Your reading of the geology of morals really got the synapses firing, i got to thinking about the problem of universals and that led me to chapter 1 of "DIAGRAMMATOLOGY An Investigation on the Borderlines of Phenomenology, Ontology, and Semiotics, Frederik Stjernfelt" , which is going over CS Peirce's concept of continuity, Peirce is quoted thusly: _Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the original vague potentiality, or at any rate of some early stage of its determination. This is something more than a figure of speech; for after all continuity is generality. This blackboard is a continuum of two dimensions, while that which it stands for is a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions. This blackboard is a continuum of possible points; while that is a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or is a continuum of possible dimensions of a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or something of that sort. There are no points on this blackboard. There are no dimensions in that continuum. I draw a chalk line on the board. This discontinuity is one of those brute acts by which alone the original vagueness could have made a step towards definiteness. There is a certain element of continuity in this line. Where did this continuity come from? It is nothing but the original continuity of the blackboard which makes everything upon it continuous. What I have really drawn there is an oval line. For this white chalk-mark is not a line, it is a plane figure in Euclid's sense -- a surface, and the only line there, is the line which forms the limit between the black surface and the white surface. Thus the discontinuity can only be produced upon that blackboard by the reaction between two continuous surfaces into which it is separated, the white surface and the black surface. The whiteness is a Firstness -- a springing up of something new. But the boundary between the black and white is neither black, nor white, nor neither, nor both. It is the pairedness of the two. It is for the white the active Secondness of the black; for the black the active Secondness of the white. Now the clue, that I mentioned, consists in making our thought diagrammatic and mathematical, by treating generality from the point of view of geometrical continuity, and by experimenting upon the diagram._ (“The Logic of Continuity”, 1898, 6.203-4). Now, i thought that was pretty cool in this context, haha.
That's a pretty specific reference :-D and surprising at first. But some diagrammatics actually helped me understand the geology of morality and ontology. The book looks like an exciting addition!
fantastic video, i still think there is a possibility for rebellion, as with all concepts of "god", and what form that rebellion takes is based on ones understanding of "god", afterall, one can't rebel against something one doesn't fully understand, because one might play right into its grasp
Well time to make a response video to this! I hope you will check it out, it will be long because I must explain things, but it will be packed with logic, and also my own humor. Sit back and strap in, I shall call it "No proof of God offered by Duleuze/Guttari/Zentapir"
...as you probably know, the video here went online briefly by mistake during the week (ua-cam.com/video/DO-AJr_O_HY/v-deo.html). In a nutshell: I'm helping with moderation here now. And also saved Jason's comments. We here on the team really appreciate every comment, so it would be a shame if those were lost.
i am not sure... TMM often brings this definition of God and it really irritated me because I really don't think it hits the core or the contradiction. And it's not even complete. I really like listening to TMM and other UA-cam atheists, but they also really revolve around themselves (or the Christian definitions of God) a lot. and I thought, I present a proof of God, which surely satisfies everyone.
As a quick answer: I pointed then out in the video. Tegmark, the mathematical universe; Deutsch, the fabric of realty. And then of course deleuze and guattari, thousand Plateaus and anti-Oedipus :-)
Wow, going to have to counter this video. (Don't worry, I'm an atheist. Nothing weird is coming) The fractal that you show is a framing of relationships. Some of those relationship are used to help our own understanding, and are therefore not concrete. But the very description you give of a God, it's unfalcifiable as it is external to reality, but its influence is felt. So, the lobster idea mostly deals with how we conceptualize reality, our sense of what green is, how green interacts with other things. But did you see it, green is an attribute and not a thing, an interpretation. The thing is an energy transfer to the rods and cones of our eyes, everything else is us attempting to create "organs" out of that experience. So within the definition of a God, there is normally the concept of miracles, and something that is not natural happening (supernatural being a misnomer). Natural is expected results that line up with experiment and observation. What we have seen, at the macro scale, is predictive. At smaller, the quantum, there is predictive quanitization (packets) but with probablistic predictibility. Whithin that work, the Feynam diagrams, include the concept of "virtual photons" coming into and out of existance to be used as a concept to understand quantum electron dynamics, which is the most accurate predictive theory. Does this means there are things coming into and out of