Peter Sloterdijk

It would take to much space to fully cover Peter Sloterdijk.

Measuring the Monstrous: Royal Symposium in Belgium

Gives a good impression and maybe triggering the impulse of this European Thinker who can think in the same league as Jürgen Habermas, but has the same trouble with academic recognition as Wilber. However Sloterdijks work- barely translated into English unfortunately- has at the edge to the transpersonal or terminal of centauric consciousness - slightly stronger potential for integration than the work of Habermas. Both have debated in fiery discussions years ago and both are leading German thinkers.

It would be great to engage in in depth comparison of KW and PSl.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Thank you for posting this, Albert.  I had not heard of Peter Sloterdijk before, but his work sounds interesting.  I did a short search on the web and read some brief summaries of his ideas.  I hope they come out with some good English translations of his work before long!  It would take me too long to learn German well enough to understand him… :-) 

Does he speak English?  It might be interesting to see if a dialogue between him and Ken Wilber could be arranged…

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Most of his work is in German and French. ASked some years ago Wilber he denied interest. As Wilber isnt speaking with Habermas up to now.

Maybe each of these guys has to focus too much on his own work. Remarkable however that profound discussions between Europeans and Americans are rare too. Was involved in leading discussion in German speaking countries and London Integral Circle for years. F2F and Online.

Basically there is no real exchange. Not even here on Gaia. Lots of my European friends are not interested in getting involved in Gaia. Others., like Hokai left. Others, like Mushin, Duri or Helen do not longer participate any longer.

so the underlying pattern is about cultural exchange in a transatlantic world which has to refer more and more to Asia Pacific.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

About eight of his books has been translated in Dutch too! Please don't overlook the Dutch here, since Peter Sloterdijk is of Dutch descent, so it would be somewhat ironic to overlook them.

I haven't read them yet but the three books on Spheres are on my booklist. I have some friends in Frankfurt who are very enthousiastic about him and maintain his value is much bigger then of Ken Wilber who they see as too systematic and lineair. Also they would say that Ken Wilber is building upon German philosophers like Habermas, while Habermas himself doesn't want to be associated with Wilber at all.

It seems to me that there is a real cultural gap between continental Europe and the US. And sometimes it is just a language thing but often I find it is more then that. Like taking some much for granted that the other culture does not take for granted at all.

I personally like blogging with the Americans:-). But I have to say that sometimes I get the impression that they have no idea how much more difficult it is for me to be part of the discussion then them, because of the language.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Marko, on my part, at least, I am always appreciative of – and impressed by – the contributions of non-English speakers to these English language forums.  Although I have studied a number of languages in my life (all Asian, except for French and Spanish), I am fluent in none and could not discuss these sorts of ideas in any of them.  When people are able to do so – and even to do so quite commandingly – I am both appreciative and a little envious …

Best wishes,

B.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Balder,

Thank you for your kind words, but I can tell you I am envious as well for the fact that your own language is the lingua franca of the world, which means you can communicate on your top level. My communication level in English is always much lower then my level in Dutch so I cannot communicate on the level I really am.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Marco,

feel the same. There is no real debate on a global level. Beeing from Europe too and particpated last 10 years in lots of debates -including integral or proto-integral aproaches - there are simply gaps to be adressed. And maybe cannot be bridged here. It would take large forums with lots of protagonists from these continents.

And even then integral is subculture right now. Neither Sloterdijk nir Wilber is accepted in mainstream academic orbits. However Peter Sloterdijk is present in European Media. So the real issue for is the creation of new emerging media collaboration. New and old ones. Recently I met Nancy Roof from Kosmos Journal and we spoke about real global connectivity.

Lots to come….

Our job, not the jobs of Sl and Wi.

Albert

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Albert,

Peter Sloterdijk has received a lot of main stream press attention in the Netherlands. And I would say also from academic philosphers. Especially Spheres has been received very well. On the contrary Ken Wilber does not get much attention in main stream press at all over here.

It sounds good that you are investing in global and US/Europe conversations. I agree that it is up to us to reach out in this area. This is something that I do too, especially in my own spiritual School, that of Almaas, where I am one of the main persons responsable for the US/Europe connection.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Neon,

only now, May 2009, I am reading about your engagement in Almaas work. I appreciate especially his new book. His term “Bold vulnerability” is most strongly resonating in me. For at least 20 years now.

Do you have a homepage especially for the European section?

 Best Greetings from Berlin,
Albert

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Albert,

Nice to hear that you like Almaas' work. There is no homepage for the European section, only this page on the general website.

Coincidentally Almaas is giving a retreat in Hamburg this week, which ends tomorrow. I was there for the weekend.

Greetings back from Amsterdam.
Neon

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I have read a lot of Sloterdijks work and love him for his thinking!

I'm not gone, by the way, Albert, I'm simply too much involved in many other spheres as to be interested in an American - German debate as such. I keep dipping in and out of the discussions here and other zaadz places, as I'm interested in much of the post-metaphysics that I can find here in a language that mostly I can understand.

