize archetypes as a tool rather than absolute truth. Gebser is a good guide, but he too is aging (not to be forgotten or dismissed, mind you!)… please, anonymous thinkers and good magicians, guide us towards a realm that shows us the sacred spaces and the forgotten rituals.

(Ed Mahood) #35

Well stated, sir, and overall I concur with most of what you have to say. The reaction that you have witnessed – even if it is “just” a moving counter-argument – is precisely one of the points I was trying to make. For me, at any rate, power is at the root of the magical (whether benign, malignant or cultural-philosophical) is power. And power – in any of its manifestations – is never to be taken lightly.

Gebser addresses fear in his discussions of “the numinous”, and since we’ve lost touch with that for the most part, all we’re left with is fear. (Oddly enough, in the OT, the Hebrew word YRA means “he feared, he revered, he was in awe of” and is most often used when the LORD is around. They have a lot of other words for the affects (terror, dread (anxiety), etc.). The problematic, if you will, has been around for a long time. (And there could be – at least this is how I understand @Geoffrey_Edwards’ response – such a thing as “good” fear and “bad” fear … or at least an understanding that it is not of one bolt of cloth.)

(An interesting etymological side note for English-speakers: the fear/reverence connection can be found in the root meaning of “awe”. Only a couple of hundred years ago, the word “awful” meant exactly what it says, “to be full of awe”. The flip side of the coin, so to speak, was “awesome”. In the interim, the words have switched places in the language and we could very well be in the process of losing contact with what was originally at stake: “awe” (the numinous). )

In addition, I have always found Erich Fromm’s Escape from Freedom (US title … UK title was The Fear of Freedom … go figure) a well-worth-reading treatment of the subject of fear, especially in light of the things you mentioned and, well, your neighbors. Just a suggestion … I know you’re always looking for something to fill that all-too-short reading list of yours. :wink:

Be that as it may, let me add one more thought as I failed to make it as clear as I had wanted to the last time. One of the most attractive features of Gebser’s model is his postulation (which I find much evidence in support of) that all of the structures are with (in) us all the time, right now, this very moment (which makes him anything but aging or dusty, I would say). He took great pains to stress that he’s not talking about something that happened a long, long time ago, rather he is describing something that is very deep within us that we fail to recognize is there.

We favor/stress/operate primarily in/are perhaps blinded by the mental-rational, but the other structures haven’t (and cannot) go away. The root/foundation/maybe even essence of the Magic structure is Power. You go near magic (in any of its manifestations) and you are dealing/playing/fooling/fiddling with, if not actually tapping into, Power itself. I find the Jungian notion of archetypes (as I most often encounter it in contemporary literature) terribly inadequate to the task. Archetypes are realities (not mere tools, certainly not “truths” as the word is generally understood) and as such we must come to terms with them on their terms, but these days we tend to think that since we have a word to name and describe a phenomenon (a magical act, by the way) that have some kind of control over that phenomenon or can instru-mentalize (turn into a tool) it in some way. We like to think we can think about such things in meaningful, perhaps even harmless, ways. I don’t believe that is true. There is no thinking in magic.

Please do not misunderstand me: I respect, admire, and am encouraged by the Moore & Gillettes and the Pearsons and the Blys and the countless others who are making serious efforts to help us all come to terms with this. (I have them and more on my bookshelf.) I thought I had made that clear in my original post, but I didn’t, so I appreciate the feedback. All that I was, and am, saying is that there’s more here than meets the eye and certainly more than meets the cerebral cortex. This is also what I hear @Geoffrey_Edwards saying and certainly what @johnnydavis54 has repeatedly stated more directly than the rest of us.

Not once did I even suggest that we shouldn’t move in this direction, I’m simply admonishing, because of what it is we are encountering, to tread cautiously.