existence? No, they have not been observed, but they nees to be a factor at that level. (It's happening right now within you, but you will notice it as no observable effect on yourself). So, this is now mindless. There probabilities don't change and the aggregate is predictable. Sounds like a better understanding of the natural state of the world. And now to tackle "multiverse". This is an unfalcifiable model by its very action, as you will continue down your time line of existence. There is no concrete identification where there is any branching of universes (eg. Did that virtual photon self-anialate, as part is matter and part is anti-matter, or did one part fall into that black hole and the other continues to exist (which is the basis of theory of Hawkin Radiation). So, if multiverse is just a mental model to try to make an understanding around how, at a really really low level, reality is probablistic (based upon observe experiment), rather than deterministic, how can we move to a determinst model to sooth our discomfort. I would simply argue, based upon what has been observed and tested, and based upon hoe humans misremember and attempt to make reality fit our understanding, we will go through many length (eg 4 or 20 year) to keep things in our mental model. Your explaination reminds me of my Christian fundamentalist days justifying that a God existed, instead of recognizing I was primed for that (and it was just confusing or god woukd sort it out) In our probablistic universe, there is probably not a god. The probability of life is a combination of formed chemicals under electical conditions forming and doing what they do. Sure, low probability but everything operating and combining as it always has. Emergent properties of survivability and flurishing happened, both with increased and decreased oxygenation on the planet. (Look at sea vents and the history found evident in the earth). To ultimately move to what we consider animals that have emergent properties of movement, socialization and community. (We are not unique to the animal kingdom in this regard). We just happened to have the emergent propertt of over thinking and pattern matching, and we have this sense of an external parent that lingers. (And more than likely, that parent is cruel becauae we see that reality does not care, but the evolution of compassion and love for our in group has lead the species to survive). So, have I suffienctly explained that it is highly unlikely there is no god, and that by using blanket statement (that we all are unforntunately prone to), leads to faulting and/or convoluted reasoning and a poor result. Yes, conceptual thinking may help reframe ideas, as philosphy does. But I think you've attempted to fit an entity that has no evidence of existence (barring human feelings and interpretations of hallucinations and dreams (which I had as a fundy christian)), into a theortical mental framework to get the answer you are looking form. It's ok for God not to exists. You don't need to code them into your mental modes.
I would need more time to answer appropriately. Or to remember the idea of this very old video. First of all, it was supposed to be the best explanation of God that exists on youtube, I certainly succeeded :-D But it was also supposed to take up Deleuze/Guattari's "Lobster" and explain the double articulation that Deleuze/Guattari take up from Hjelmslev and bring from linguistics to an ontology in an exciting way. Caroll's "The big picture" and Tegmark's "Our mathematical universe" also play a part. But you can also recognise a certain resistance to too many atheist videos that I have watched too much. I found (and still find) that there simply needs to be something more entertaining than a series of stupid arguments. In this respect, I would contradict your statement "it's ok for God not to exist" as a (perhaps barely recognisable) main thread in the video in the way: "It's not ok (but dangerous) to maintain bad explanations for the world". My video points (perhaps subtly, perhaps confusingly) to better explanations by Deleuze, Guattari, Tegmark, Caroll etc. ... and perhaps in an entertaining way... or at least that was the attempt, as I said it is already very old, the video, I think :-)
@@ZentapirThanks for replying. Normally I wouldn't look at the youtube automated email response, but it so happens I'm currently going through Anti-Oedipus. (Perviously found lectures on anti-oedipus and 1000 plateaus , and would listen while shovelling snow, playing videogames, or doing work around the house. Spinoza and Kant would sometimes be listened too as well) Anyway, I sometime will respond to older videos simply because sometimes they end with no deep discord, leaving various problems unmentioned. If I have time, I might throw something up, trying to link thoughts. And that's where I've found anti-oedipus similar to my style, dense but hard on the explaining part. (Recognizing that I'm at fault here sometimes as well, but I will give it a go) My posts will be peppered with personal learning and experience, and I have gone from at a young age playing in the general metaphysical space of quantum mechanics (and the idea of observer affecting outcome), to wiccan magic, to becoming a "bought in the blood born again christian" as an adult (believing it literally, or at least hoping, complete with tongue talking and beliving in miricles), to deconstructing my faith , to a nihilst, to comfortable atheist. I've explored memory technique and lustened to teachers