I think I have read most of Sloterdijks books, except after 1 and 2 of “Sphären” (spheres) it simply got too much for me :-) and I haven't read 3 yet.
There is one image in the beginning of his first on Spheres, though, that I'll be indebted to him for, an image he has rightfully pulled it into the philosophic sphere , and thereby he has shown me something that I before had seen only at the fringes of my awareness…
The image is that of the sphere in which the two poles, mother and child, bask in each others presence. I've seen it with my own child and with others as well - there is a moment to moment co-creation of the shared reality in this image that seems to be a most beautiful metaphor for what post-modernism is about for me.

I would say that in that image there are still many mysteries to be fathomed. It's amazing how our society has no vocabulary to inquire into that intensity of two-poled oneness that this image suggests: for the mother there is nothing else but the child and for the child there is nothing but mother there, and that very occasion/happening is pure delight for both. And we can have something similar (though maybe either weaker or just plain different) when we gaze into the eyes of someone we love, and just letting only the other be there…
I don't remember if Sloterdijk goes this way but for me these human2human spheres of being together in depth, one for the other, surrendered but in a delightfully natural and easy way, that leads me to believe that there is indeed a spiritual way, a new way, in understanding the co-creative nature of such spheres, spheres of influence that are co-created by numerous players - in some spheres there are other beings and even so-called dead matter involved…

Maybe the gaze, the first gaze just after being born, when for some minutes (eternities really!) the just born child can fix on other persons eyes stably - I read that nature has evolved this for the sake of bonding; so when my son was looking at me after just being born (there were some complications, that didn't turn out to be so serious after all) it actually felt as if a switch was triggered in me; anyway I was clear enough to say to the doc, “Give the child to the mother immediatly!” I knew this look was for her! And how much more would go on betwenn them… and it did. It was one of the deeper moments of being embraced by the mystery of aware aliveness.

Could call that a product of evolution, a hormonally engeneered happenstance of bonding like I just did, etc. but that will not do it justice. For me Peter Sloterdijk does do this image justice by exploring the spheres of life based on this metaphor, and going in all kinds of depth that I found fascinating but they haven't left such a deep mark on my life as this one image.

He does analysis but it never disturbed me too much; it's not the killing kind that gets lost in the meta- and meta-meta levels; the 2nd and 3rd tier fascination that is so paramount in integral circles it seems is simply not there. Actually he doesn't seem to get lost in truths as much as the Wilberian lot often does.
I don't want to go too deep into the topic of “The Death of the Subject in Analysis”; maybe this can be the title of a blog in the times to come. For now I wanted just to honor Peter Sloterdijk for what he effected in my life.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I am involved in serious work too. The times of theoretical discussions are gone. I did it years ago. And for next years its simply enough. From time to time its simply good to check some points. The conceptual space of second tier and conected dimensions needs every amount of light which can be offered. Most interesting for me are the differences-even in integral! -between Europe and US. Rest of world does not even engage in these debates.

Sloterdijk is an interim candidate for Europen intellctual sphere. More in tradition of Nietzsche than in the line of Willam James. He wrote an interesting essay about this topic years ago to make differences in European and American thinking transparent. I spoke with Roland Benedikter about it. For me even more important than Sloterdijk. As he excplicitly deals with Ken Wilber and other integral approaches.

Sloterdijk is a well payed media celebrity for certain people of the public spheres and business and arts in Europe. Cashing in up to 20.000 Euro per day:):) Thats in itself remarkable and astonishing.

The key is in the life conditions. Innovative Spiral Wizards like Mike Jay nail it down when he names his new book ” Upping the downside”. The real life circumstances in business, working habitat, in wealth and health, in economy and other decisive factors of resilience,
etc. are crucial.

How to fund projects seems now one of the most important, yet under.discussed , matters in implenting the new. I know about no single project under the sun which has solved this challenge in a sustainable and rewarding and resilient way for all. so here are missing links for global maniifestations. These require pragmatic considerations.

Mike Jay even invented the label “integroity”. I agree. Geting lost in all the WE buzz is not serving. A strong resilience and understanding the downside of the spiral in very personal ways is what serves most . As much in Europe as in North America.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Well, imagine that…

20,000 Euros or $27,000 USD per day to talk about nothing!

Geez, I must be a real idiot to invest my time in here for free.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Sloterdijk was mentioned in the “next Buddha” thread as well as the topic of cynicism. Then I came upon the paper “In search of lost cheekiness, an introduction to Peter Sloterkijk’s ‘Critique of Cynical Reason’” by Stefan Lorenz Sorgner. Here’s an excerpt and I’ll add commentary later: 

The present attitude human beings take in respect to life, if they believe in nihilism, is Cynicism, according to him. This he contrasts with Kynicism, and while doing so he describes Kynicism in such a way that this state of consciousness is much more appealing than the cynical one. Therefore, one can say that he is putting forward Kynicism as a better reaction to nihilism than Cynicism. Cynicism as well as Kynicism are states of consciousness, according to Sloterdijk, and they also agree insofar as they both are far beyond the belief in idealism, and stable, absolute values. Whenever Sloterdijk employs the term “idealism”, he does not mean typical idealism a la Hegel, but he refers to all types of belief in absolutes. The loss of the belief in stable values, idealism et cetera, e.g. nihilism, was brought about by the Enlightenment movement. This movement was accompanied by the cynical attitude, which he criticises in this work. His work is not primarily a critique of the Enlightenment, as Andreas Huyssen pointed out [Sloterdijk (1987b): Foreword], but rather a critique of the attitude of Cynicism, which accompanied the Enlightenment movement. It is not a critique of the Enlightenment at all, but only a critique of the state of consciousness, which is usually brought about by any form of enlightenment, e.g. Cynicism, or as he calls it: Cynical reason. 

