One way to consider oppositional concepts (the dialectic) as compared to positive forces that are not dialectically bound into oppositions: whereas concepts necessarily are dialectically-opposed, SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES are just what they are - positive forces in the fabric of reality. An analysis of brain activity can understand how the two hemispheres set up oppositional types of reality-experience, the actual brainwaves themselves are purely positive phenomena. The Monroe Institute's science of binaural beats is a way to show how hemispheric tendencies of DIFFERENCE (introducing different tones in the different ears) produce an altogether different type of tonal focus. (This may be a "Deluzian" type of technology that accelerates human development - or reveals its potential.) How concepts are made of tonal patterns is a matter that comes into view for understanding by way of exploring nonconceptual zones of experience - for example, the focus on a particular tone free from conceptual fixation. The mind will react with conceptual interpretation - all of which conceptuality is made of polarized oppositions. But the tone is a nonconceptual phenomena, that includes an innate concept (its Specific-Frequency, as known by Hertz measure, etc.).
While Nietzsche’s parable of the nobles and slaves “inventing intent” does pose something of a critique of the master-slave dialectic, the analogy Prof. Widder provides would seem to spell out a similar failure of recognition (if a relatively one-sided one) which Hegel is attributing to history. The difference which really stands out to me lies in his point about how Nietzsche’s nobles define themselves without a negative relation to the weak, whereas the Hegelian master assures its status through the submission of the slave. Recognition seems to be foiled or else distorted in both contexts. To read Nietzsche into Nietzsche, this parable is entirely perspectival as to how the condition of mastery and the productive activity of the slave understand themselves and their other. I wonder whether this represents a true departure from Hegel’s dialectic of self-conscious.
My understanding is as follows; productive activity in Nietzsche’s thought is also attributed to master morality as they are the only ones whose will can overcome inaction, whereas in Hegel’s thought productive action is something that the slave pursues in order to gain recognition from the master, not necessarily for self-actualization, which would require Nietzsche’s master morality in the first place. According to Nietzsche’s train of thought, Hegelian slave’s actions are driven through “ressentiment”. Hegel would also argue that the forces oppose each other as a starting condition therefore it is a zero sum game where one consciousness will either have to submit or die. For Nietzsche, submission to the master’s will is not necessarily a bad thing as it would require an understanding of reality surrounding the individual who does submit through appraisal therefore not through an unrealistic expectation of mutuality, for now, but has a potential for the future. I believe this is where the difference lies between two thinkers. Nietszche would say that two individuals with master morality opposing each other is good whereas Hegel would view this as a strife with only one winner. Let me use an analogy to elaborate better; think of the force as an electrical current. The level of force equals to voltage levels where there is a potential however also action at the same time, some sort of a quantum state, in other words. We already know that an electric current would always choose the less resistant path. Now think about the force as a unity that drives the Schopenhaurian “will” in order to understand where Nietzsche’s thought is originating from. Nietzsche would argue that the force leading up to action or inaction is an unconscious process and in the end would either cause master morality or unfortunately “ressentiment” and will lead to an ideology where slave morality takes over e.g. Christianity. Hegel, on the other hand, would argue that each individual force(he asserts that at least there are two consciousnesses, therefore two individual forces and of course third party as the observer himself) would have to fight each other as a starting condition. In summary, I do not view one party as 100% right or wrong. I believe what kind of recognition process takes place is driven through Kantian description of causality therefore unconscious in the beginning however could be rationalized later either as ressentiment or will to power. In other words; we rationalize the decision to take action or inaction and Hegelian point of view in this process of rationalization would give us a false starting point as it only leads up to the desire for recognition of mutuality, therefore ressentiment.
so then.. in deleuze terms .. deleuze is acting as a slave to hegel .. but then why would the slave be saying anything of interest about the master .. he's just acting out his own slavishness and projecting wickedness onto the master.. ... deleuze is just full of performative contradictions like that... like any regular charlatan really..