go on about the bagubag gita. I've considered reincarnation, agnostic faiths, and come to a conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a god in any form we could comprehend. (The world is determistic but with packet sized probabilities. Interactions are consistent but knowledge about what will interact is unable to be fully known. I do recommend sabine hassestader's channel for learning how quantum physics is weird but predictable. Love some Richard Feynmand old lectures as well). To add to that, I've spent a more than 20+ year career in my military, recognize motivation, randomness, and the limits of how "special" life is. I've also had to put down some very dear and beloved pets through the years as they have gotten old and sick. So... while I believe that philosophy of any sort can help shift views, the reading of that philosophy will change the reader. Part of this is to try to make things fit, but also I believe a psychksymatic reaction. This if you are looking up symptoms on the internet, and you either find things fitting, or the symptoms seem more pronounced. Where you focus has an effect. (This is also affected by tiredness, hunger, etc. Thing hangry). Further, human nature generally has demonstrated us as pattern matching animals who operate instinctively and with thought (requiring more energy) See the book, thinking fast and slow. (Deleuze did question thought's validity according to the wikipedia article I read on him, so considering the facts of how we think I think places me in good stead) Which, now that I have laid the ground work, how should be approach arguments for a big G God. First, we nees a clear definition. Anything that is external the universe is un falsifiable. So what becomes the fallback, signs and wonders. (This might be your argument for lattice/lobster) Here, if we only pattern match, we can only say that something looks like something else. While seeing Jesus in a piece of toast might make a believe believe, the likelihood that this was divine is almost non-existant. This is the same way as seeing a face in the moon or a hotdog shaped cloud does not mean there was deliberate shaping of craters to make me (or others see it). Further, in cases where there have been brain damage patients, they can loose the ability to recognize faces, implying that somewhere at the physical meat level, human association is physical. (Ever seen a "face" in a car grill) So then let's get to the mathimatical layout. While there are very many proofs out there, we unfortunately have to always start with a first postulate. That would need to be proved, but unfortunately, becomes impossible while trying to descibe nature with nature. 1 + 1 = 2 requies smuggling these postulates into the logic, but is impossible from first principles. So again, using a model to "prove a thing" is hard by it's very nature (it's why people normally "feel" there is a god, but there is no direct proof (that is not so convoluted that yoh have to confuse yourself enough to unknowing smuggle in a logical fallicy)) Lastly, and this is a pet theory /explaination of Zeno's paradox. The thought experiment is that Zeno is in a foot race with a turtle. The turtle gets a headstart. After a minute, Zeno starts to run and covers have the distance in X time. Another half is covered in another X time. If we are only allowed to record time when zeno has covered half the remaining distance, then it is impossible for Zeno to pass the turtle. The "paradox" flaw is that of measuring, assuming that there is an infinite amount of half distances between zeno and the turtle. Logically, in a thought experiment, this is true, and it would be impossible. But, as we have imperical real worls evidence of people passing turtles, what is happening. We have two choices (which are one in the same) 1) The model we have made is not correct to the way the reality functions. We know this because Zeno easily beats the turtle if the turtle is not too close to the finish line; and 2) The flaw is reality is not math. Remember how I mentioned states are packetized. It turns out there are descreet amoubt of energy and distance in nature. An electron will be found in a shell at specific energy points and never in between. The math works but the math is lime integers and not a "real" number line. So, when it comes to Zeno, there will be a point where he literally steps from a location in reality from behind the turtle, to beside the turtle, as it is impossible to be in between. Sounds crazy but the macro worls we live in contains all the micro at the quantum. Physically, it is impossible to have a paradox, the same way it is impossible of an electron to take the place of a proton (there is always a minimum distance) So, how does all this relate to your video, and my previous comments, what os my thesis? It's all in the details. Just because we see something that looms similar, doean't mean it is true. Just because the framework of thought we carry about the world, does not mean it is perfect, and be used to build logic, cannot modify our thoughts, or lead us astry into unproductive areas. While I have been liking thinking of things and interactions in terms of machines (and playing with the BwO), we do need to be extremely precise when bringing any god into the area (so many have been professed but none found). In fact, from a physical desigb, a sense of being watched is evolutionary, both for predators but also social groups (and our survival within them). Yoh could argue from