Sloterdijks understands Cynicism as enlightened false consciousness. I have already alluded to what this means. A cynic is someone, who is part of an institution, or group, whose existence and values he himself can no longer see as absolute, necessary and unconditional, and who is miserable, due to this enlightenment, because he sticks to principles he does not believe in. The only knowledge left for a cynic is his trust in reason, which, however, cannot provide him with a firm basis for action, and this again is another reason for being miserable. 

It can only be people from the higher classes, who are cynical, because Cynicism implies that one has to be in the positions of authority, and not believe in it or rather reject their purposefulness. In the position of authority are priests, atheists, metaphysical philosophers, Marxists, fascists, scientists, or anyone else who sticks to some abstract ideology and is part of / a representative of an absolute system. The problem all these representatives face nowadays is that all these ideologies have been severely and convincingly attacked and destroyed via all the critiques published in the Enlightenment period, according to Sloterdijk. So many of the representatives of the respective ideologies themselves do not believe in what they are doing anymore, or do not regard their position to be the one and only truth - like members of the church who do not believe in God, or economists who would like to be farmers. Still, they have to act and talk as if they were completely convinced of what they are doing, which is what makes them miserable. 

It is this cheerful cheekiness which one can find in all of the kynics action, and which distinguishes the kynics attitude from the cynics. The kynics argue with the whole of their bodies, especially with its lower part, which has been neglected through out the history of philosophy. The kynic is similar to the cynic only in so far as they both have an enlightened consciousness. Yet, the enlightened consciousness of the cynics is called false by Sloterdijk, because their consciousness makes them miserable. Whereas the enlightened consciousness of the kynics can be called correct, because they are cheerful, life-affirming, full of vitality and therefore also cheeky.

Cheekiness has, in principle, two positions, namely, above and below, hegemonic power and oppositional power, expressed on the language of the Middle Ages: master and serf. Ancient Kynicism begins the process of ‘naked arguments’ from the opposition, carried by the power that comes from below. The kynic farts, shits, pisses, masturbates on the street, before the eyes of the Athenian market. He shows contempt for fame, ridicules the architecture, refuses respect, parodies the stories of gods and heroes, eats raw meat an vegetables, lies in the sun, fools around with the whores and says to Alexander the Great that he should get out of the sun. 

Vitality, life affirmation, living, laughing, celebrating is all linked to Kynicism. As I have already said Kynicism as well as Cynicism reject any form of belief in absolutes. It is the life affirming attitude of Kynicism which distinguishes it from Cynicism. Like Cynicism Kynicism is a realist position, which rejects idealism, absolutes, and unconditional truths, however, in contrast to Cynicism, which makes people miserable because cynics are still part of higher orders in which they themselves do not believe any longer, the kynics are happy, cheerful, and cheeky and kynics do not belong to hierarchically ordered systems or normal social institutions.

One might be tempted to reply to Sloterdijk that his defence of neo-Kynicism is a very immature conception because his kynics just fail to take any practical human tasks into consideration, e.g. one simply needs to earn money to have something to eat, to drink and a place to live in. However, to earn money one has to belong to a social system, but social systems are always ordered hierarchically, therefore it is impossible to live like a kynik and to secure ones own existence. A kynical lifestyle can be seen as just a dream young immature people usually have. Yet, Sloterdijk is not so simple minded not to have a response to that objection. In that respect he mentions three institutions in which this kynical cheekiness can be found and where it can be practised. 

So it is the carnival, the universities, and the boheme, which allow one to be a true kynic. Although one should also keep something from this light kynical spirit for the rest of the time, these are the social institutions in which a kynical lifestyle is possible and one is justified to express it in an extreme manner. 

However, Sloterdijk does not think that these three neo-kynical institutions fulfil their roles properly anymore. 

Within Sloterdijk's recent work, he becomes doubtful of his earlier position, as he seems to have realised that the kynical position is not one which solves the problem of cynicism properly. It might bring about a temporary relief, but that is all. Therefore, he has been working towards a stronger conception of the Good within his latest main works. Although, Sloterdijk himself has gone beyong his early works, the kynical position defended in the “Critique of Cynical Reason” nevertheless has to be regarded as a suitable developmental step between cynicism and a stronger position of the good, and so is a position worth to be taken lightly.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Just a quick note for now. Kynicism might bring temporary relief but it doesn't solve the problem of cynicism. He now sees it as a developmental step toward a stronger position of the good. Interesting.

Also, as a response to the cynic who has to make a living in a hierarchical social system, this assumes that the social system has to be hierarchical and the only alterative is to join the carnival. But new P2P social and economic systems are arising where one can make a living and still be in touch with their values. This is a real-life example of a “stronger position of the good.”

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

A stunningly, brilliant analysis theurj.

You are a real-life example of wisdom, compassion and love.

We call them a Bodhisattva.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

The Sanskrit term Bodhisattva is the name given to anyone who, motivated by great compassion, has generated bodhichitta, which is a spontaneous wish [emphasis mine] to attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings. What makes someone a Bodhisattva is her or his dedication to the ultimate welfare of other beings, as expressed in the prayer:

“May I attain Buddhahood for the benefit of all sentient beings.”