(Eduardo Rocha) #36

@johnnydavis54 @Geoffrey_Edwards
Actually, I’m not a frequent reader of literature. Here in Brazil is a consensus that Clarice Lispector, Graciliano Ramos (dry lives), Carlos Drummond de Andrade and Guimarâes Rosa (Grande Sertão: Veredas) and Machado de Assis are the heavyweights of literature. Paulo Coelho is another pop author with cool stories. Speaking more philosophically Paulo Freire would enter although today here in Brazil he is quite badly treated especially due to our political polarization. Freire is considered one of the patrons of Brazilian education and I find his books very interesting.
We also have Scarlet Marton, as it is a nietzschian scholar with a full hand. I only read her book called “Nietzsche, from cosmic forces to human values”. Especially Machado de Assis is a classic of national literature. Almost all schools recommend their books in elementary education. But, Machado de Assis has his philosophical preferences. He is a schopenhaurian. The world is ruled not by Reason, as Hegel wanted, but by Will. Thus, the world is chaos and, being chaos, is where the Evil puts its sleeves out. The world taken as will, and not as representation, sustains a metaphysics of evil. His most famous tale is “Father against Mother”, Dom Casmurro and Posthumous Memories of Brás Cubas. Although I have read some I am not a lover of literature. I read more things that catch my eye. Like Neil Gaiman who has both comic books and written books, Poe, Nikolai Gogol, Kafka and Dostoevsky. I do not know why, but I quite like the story of Shelley’s Frankenstein. Every time I pass the film I always watch especially an old one called “The Young Frankenstein”.

(Eduardo Rocha) #37

I have not seen the Black Panther movie unfortunately. But by the comments seems to be something remarkable. In terms of comics I quite like the Orientals I think by tradition video games. I think they have a very peculiar sensitivity from horror animes to even things like Fullmetal Alchemist, Samurai x, Evangelion, Lain, Akira, Death Note, Berserk, Ghost in the Shell. Even in cinema (Korean) even they have produced great things like Oldboy, The Lamentation, The Host, The Maid, Zombie Invasion. I do not know if it’s the difference of cultures. Lately many horror and suspense movies are in high tastes of some like The Witch, Babadook, The Orphan, etc.

(Eduardo Rocha) #38

These are difficult questions, I do not know if I would answer. This idea of ​​fanaticism or the ability of celebrities to wake people up is intriguing. Let us say that this “capacity for mobilization” is something of the Totalitarian States and of Modern Cynicism. Nazism was the fruit of modern cynicism. Nazi-fascism had a pre-existing climate or “preparation” prior to this prevailing mentality at the time. This mentality said only one thing: it was the time of naivety. For Sloterdijk, the mass society of the first half of the twentieth century, as diagnosed by Canetti, is at the same time a demonstration of the impossibility of a mass as a subject. The mass described by Canetti is the still modern mass, which Sloterdijk calls “mass-gathering” and by its characteristic inner movement of “discharge.” It is a “mass” in the gaseous state. This mass is characterized by homogeneity, because “suddenly everything becomes black people”. This expression serves to illustrate through the black coloring the concept of modern mass (a black sea of ​​people) like that caught up in common political excitement. A modern motto very similar to that of the Nazi concentration camps: “work frees”. All modernity was made with some sort of work ethic (Nazism, Communism, Liberalism, etc.) and with postmodernity came to an end as Lyotard explained well with the end of meta-narratives - doctrines based on some utopia of “Labor society”. The initial magic dissolves in the struggle and at work. Mussolini defined fascism as “horror of comfortable life,” keeping the idea of ​​the right as the party of the weight. It is the same mass that is incompatible with the modern project of the good functioning of the whole, since it is unified by irrational psycho-political forces, driven by collective narcissism fueled by the demagogic recognition of its sycophantic leaders. Mass is an apparition as enigmatic as it is universal, which is suddenly there where there was nothing before. A few people may have been together, five or ten or twelve, no more. Nothing was announced, nothing expected. Suddenly, everything is black with people. In short, the mass gathered is violent and uninhibited, it sees in its fascist leaders the pretext of its discharge. In the era of bourgeois individualism, defined by the creation of distances between subjects, where the system itself isolates the individuals from each other, and directs them to each of them they made the solitary effort to become themselves, no one can approach, no one reaches the heights of the other. In turmoil, however, they overturn all distances. Where the human crowd grows denser, it begins to have a prodigious uninhibited tide. I have a book by Robert Michels that he talks about. Michels Masse, Führer, Intellektuelle. Politischsoziologische Ausfsätze 1906-1933. Frankfurt and New York, (1987, p. 293): Fascism is absolutely Carlylic. Rarely has the long and confused history of the modern party system given us such a prototypical example of the mass inner needs for hero worship as fascism does. Absolute confidence, blindness, and ardent worship lead this party against its leader, the Duce.
Michels speaks in this passage about Thomas Carlyle’s ideology of heroism and hero worship in history. A kind of expressive and voracious copy of modern subjectivity, a characteristic of modern mass, for hero worship is nothing but hero worship. A cult that is nothing more than the confession that in the human pre-exist something that does not stop dreaming more clearly. A certain kind of idealism that imposes a will and need to make the hero stand out, sometimes without realizing any perception. This need for admiration and veneration is oriented as an “inner necessity of the mass,” a gregarious state of semisubjectivity of self-disinhibition. Fanatics are uninhibited by nature. I’ve never read Hannah Arendt much, but she’s an authority on the subject.