a D&G standpoint that our belief that there is a god is an Oedipus idea generated out of a societal social machine. These machines have been manipulated by others to repress and bring delight through human experience, but their origin is social and only physical at the gene / meme level related to our survival as a group. With that, I'm forced (and don't forget, a fair amount of life experience, and though I felt god (and could conjuer up the feeling even now though I know they don't exist) have had no actual proof that cannot be explained), to conclude, ... ... the probability there is a god is almost zero. Further, there is talk in the scientific community that there may not havr been a big bang that did not already have some spacetime in existance already. Some of that stems out of interpretation of anomolies found in the cosmic background radiation. Big Bang is a good theory but as all in science, it is a theory to the measuring level we have, and the proofs that can be generated. If a theory does not contradict all known observable phenomona, it can be elevated to a thought experiment. To those therories that are currently unfalcifiable (e.g. string theory, multuverse, etc), we need to ensure they are relegated to proper locations of thought, challenges about how to build tests, or philosophy. Sorry for the rant and all the spelling mistakes (doing this on my phone). Hopefully some of this you might find useful and might help stop (or slow) you down from going in a bad rabbit hole. A lot of what I put here I wish I had considered earlier, as I would have experienced my life differently. Hope you might find it helpful.
I wrote it in the chat and added it in the desciption. But its also in the video. The pain is your brain growing :-D It was good to see, that you try to understand and i think you got most of it. For something more easy watch my short on proof of god. also i try to come up with a response, maybe this evening (if my daughter sleeps early enough...)
Oh, its Deleuze/Guattari, "Thousand Plateaus" Chapter "Geology of morals" But caution, your brain will hurt even more. I try to make them more accesible in my channel
@@Zentapir thanks. Please email me I would love to talk to you live about your ideas. I want to know if I have your argument right, please correct me. 1 If there is a thing that explains everything it is God. 2 This idea (X) explains everything. c: (X) is God. ???
@@Zentapir The full name of the book I found is "A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" by Gilles Deleuze (Author), Felix Guattari (Author), Brian Massumi (Translator) - is this the book you are talking about? I wanted a link to the book on amazon so I could make sure to get the right one for sure @_@;;
Jason wrote also:Concerning the quantum mathematics, yes there are symmetries but there is also randomness is space. The are particles (minus and plus charge) are getting created everywhere, that rush towards one another and annihilate themselves. We can only observe this random pattern but there is no Symmetrie in it, well that's at least what physicsts say about it. To be frank, the other argument where you created multiple version of yourself "breaking space and Time" isnt right in my opionion. To trancende space and time has to actually refer to yourself in your physical body and not through some imaginary figure of yourself. I find the rizom idea quite fascinating because there is definitely fractal nature in this world, yet I would stay agnostic about any judgements concerning what's behind our universe. This checklist approach seems to me to be using an established liertaly method of investigating, yet using it on something that is by definition without meaning, I mean this in a early widgensteinien sense. Happy Montag!
Well, the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still open in many directions. According to Hugh Everett interpretation of the quantum mechanics (the many worlds interpretation) there is no coincidence, it is only a location determination in the multiverse. This fits also to Tegmark, who sees the universe on a mathematical basis. This mathematics is then defined by fundamental symmetries. And clear, the different instances of me were good above all for the joke. Ansich they should also refer somewhat to David Deutsch's theory, in which the simulation ability of the brain can be transferred in principle. Similarly as in the well-known example: The thinking transcends the locality in a certain way when uploading, but of course not really the material basis.
What do you mean when you say you dont know how much we have? Are you in danger or ill? Instead of unrealistically trying to write and essay in a UA-cam comment I'll just say that I'm disagreeing with a lot of statements yet I enjoy the video rather as thought experiment. The double articulation is something that interests me though. I don't think I understood it properly. But I don't have the time nor the energy at this point in my life to read anti Ödipus for a year. I'd love to see that method of understanding in comparison to others, in order to highlight its difference.
I was referring more to the thoroughly unstable state of the world and the urgency to make the world more Deleuzian/Guattarian. But I'm working as a psychooncologist, so it's even harder to assume that life will go on for several decades. I went through something similar myself last year, but I'm healthy now. But even before all this, I always found human life rather precarious.