This is the Bodhisattva vow.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Clearly, theurj is a living example of an Integral Life.

IMO, Ken Wilber and his incompetent CEO, Robb Smith are Fragmented Life.

Love from your fellow,
Bodhisattva in Hell

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

My apologies to everyone for being such a damn goofball. The above should have said:

Clearly, all of you are living examples of an Integral Life.

IMO, Ken Wilber and his incompetent CEO, Robb Smith are Fragmented Life.

Love from your fellow,
Bodhisattva in Hell

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Here’s an interesting excerpt from Wim Nijenhuis’ review of Sloterkijk’s work. Note how the art of writing has itself changed due to the nature and structure of internet hypertext, i.e., a P2P phenomenon: 

In his examination of essayism in the media age, Sloterdijk attempts to determine a new role for the essay. The essay is a cultivated way of dealing with the undetermined. It is not an intellectual performance, nor an attempt to propound anything. In the first place the essay has a parrying function. Its intention is thus fundamentally different from that of a metaphysical construction. Two tasks are reserved for the essay. The first has to do with the diagnostics of time, concerned with the assessment of a chance. The second has to do with the status of the essay in the light of multidimensional hypertext. With electronic media and the compression of information which is possible on cdrom, book-form rationality has had its day. The development of hypertext spells catastrophe for the linear story structure, which is no match for the new forms of branched and noded knowledge. Faith in argument and evidence thus decline; they are too long-winded. Essayism becomes the art of selection, decision, elimination, and making space within an oversaturated sphere of information. The essayist becomes a sort of lumberjack and navigator, an infonaut, who advises readers which path to follow by means of the cloudy spheres of the hyperessay, of which Walter Benjamin, Paul Valery and Borges were the pioneers.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

This is much belated, I know, but I just wanted to chime in to say that (for what it's worth) Peter Sloterdijk is one my favorite living philosophers. Thank you, Albert, deeply, for bringing him up here. And thank you, theurj, for that excerpt.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I agree that Sloterdijk is an important voice.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

A quick note for all Dutch here.

I highly enjoy communication with Dutch people and Dutch intellectual and mystical contributions. As I grew up in North Rhine Westfalia with a large common border to NL. Visited this country more oftehn than any other one.

Its simply that I do not speak the language.

Even within German speaking countries there are interesting specific differences. And we are awaiting still a sustainable, committed communication of German language sphere with Anglo American one.

Thats why I had mad lots of efforts here at Zaadz/Gaia to bring at least some elements of it to this open space. The more native presence we have here the more fruitful discussions become.

Sloterdijk and other voices from German language sphere are often more frankophil than inclined to communicate in English speaking Cultures.

@Siona: My pleasure to do so! The USP of Peters work is bascially his centauric style of writing. As he described in his essay about Nietzsche himself. (The thinker on the stage)

All in all the understanding of his writing will benefit from understanding of German Culture , science and thinking in toto.

Therefore I am working nonstop (with later 4 or 5 other contributors) for a special issue of Integral Leadership Review 1/2010. its must be shouted from the top of the roofs:

Germany is back again:):)

Lets work out how.):)

Cheers,
Albert

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

“Therefore I am working nonstop (with later 4 or 5 other contributors) for a special issue of Integral Leadership Review 1/2010. its must be shouted from the top of the roofs:”

My dear fellow revolutionaries, I shout when asked & I work nonstop too…

Integral Leadership Review (Now):

!!!THEY ARE LIARS!!!

What's the next task you want this grunt to do?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi, Mark, next, I'd like you to look at the Integral Leadership Review website.  :-)  It is a different organization from I-I and Integral Life.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Bruce,

Thanks for providing the link. I took a quick look and found this statement there, “Appropriate guidance is a key to solve the challenges of the world.”

Please note, their key is based upon yet another theoretical organizing principle, “It serves leaders, professionals and academics engaged in the practice, development and theory of leadership”.

Now I'd like you to look at the topic that theurj started, ”Is Waterboarding Torture”. I really don't think anyone is interested in leadership theory. We need leaders that KNOW how to lead by actively demonstrating it.

!GO JESSIE GO!

What's the next task you want this grunt to do?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Oops, forgot one:

Apparently they got a little afraid and deflected the issues by having a respected member, Marc Gafni, post this, ”To See With God's Eyes: The Story of Abraham”.

After Marc Gafni posted the above, I sent him the following email to his FaceBook account (I received no reply):

===========================
May 9 at 9:21pm
Dear Marc,

I enjoyed reading 2 out 3 of your latest posts at IL, the first one being ambiguous as Schalk pointed out.

“Another class, another meditation, another book or magazine article or lecture tour or teaching. Most of us give teaching to middle and upper middle class nice people looking for a deeper sense of meaning and direction in their lives. And all of this is very lovely. I think…”

I think you should very carefully reconsider your position about this.The seminar is ~6 months out yet, advocates a 5-year journey AND charging money for it. You obviously have little concept of how quickly spirit functions in time.

As of this moment, you are not like Abraham, “to see the picture of God”. You remain attached to IL and while seeing much, you are dependent upon them, not independent.