This lecture is fantastic thank you for uploading
great job. more of this guy please
One way to consider oppositional concepts (the dialectic) as compared to positive forces that are not dialectically bound into oppositions:
whereas concepts necessarily are dialectically-opposed, SPECIFIC FREQUENCIES are just what they are - positive forces in the fabric of reality.
An analysis of brain activity can understand how the two hemispheres set up oppositional types of reality-experience, the actual brainwaves themselves are purely positive phenomena.
The Monroe Institute's science of binaural beats is a way to show how hemispheric tendencies of DIFFERENCE (introducing different tones in the different ears) produce an altogether different type of tonal focus. (This may be a "Deluzian" type of technology that accelerates human development - or reveals its potential.)
How concepts are made of tonal patterns is a matter that comes into view for understanding by way of exploring nonconceptual zones of experience - for example, the focus on a particular tone free from conceptual fixation. The mind will react with conceptual interpretation - all of which conceptuality is made of polarized oppositions. But the tone is a nonconceptual phenomena, that includes an innate concept (its Specific-Frequency, as known by Hertz measure, etc.).
1:00:00 ish
Goku having fun when fighting 🙌🏽
While Nietzsche’s parable of the nobles and slaves “inventing intent” does pose something of a critique of the master-slave dialectic, the analogy Prof. Widder provides would seem to spell out a similar failure of recognition (if a relatively one-sided one) which Hegel is attributing to history. The difference which really stands out to me lies in his point about how Nietzsche’s nobles define themselves without a negative relation to the weak, whereas the Hegelian master assures its status through the submission of the slave. Recognition seems to be foiled or else distorted in both contexts. To read Nietzsche into Nietzsche, this parable is entirely perspectival as to how the condition of mastery and the productive activity of the slave understand themselves and their other. I wonder whether this represents a true departure from Hegel’s dialectic of self-conscious.
My understanding is as follows; productive activity in Nietzsche’s thought is also attributed to master morality as they are the only ones whose will can overcome inaction, whereas in Hegel’s thought productive action is something that the slave pursues in order to gain recognition from the master, not necessarily for self-actualization, which would require Nietzsche’s master morality in the first place.
According to Nietzsche’s train of thought, Hegelian slave’s actions are driven through “ressentiment”. Hegel would also argue that the forces oppose each other as a starting condition therefore it is a zero sum game where one consciousness will either have to submit or die. For Nietzsche, submission to the master’s will is not necessarily a bad thing as it would require an understanding of reality surrounding the individual who does submit through appraisal therefore not through an unrealistic expectation of mutuality, for now, but has a potential for the future. I believe this is where the difference lies between two thinkers. Nietszche would say that two individuals with master morality opposing each other is good whereas Hegel would view this as a strife with only one winner. Let me use an analogy to elaborate better; think of the force as an electrical current. The level of force equals to voltage levels where there is a potential however also action at the same time, some sort of a quantum state, in other words. We already know that an electric current would always choose the less resistant path. Now think about the force as a unity that drives the Schopenhaurian “will” in order to understand where Nietzsche’s thought is originating from. Nietzsche would argue that the force leading up to action or inaction is an unconscious process and in the end would either cause master morality or unfortunately “ressentiment” and will lead to an ideology where slave morality takes over e.g. Christianity. Hegel, on the other hand, would argue that each individual force(he asserts that at least there are two consciousnesses, therefore two individual forces and of course third party as the observer himself) would have to fight each other as a starting condition. In summary, I do not view one party as 100% right or wrong. I believe what kind of recognition process takes place is driven through Kantian description of causality therefore unconscious in the beginning however could be rationalized later either as ressentiment or will to power. In other words; we rationalize the decision to take action or inaction and Hegelian point of view in this process of rationalization would give us a false starting point as it only leads up to the desire for recognition of mutuality, therefore ressentiment.
another coffee break!
07:00
Man, that guy in the audience is annoying
Hmmmmmmmmm...........
so then.. in deleuze terms .. deleuze is acting as a slave to hegel .. but then why would the slave be saying anything of interest about the master .. he's just acting out his own slavishness and projecting wickedness onto the master..
... deleuze is just full of performative contradictions like that... like any regular charlatan really..
Stop saying right, right!