The double articulation can be found in a thousand plateaus, but I think I have worked out an interpretation that most experts in the field would disagree with. But in the literature, I haven't really found a workup or application that has convinced me either. And fundamentally, I would also probably disagree with most of what is in the video. UA-cam, or at least my channel, is not really philosophical. Personally for me, it's just about experiments with concepts of subjectivity that can allow a (continuous) transformation and a fluid experience of the world.
“Double articulation” sounds an awful lot like Aristotle’s hylomorphism with a dollop of Spinoza’s expressionism on top. And because Aristotle has been (doubly) articulated by Aquinas and the scholastics as well as anybody, I think we’re a lot closer to the God of Abraham than we can even understand. Order isn’t so much in decay as it is in flux-decay being compost that makes the ground of Being as fecund as it, out of which grow rhizomes and lobsters and everything else.
I would rather say it is Louis Hjelmslev with Spinoza. But I know Aristotle too little and even Spinoza not really well. Therefore this is worked up from the linguistic side. With the attempt to connect it somewhat with physics and mathematics.
@@Zentapir Thanks for responding, Zentapir-love the channel, and connections to mathematics are exactly what Deleuze wanted, from what I understand. And thanks for spreading the wealth that is Deleuze! I will go and do likewise.
Even if it is common to seek God on drugs, I can only recommend to consume this video sober. There are plans to release a sativa-compatible version, but that will take some time.
Your reading of the geology of morals really got the synapses firing, i got to thinking about the problem of universals and that led me to chapter 1 of "DIAGRAMMATOLOGY An Investigation on the Borderlines of Phenomenology, Ontology, and Semiotics, Frederik Stjernfelt" , which is going over CS Peirce's concept of continuity, Peirce is quoted thusly:
_Let the clean blackboard be a sort of diagram of the original vague potentiality, or at any rate of some early stage of its determination. This is something more than a figure of speech; for after all continuity is generality. This blackboard is a continuum of two dimensions, while that which it stands for is a continuum of some indefinite multitude of dimensions. This blackboard is a continuum of possible points; while that is a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or is a continuum of possible dimensions of a continuum of possible dimensions of quality, or something of that sort. There are no points on this blackboard. There are no dimensions in that continuum. I draw a chalk line on the board. This discontinuity is one of those brute acts by which alone the original vagueness could have made a step towards definiteness. There is a certain element of continuity in this line. Where did this continuity come from? It is nothing but the original continuity of the blackboard which makes everything upon it continuous. What I have really drawn there is an oval line. For this white chalk-mark is not a line, it is a plane figure in Euclid's sense -- a surface, and the only line there, is the line which forms the limit between the black surface and the white surface. Thus the discontinuity can only be produced upon that blackboard by the reaction between two continuous surfaces into which it is separated, the white surface and the black surface. The whiteness is a Firstness -- a springing up of something new. But the boundary between the black and white is neither black, nor white, nor neither, nor both. It is the pairedness of the two. It is for the white the active Secondness of the black; for the black the active Secondness of the white. Now the clue, that I mentioned, consists in making our thought diagrammatic and mathematical, by treating generality from the point of view of geometrical continuity, and by experimenting upon the diagram._ (“The Logic of Continuity”, 1898, 6.203-4).
Now, i thought that was pretty cool in this context, haha.
That's a pretty specific reference :-D and surprising at first. But some diagrammatics actually helped me understand the geology of morality and ontology. The book looks like an exciting addition!
Now this is content.
fantastic video, i still think there is a possibility for rebellion, as with all concepts of "god", and what form that rebellion takes is based on ones understanding of "god", afterall, one can't rebel against something one doesn't fully understand, because one might play right into its grasp
Well time to make a response video to this! I hope you will check it out, it will be long because I must explain things, but it will be packed with logic, and also my own humor. Sit back and strap in, I shall call it "No proof of God offered by Duleuze/Guttari/Zentapir"
Best deleuze video i've ever seen thank you
Now, this is some good gnosis.
...as you probably know, the video here went online briefly by mistake during the week (ua-cam.com/video/DO-AJr_O_HY/v-deo.html). In a nutshell: I'm helping with moderation here now. And also saved Jason's comments. We here on the team really appreciate every comment, so it would be a shame if those were lost.