If you truly dedicate yourself like Abraham by being the nomadic mystic warrior, you might really know what it means to be a lover.

All the best,
Mark DuBois

===========================
May 9 at 9:40pm
BTW, are you familiar with ”The Art of War”?

I AM

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Speakin' of the devil…

The Way of the Great Dragon ~ 'Integral' Life - Marc Gafni

Mom, I've completed my chores and I'm going outside to play.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Mark,

I think this was the link you meant to post?

The Way of the Great Dragon by Marc Gafni •May 20, 2009

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Nicole,

You're a sweet angel…

The post you provided says, “marc gafni and friends unplugged”. Yep, they're definitely unplugged.

Here's the link I meant:
The Way of the Great Dragon

These thieves and liars want to steal our money in the name of love.

Thanks Mom,
Mark

P.S. Sorry not to have done my chore properly.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Thanks, that's much easier to read :)

I find Marc's articles interesting. But clearly there is a lot of history I don't know regarding Integral Life. 

Cheers,

Nicole

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

You're welcome Nicole.

“But clearly there is a lot of history I don't know regarding Integral Life.”

Yes, spiritual slavery is as old as time, here's their latest lie…

It looks like they're scared, perhaps they're afraid of a mass exodus.

Cheers back,
Mark

P.S. Dad, You're a slave driver?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Sloterdijk has an interesting essay at his site, “The operable man: On the ethical state of gene technology.” Some excerpts follow and Locutus, speaking from the unique vantage of a hybrid human-machine, will provide commentary later: 

Sloterdijk (emphasis added): 

In the current state of the world, the single most striking feature of intellectual and technological history that is that technological culture is producing a new state of language and writing. This new state has hardly anything in common anymore with traditional interpretations of language and writing by religion, metaphysics and humanism. The old House of Being turns out to be something wherein a residence in the sense of dwelling and of the bringing close of the distant is hardly possible any longer. Speaking and writing in the age of digital codes and genetic transcriptions no longer make any kind of familiar sense; the typefaces of technology are developing apart from transmission, and no longer evoke homeliness or the effects of befriending the external. On the contrary, they increase the scope of the external and that which can never be assimilated. The province of language is shrinking, while the sector of straight-forward text is growing. 

We owe to Gotthard Günther the proof that classical metaphysics, that was based on a combination of monovalent ontology (being is, not being is not) and bivalent logic (what is true is not false, what is false is not true; tertium non datur) leads to the absolute inability to describe in an ontologically adequate manner cultural phenomena such as tools, signs, artworks, machines, laws, customs, books, and all other artifices. The reason for this is that the fundamental differentiation of soul and thing, spirit and matter, subject and object, freedom and mechanism cannot cope with entities of this sort: they are by their very constitution hybrids with a spiritual and material “component”, and any effort to say what they are “authentically” in the framework of a bivalent logic and a monovalent ontology leads inevitably to hopeless reduction and shortening. 

Now in Hegel's work for the first time a logic has been created that allows the ontological status of artifices to be defined under the title of “objective spirit.” This impulse has remained a dead-end because of the mostly intellectual- and cultural-theoretical orientation of Hegelian analysis. This only changed when cybernetics, as the theory and practice of intelligent machines, and modern biology, as the study of system-environment-units forced these questions to be posed anew, this time, from the perspective of systems- and organism-theory. Here, the concept of objective spirit turns into the principle of information. This steps between thoughts and things as a third value, between the pole of reflection and the pole of the thing, between spirit and matter. Intelligent machines - like all artifices that are culturally created - eventually also compel thought to recognize on a broader front the fact of the matter that here, quite obviously, “spirit” or reflection or thought is infused into matter and remains there ready to be re-found and further cultivated. Machines and artifices are thus real-existing negations of the conditions before the imprinting of the in-formation into the medium. They are in this sense memories or reflections turned objective. In order to conceive of this, one needs an ontology that is at least bivalent as well as a trivalent logic, which is to say a cognitive toolkit capable of articulating that there are real-existing affirmed negations and negated affirmations, that there are nothings in a state of being, and beings in a state of nothingness. In the end, the statement, “there is information,” says nothing else. It is to make this statement possible and to consolidate it that Hegel and Heidegger engage in an intellectual battle of giants, into which authors such as Günther, Deleuze, Derrida and Luhmann have entered with considerable effect. They all work to conquer the tertium datur. 

The statement “there is information” implies certain statements: there are systems; there are memories; there are cultures; there is artificial intelligence. Even the sentence “there are genes” can only be understood as the product of the new situation - it shows how the principle of information is successfully transferred into the sphere of nature. These gains in concepts that can powerfully tackle reality diminish the interest in traditional figures of theory, such as subject/object/relation. Even the constellation of I and world loses much of its luster, not to mention the worn out polarity of individual and society. But above all, along with the idea of real-existing memories or self-organizing systems, withers the metaphysical distinction between nature and culture. This is because both sides of the distinction are only regional states of information and its processing. One must anticipate that the comprehension of this insight will be particularly hard for those intellectuals who have made their living on the antithesis of culture and nature, and who now find themselves in a reactive position. 