But with respect to celebrity pop stars I think Sloterdijk in the chapter on the spherical alliance of Sphere I talks a lot about music as the example of mermaids in this capacity of fascination. I do not believe he speaks of it as a kind of enchantment or seduction or even an ideology of making people blind, but that all the “in-formation subject” he calls in-objects are not objects. It would take acoustic events in the scope of nobjects, a stand-in-vibration. A phase prior to pre-oral phases, when the medium generates and provides what is needed, when all the resonances constituting the medium constitute what they should constitute. Sound is not channeled internally, but it surrounds, echoes, penetrates and forms the whole environment. by means of waves, vibration and resonance. The entire uterine sphere is a set of vibration, and the fetus will experience this liquid, sonorous and dark world synestesically. That’s why even today, pop artists like Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga, Madonna manage to dive entire stages into excitement and shake stages, stages, theaters. The pop stars say Sloterdijk are the most masters at achieving orgasms of the Self. They offer more impressive projections of these archaic powers that effect the formations of the Self through the ear. They seduce their listeners with the promise of an emergence of the subject in the center of the song.

This "primitive madness" is seen from the psychological point of view in an inspiration of the muses. The listener, about to jump, awaits the boiling of his own sound gestures, attests to the reality of a siren phase, an archaic phase of the ego-formation in which the subject must cling to a sonorous expression, to the sound of a voice, a "sound image" or a "musical image". Men, both their ancient formations in the hordes and in the time of the classical empires and modern cultures, are spherical beings who only in interaction with their accompanying complements and followers dominate the vital risks in the opening of the world, the mystery of their accessibility to the encouragement of the entity that is close to you. We can admit that genius does not search, she already found. The angel does not knock on the door, he is already inside. The daimonion does not advertise, it already has the ear of the subject. The mermaids have never failed, they have always found victims who have allowed themselves to be attracted, but precisely because they sing the music of those who listen to their own music. They sing the music that the ears of those who pass by yearn for. It is in the ear of the listener that these fatal singers compose their songs. They sing through the larynx of others. They put in the souls of listeners a kind of irresistible excitement for themselves. What establishes his irresistibility is the transposition of the subject to the center of the hymnal exaltation that seems to emanate from each one of them.

Sloterdijk (2016: 445): "Each subject, as he resists discouragement, advances to his present musicalization." When the priests are not around, it is evident that men do not want to become God, but a musical hit. on the way to reach the rhapsodic instant gives the existence the feeling of advancement and ascension. An immemorial tendency to boil in the cantilena precedes the I, its frequency is its substance.