I love how you skip the "and is to be understood as impossible". 'Bit mad are we huh? 😁
i am not sure... TMM often brings this definition of God and it really irritated me because I really don't think it hits the core or the contradiction. And it's not even complete. I really like listening to TMM and other UA-cam atheists, but they also really revolve around themselves (or the Christian definitions of God) a lot. and I thought, I present a proof of God, which surely satisfies everyone.
Please upload bibliographies. Excellent video by the way.
As a quick answer: I pointed then out in the video. Tegmark, the mathematical universe; Deutsch, the fabric of realty. And then of course deleuze and guattari, thousand Plateaus and anti-Oedipus :-)
Wow, going to have to counter this video. (Don't worry, I'm an atheist. Nothing weird is coming)
The fractal that you show is a framing of relationships. Some of those relationship are used to help our own understanding, and are therefore not concrete. But the very description you give of a God, it's unfalcifiable as it is external to reality, but its influence is felt.
So, the lobster idea mostly deals with how we conceptualize reality, our sense of what green is, how green interacts with other things. But did you see it, green is an attribute and not a thing, an interpretation. The thing is an energy transfer to the rods and cones of our eyes, everything else is us attempting to create "organs" out of that experience.
So within the definition of a God, there is normally the concept of miracles, and something that is not natural happening (supernatural being a misnomer). Natural is expected results that line up with experiment and observation. What we have seen, at the macro scale, is predictive. At smaller, the quantum, there is predictive quanitization (packets) but with probablistic predictibility. Whithin that work, the Feynam diagrams, include the concept of "virtual photons" coming into and out of existance to be used as a concept to understand quantum electron dynamics, which is the most accurate predictive theory. Does this means there are things coming into and out of existence? No, they have not been observed, but they nees to be a factor at that level. (It's happening right now within you, but you will notice it as no observable effect on yourself).
So, this is now mindless. There probabilities don't change and the aggregate is predictable. Sounds like a better understanding of the natural state of the world.
And now to tackle "multiverse". This is an unfalcifiable model by its very action, as you will continue down your time line of existence. There is no concrete identification where there is any branching of universes (eg. Did that virtual photon self-anialate, as part is matter and part is anti-matter, or did one part fall into that black hole and the other continues to exist (which is the basis of theory of Hawkin Radiation). So, if multiverse is just a mental model to try to make an understanding around how, at a really really low level, reality is probablistic (based upon observe experiment), rather than deterministic, how can we move to a determinst model to sooth our discomfort.
I would simply argue, based upon what has been observed and tested, and based upon hoe humans misremember and attempt to make reality fit our understanding, we will go through many length (eg 4 or 20 year) to keep things in our mental model. Your explaination reminds me of my Christian fundamentalist days justifying that a God existed, instead of recognizing I was primed for that (and it was just confusing or god woukd sort it out)
In our probablistic universe, there is probably not a god. The probability of life is a combination of formed chemicals under electical conditions forming and doing what they do. Sure, low probability but everything operating and combining as it always has. Emergent properties of survivability and flurishing happened, both with increased and decreased oxygenation on the planet. (Look at sea vents and the history found evident in the earth). To ultimately move to what we consider animals that have emergent properties of movement, socialization and community. (We are not unique to the animal kingdom in this regard).
We just happened to have the emergent propertt of over thinking and pattern matching, and we have this sense of an external parent that lingers. (And more than likely, that parent is cruel becauae we see that reality does not care, but the evolution of compassion and love for our in group has lead the species to survive).
So, have I suffienctly explained that it is highly unlikely there is no god, and that by using blanket statement (that we all are unforntunately prone to), leads to faulting and/or convoluted reasoning and a poor result.
Yes, conceptual thinking may help reframe ideas, as philosphy does. But I think you've attempted to fit an entity that has no evidence of existence (barring human feelings and interpretations of hallucinations and dreams (which I had as a fundy christian)), into a theortical mental framework to get the answer you are looking form.
It's ok for God not to exists. You don't need to code them into your mental modes.