The anti-technological hysteria that holds large parts of the western world in its grip is a product of the decomposition of metaphysics, for it clings to false classifications of being in order to revolt against processes in which these classifications are overcome. It is reactionary in the essential sense of the word, because it expresses the ressentiment of outdated bivalence as contrasted with a polyvalence that it cannot understand. This applies above all to the habits of the critique of power, which are still unconsciously motivated by metaphysics. In the metaphysical schema, the division of being into subject and object is mirrored in the difference between master and slave, as well as that between worker and material. Thus within this disposition, critique of power can only be articulated as resistance of the suppressed object-slave-material-side against the subject-master-worker-side. But since the statement “there is information”, alias “there are systems,” is in power, this opposition no longer makes sense, and is developing ever more into a phantom of conflict. This hysteria is indeed the search for a master to stand up against: it cannot be excluded that the master as an effect is in the process of dissolving, and more than anything else lives on as the postulate of the slave fixated on rebellion - as the historicized Left or a humanism that is ready for the museum. In contrast a living left-wing principle would need to constantly reinvent itself through creative dissidence. Likewise, the thought of homo humanus can only maintain itself in poetic resistance against metaphysical reflexes of humanolatry. 

As has been shown, to think homo humanus means to give a straightforward account of the level on which the equation of being human and clearing works. As we now know, however, the clearing cannot be thought of without its technological origin. Man does not stand in the clearing with his hands empty - not as an alert shepherd without means near the herd, as Heidegger's pastoral metaphors suggest. He holds stones and the successors of stones in his hands. The more powerful he becomes, the sooner he drops the tools that still have handles to replace them with tools that have keys. In the age of the second machines, “acting” withdraws and is replaced by operations of the fingertips. The incubator for man and mankind is produced by technologies of the hard means and its climate is determined by technologies of the soft means. Nous sommes sur un plan où il y a principalement la technique. If there is man, then that is because a technology has made him evolve out of the pre-human. It is that which authentically brings about humans, or the plan on which there can be humans. Therefore humans encounter nothing strange when they expose themselves to further creation and manipulation, and they do nothing perverse, when they change themselves autotechnologically, given that such interventions and assistance happen on such a high level of insight into the biological and social nature of man, that they become effective as authentic, intelligent and successful coproductions with evolutionary potential. 

On the level of the statement “there is information,” the old image of technology as heteronomy and the enslavement of matter and persons loses its plausibility. We are witnessing that with intelligent technologies a non-dominant form of operativity is emerging, for which we suggest the name homeotechnology. By its very nature homeotechnology cannot desire anything utterly different from what the “things themselves” are or can become of their own accord. The “materials” are now conceived in accordance with their own stubbornness, and are integrated into operations with respect to their maximum aptitude. With this they stop being what is traditionally referred to as “raw material.” Raw materials can only be found where raw subjects - call them humanists and other egoists - apply raw technologies to them. Homeotechnology, having to deal with real-existing information, only gets ahead on the path of the not-raping of being; it acquires intelligence intelligently, thus creating new states of intelligence; it is successful not-ignoring embodied qualities. It must rely on co-intelligent, co-informative strategies, even where it is applied egoistically and regionally as every conventional technology is. It is characterized rather by cooperation than by domination, even in asymmetrical relationships. Outstanding scientists of the present express similar ideas with the metaphor of a “dialog with nature.” For humanities, Foucault has stated that one never escapes from the compulsion and the chance to be powerful - by this means Foucault unties the metaphysically bound knot of the critique of power. Here a way of thinking germinates which is prefigured in modern philosophies of art, particularly in that of Adorno - albeit under such misleading titles as “The Primacy of the Object,” - and which now awaits to be emulated by the philosophy of technology, and above all by social theory and those who popularize it. To develop technologies will mean in the future: to read the scores of embodied intelligences and to pave the way for further performances of their own pieces. The most extreme states of homeotechnology are the hours of truth for co-intelligence. In them, it is revealed that the subject of the bivalent age, the former master, has become a phantom. Before this has been broadly understood, disinformed populations will partake in distorted debates led by lascivious journalists about threats that they do not understand. 

One may even ask whether or not homeotechnological thought - which has so far been anticipated by titles such as ecology and the science of complexity - has the potential to unleash an ethics of relationships devoid of enmity and domination. Undoubtedly such thinking virtually carries in itself this tendency, as by its very nature it fosters not so much reification of the other as insight into the internal conditions of fellow-beings. While in the allotechnological world master-subjects could still control raw-materials, it is becoming increasingly impossible within the homeotechnological world for the raw-masters to exert power over the finest materials. Also the strongly condensed contexts of the net-world no longer favorably receive master input - here only that can successfully spread which makes countless others the co-beneficiaries of innovations. Were these civilizing potentials to establish themselves, then the homeotechnological age would distinguish itself by narrowing the scope of astrayness, while the scopes for satisfaction and positive linkage would grow. Biotechnologies and nootechnologies nurture by their very nature a subject that is refined, cooperative, and prone to playing with itself. This subject shapes itself through intercourse with complex texts and hypercomplex contexts. Domination must advance towards its very end, because in its rawness it makes itself impossible. In the inter-intelligently condensed net-world, masters and rapists have hardly any long term chances of success left, while cooperators, promoters, and enrichers fit into more numerous and more adequate slots. After the abolition of slavery in the nineteenth century, it becomes thinkable that the relics of domination will be abolished in the twenty-first or twenty-second century - but nobody would believe that this can happen without intense conflicts; it cannot be ruled out that the master as reactionary might once more join forces with mass ressentiments to form a new kind of fascism. But the failure of such revolutionary reactions is just as predictable as their rise.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I forgot to highlight the following in Sloterdijk’s “the operable man” so will add a snippet here. Speaking of homeotechnology he said: 
 
Here a way of thinking germinates…and which now awaits to be emulated by the philosophy of technology, and above all by social theory and those who popularize it.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Thanks for the update theurj.