I would need more time to answer appropriately. Or to remember the idea of this very old video. First of all, it was supposed to be the best explanation of God that exists on youtube, I certainly succeeded :-D But it was also supposed to take up Deleuze/Guattari's "Lobster" and explain the double articulation that Deleuze/Guattari take up from Hjelmslev and bring from linguistics to an ontology in an exciting way. Caroll's "The big picture" and Tegmark's "Our mathematical universe" also play a part. But you can also recognise a certain resistance to too many atheist videos that I have watched too much. I found (and still find) that there simply needs to be something more entertaining than a series of stupid arguments. In this respect, I would contradict your statement "it's ok for God not to exist" as a (perhaps barely recognisable) main thread in the video in the way: "It's not ok (but dangerous) to maintain bad explanations for the world". My video points (perhaps subtly, perhaps confusingly) to better explanations by Deleuze, Guattari, Tegmark, Caroll etc. ... and perhaps in an entertaining way... or at least that was the attempt, as I said it is already very old, the video, I think :-)
@@ZentapirThanks for replying. Normally I wouldn't look at the youtube automated email response, but it so happens I'm currently going through Anti-Oedipus.
(Perviously found lectures on anti-oedipus and 1000 plateaus , and would listen while shovelling snow, playing videogames, or doing work around the house. Spinoza and Kant would sometimes be listened too as well)
Anyway, I sometime will respond to older videos simply because sometimes they end with no deep discord, leaving various problems unmentioned. If I have time, I might throw something up, trying to link thoughts.
And that's where I've found anti-oedipus similar to my style, dense but hard on the explaining part. (Recognizing that I'm at fault here sometimes as well, but I will give it a go)
My posts will be peppered with personal learning and experience, and I have gone from at a young age playing in the general metaphysical space of quantum mechanics (and the idea of observer affecting outcome), to wiccan magic, to becoming a "bought in the blood born again christian" as an adult (believing it literally, or at least hoping, complete with tongue talking and beliving in miricles), to deconstructing my faith , to a nihilst, to comfortable atheist.
I've explored memory technique and lustened to teachers go on about the bagubag gita. I've considered reincarnation, agnostic faiths, and come to a conclusion that it is extremely unlikely that there would be a god in any form we could comprehend. (The world is determistic but with packet sized probabilities. Interactions are consistent but knowledge about what will interact is unable to be fully known. I do recommend sabine hassestader's channel for learning how quantum physics is weird but predictable. Love some Richard Feynmand old lectures as well).
To add to that, I've spent a more than 20+ year career in my military, recognize motivation, randomness, and the limits of how "special" life is. I've also had to put down some very dear and beloved pets through the years as they have gotten old and sick.
So... while I believe that philosophy of any sort can help shift views, the reading of that philosophy will change the reader. Part of this is to try to make things fit, but also I believe a psychksymatic reaction. This if you are looking up symptoms on the internet, and you either find things fitting, or the symptoms seem more pronounced. Where you focus has an effect. (This is also affected by tiredness, hunger, etc. Thing hangry).
Further, human nature generally has demonstrated us as pattern matching animals who operate instinctively and with thought (requiring more energy) See the book, thinking fast and slow. (Deleuze did question thought's validity according to the wikipedia article I read on him, so considering the facts of how we think I think places me in good stead)
Which, now that I have laid the ground work, how should be approach arguments for a big G God.
First, we nees a clear definition. Anything that is external the universe is un falsifiable. So what becomes the fallback, signs and wonders. (This might be your argument for lattice/lobster)
Here, if we only pattern match, we can only say that something looks like something else. While seeing Jesus in a piece of toast might make a believe believe, the likelihood that this was divine is almost non-existant. This is the same way as seeing a face in the moon or a hotdog shaped cloud does not mean there was deliberate shaping of craters to make me (or others see it). Further, in cases where there have been brain damage patients, they can loose the ability to recognize faces, implying that somewhere at the physical meat level, human association is physical. (Ever seen a "face" in a car grill)
So then let's get to the mathimatical layout. While there are very many proofs out there, we unfortunately have to always start with a first postulate. That would need to be proved, but unfortunately, becomes impossible while trying to descibe nature with nature. 1 + 1 = 2 requies smuggling these postulates into the logic, but is impossible from first principles. So again, using a model to "prove a thing" is hard by it's very nature (it's why people normally "feel" there is a god, but there is no direct proof (that is not so convoluted that yoh have to confuse yourself enough to unknowing smuggle in a logical fallicy))
Lastly, and this is a pet theory /explaination of Zeno's paradox. The thought experiment is that Zeno is in a foot race with a turtle. The turtle gets a headstart. After a minute, Zeno starts to run and covers have the distance in X time. Another half is covered in another X time. If we are only allowed to record time when zeno has covered half the remaining distance, then it is impossible for Zeno to pass the turtle.