You know I tend to be a bit of a nit-pick at times. However, if Sloterdijk had the experiential framework that we have, he might instead have said this:

Here a way of thinking germinates…and which now awaits to be emulated by the philosophy of technology, and above all by social reality and those who popularize it.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

There is also this 2005 interview with Bettina Funcke where Sloterdijk explains his work about spheres:

Against Gravity:

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Before Locutus chimes in here’s an excerpt from Edwards on artifacts and mediation previously quoted in the “paradoxes of transcendence 2 thread”:

Let’s represent social mediation very simply through the use of a mediating holon between each of the cells in our framework. The mediating holon is represented as W for “Word” or “language” or “text” with these being among the most archetypal of all forms of social mediation. However, this mediating holon can also represent another organization, an individual, an image, an artifact-in-use, a gesture or any holon that mediates some social phenomenon from one holon to another. In effect, the mediating holon W represents ‘the space between”, the space out of which relationship between holons arises, the space in which they encounter each other. 
 
…a key issue when analyzing mediating holons is to be very clear about where the holonic boundary is drawn especially when those mediating holons are artifacts like texts, computers or technological systems. It’s very important in these cases to see the mediating holon as an “artifact-in-use” and not simply as a particular arrangement of physical materials. Let’s take, for example, our artifact to be a blind person’s white cane. If we draw our holon boundary only around the cane then we see it simply a piece of plastic or wood that has almost negligible interiority, developmental potential, agency or inter-subjective capacity. If we draw our boundary around the cane AND the blind person then the cane becomes an actual extension of that person’s consciousness and embodied identity, in fact, it plays a part in changing that persons consciousness, behaviour, autonomy and communion. This artifact-in-use approach to holonic boundary drawing is very familiar to activity theorists who see tools and artifacts as mediating consciousness and behaviour. And I think this is what you are getting at when you emphasise the “dynamic processes” involved in mediation. Our white cane is better seen as a dynamic process that reflexively contributes to a person’s being/doing than as simply a inert product of some sentient holon! The same goes for computers, cars, newspapers, the Internet, and any technological system that mediate between individual holons and/or collective holons.  

Wilber (and Kofman) make the mistake of defining artifacts in isolation from their “host holons” and considering them simply as products of individual and social holons that have no interiority or agency or inherent capacity to change consciousness. From of A Vygotskian point of view this is a grave error. Vygotsky said that “the central fact” in his developmental psychology was “the fact of mediation” and since his insights into how consciousness develops the CHAT theorists have focused more and more on the role of artifacts, as they exist “in-use”, in how humans development.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

“We underestimate the power of our tools to reshape our minds. Did we really believe we could collaboratively build and inhabit virtual worlds all day, every day, and not have it affect our perspective? The force of online socialism is growing. Its dynamic is spreading beyond electrons—perhaps into elections.” –Kevin Kelly, “The New Socialism.”

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hey Locutus,
I ran a cross-referenced google of Gadamer and Sloterdijk and found this. As a result I've gone back to re-reading Marshall McLuhan. This is all a bit ironic since I had posted about Videodrome in another thread, “This is your brain on God,” and the character Professor Brian O'blivion in Cronenberg's Videodrome is clearly based on McLuhan, who was one of Cronenberg's profs at the University of Toronto in the early 70's, although there is a line in Videodrome where Prof O'blivion states during an interview from a TV monitor in a TV studio, “…that is why I never appear on television, unless I am already on television…” LOL! That statement is clearly a reference to another quirky canuck, Glenn Gould, who eventually shunned all public performance and would only release recordings, or televised recitals.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

“That statement is clearly a reference to another quirky canuck, Glenn Gould, who eventually shunned all public performance and would only release recordings, or televised recitals.”

Nah, the world is quirky, canucks are way cool!
But do canucks like to earn bigbucks?!

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

canucks are like anyone else, though we have propensity to darkness, like the finns, probably because, like the finns, we don't get enough sunlight.

communicative technology, and theorizing about the same, is a canuck speciality (fiber optics was developed in my home province). this has to do with the fact that we are spread out over a thinly populated belt that runs the US border. and we needed to find ways of interacting with each other across vast distances. as a result, our collective psyche has been shaped by things like CBC, ie., the Canuck Broadcasting Corp. and some of the most interesting theorists about communication and the media have been canucks. beside mcluhan, there is aslo harold ennis.

as an example of the above, i play and am a student of folk fiddling. folk fiddling, as an art in canada, was virtually formed by a dude by the name of don messer.  messer's show was broadcasted across canada. as a result, an entity known as “canadian fiddling” was born.

another icon of the CBC is “Hockey Night in Canada.”

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

kela: Capurro has a more recent article (2008) at that link called “Interpreting the digital human.” I’ve yet to read it all as it’s rather lengthy but here are some relevant excerpts so far:

Every revolutionary transformation in philosophy that leads to the creation of a new type of rationality arises usually from an outstanding scientific or technological breakthrough (Bosteels,  2006, p. 116). This is the case of today’s global and interactive digital network, the Internet.

The leading modern pre-understanding of the engine as a metaphor for the process of social construction is being substituted by the one of the network understood as technology and as a medium of communication. Vilém Flusser was sceptical about dialogical forms of human interaction in view of the overwhelming power of mass media and their hierarchic structures (Flusser, 1996). He did not foresee the impact of the Internet that was in its infancy in 1991 when he died. According to Richard Rorty one of Vattimo’s

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

One of McLuhan's  arguments in Understanding Media is that electronic forms of communication have become, in an almost literal sense, extensions of our physical senses. This idea is mimicked/parodied in Videodrome when Professor Brian O'blivion states: “The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye.” hahaha.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Cross-referencing an older post on Run Purser's essay on virtual reality, hypermodernity, postmodernity, etc.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Thanks for the cross-reference to Ron Pursur, Bruce.
Here's a cross-reference to Bob Newhart on MadTV which was very funny!
I'll be in my box.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Thank you Albert for starting this interesting thread and thanks for the members for the introduction to and info about Peter Sloterdijk.
Ah…yes I talso often struggle to express myself in the English language….but what to do.
As a non USA being I frequently observe that gap exists on Gaia towards members and content of non USA members. Gaia presents itself as global but in several areas the setup, management and content from members,  frequently lacks awareness that there are me members from outside this global country of USA.
I do feel that this is part due to the cultural conditioning of USA (see also Colin Tippings work) and lack of awareness. And I notice this energetic gap also outside the Gaia world.
I do feel that there is a large area for growth for the Gaia (and  don't even get me about Soulmates) management and members to practise Oneness awareness in this area, it would increase the impact of Gaia.
We are One.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Hi Deepak,

there are indeed big differences.

And in 2007 I did 2 Alexa Checks about then Zaadz:

Ask Alexa

Posted on Jan 28th, 2007 by  Albert
Inspired by some webcast forum at the Davos World Economic Forum, especially by “Impact of web 2.0 and Emerging Social Networks” where Catherine Fake/Flickr, Bill Gates/Microsoft, Chad Hurley/YouTube and some others participated, I was interested… More »


Asking Alexa again…

Posted on Sep 26th, 2007 by  Albert
From time to time I check out Traffic Ranking of Zaadz at Alexa: Asking Alexa again I am seeing clearly the dominance of Anglo Saxon language sphere. Was really surprised that one the biggest countries of… More »

In 2009 gaia.com isnt even measured by Alexa for itself. its counted within gaiam.com

The basic numbers where Gaia.com visitors are coming from are quite similar, it seems.

In 3D reality its indeed different too. So LOTS of gaps to be bridged….and LOTS to learned about the global realities….

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

“It would be naïve to speak about this technology just as a tool without taking seriously its impact at the levels of our being-in-the-world.”

Right, Locutus of Berg(e)…

…you got the bandwidth to quickly assimilate hundreds of thousands when they start calling?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

The bandwidth already exists in the form of the internet, which was one of the points. And it's free.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

WTF DATA!

Can't you distinguish Jean-Luc from Locutus?
I asked what data you used to support your theory.

Of course Jean-Luc. Well, it's elementary. Dr. Beverly Crusher started flirting with some Terminator character. Maybe they're having an err…,  hot human/machine affair.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Actually Data had sex with two women, Natasha Yar and the Borg queen. He dated Jenna D'Sora for a time but apparently never had sex. For details see this link.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I remember the following line in response to the queries of a randy Tasha: “I am programmed for several modes of pleasuring.”

“Good,” thinks Tasha: “A life-size vibrator that also engages in post-coital intellectual discussion.”

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Oh, that's because Data is in the Naked Now:

“At first, he had some difficulties adjusting to the onslaught of emotions, as simple things as scanning for lifeforms on a planet caused him great pleasure. He eventually learned to control the feelings.”

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

True, but I'm talking about server scalability for this website. Does Gaia have the hardware to support an instant hit of say 500,000 new members? How about 5 million?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

I know what you're saying, that no one node can accomodate the entire network. So instead of everyone joining Gaia they can join a vast distribution of nodes that are linked together. For example, the IL node links to the Gaia node etc. etc. The network and the links take care of the load and there's no reason for us all to locate at one node. If one node is down due to overload it can re-route to multiple other nodes.

Ah, but I don't think Gaia, or many nodes, actually take advantage of this capacity, as we're still stuck in the ethnocentric “my space” territoriality. Come to my node, see me and those like me me me. We still have a long way to go before the cyborg “body” created by the internet infiltrates our minds and beings into a truly networked intelligence.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Right, it's called load balancing.

But as you say, they're stuck in their own 'my space' in an attempt at control. They have no application programming interfaces (API's) to network with anyone. So either they adapt or they die.

After all, that's what evolution is. The 'enlightenment' business is not outside the laws of nature.

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Speaking about the laws of nature, everybody knows what happens when a sand castle is built next to the ocean, right?

Re: Peter Sloterdijk

Ooooh goody! I found a cool Krishnamurti group. Joined the buds over there too!