The "paradox" flaw is that of measuring, assuming that there is an infinite amount of half distances between zeno and the turtle. Logically, in a thought experiment, this is true, and it would be impossible. But, as we have imperical real worls evidence of people passing turtles, what is happening. We have two choices (which are one in the same)
1) The model we have made is not correct to the way the reality functions. We know this because Zeno easily beats the turtle if the turtle is not too close to the finish line; and
2) The flaw is reality is not math. Remember how I mentioned states are packetized. It turns out there are descreet amoubt of energy and distance in nature. An electron will be found in a shell at specific energy points and never in between. The math works but the math is lime integers and not a "real" number line.
So, when it comes to Zeno, there will be a point where he literally steps from a location in reality from behind the turtle, to beside the turtle, as it is impossible to be in between. Sounds crazy but the macro worls we live in contains all the micro at the quantum. Physically, it is impossible to have a paradox, the same way it is impossible of an electron to take the place of a proton (there is always a minimum distance)
So, how does all this relate to your video, and my previous comments, what os my thesis?
It's all in the details. Just because we see something that looms similar, doean't mean it is true. Just because the framework of thought we carry about the world, does not mean it is perfect, and be used to build logic, cannot modify our thoughts, or lead us astry into unproductive areas. While I have been liking thinking of things and interactions in terms of machines (and playing with the BwO), we do need to be extremely precise when bringing any god into the area (so many have been professed but none found). In fact, from a physical desigb, a sense of being watched is evolutionary, both for predators but also social groups (and our survival within them). Yoh could argue from a D&G standpoint that our belief that there is a god is an Oedipus idea generated out of a societal social machine. These machines have been manipulated by others to repress and bring delight through human experience, but their origin is social and only physical at the gene / meme level related to our survival as a group. With that, I'm forced (and don't forget, a fair amount of life experience, and though I felt god (and could conjuer up the feeling even now though I know they don't exist) have had no actual proof that cannot be explained), to conclude, ...
... the probability there is a god is almost zero.
Further, there is talk in the scientific community that there may not havr been a big bang that did not already have some spacetime in existance already. Some of that stems out of interpretation of anomolies found in the cosmic background radiation. Big Bang is a good theory but as all in science, it is a theory to the measuring level we have, and the proofs that can be generated. If a theory does not contradict all known observable phenomona, it can be elevated to a thought experiment. To those therories that are currently unfalcifiable (e.g. string theory, multuverse, etc), we need to ensure they are relegated to proper locations of thought, challenges about how to build tests, or philosophy.
Sorry for the rant and all the spelling mistakes (doing this on my phone). Hopefully some of this you might find useful and might help stop (or slow) you down from going in a bad rabbit hole. A lot of what I put here I wish I had considered earlier, as I would have experienced my life differently. Hope you might find it helpful.
can you name the book you are talking about so i can look it up please? My brain hurts now.
I wrote it in the chat and added it in the desciption. But its also in the video. The pain is your brain growing :-D It was good to see, that you try to understand and i think you got most of it. For something more easy watch my short on proof of god. also i try to come up with a response, maybe this evening (if my daughter sleeps early enough...)
Oh, its Deleuze/Guattari, "Thousand Plateaus" Chapter "Geology of morals" But caution, your brain will hurt even more. I try to make them more accesible in my channel
@@Zentapir thanks.
Please email me I would love to talk to you live about your ideas.
I want to know if I have your argument right, please correct me.
1 If there is a thing that explains everything it is God.
2 This idea (X) explains everything.
c: (X) is God.
???
@@Zentapir The full name of the book I found is "A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia" by Gilles Deleuze (Author), Felix Guattari (Author), Brian Massumi (Translator) - is this the book you are talking about? I wanted a link to the book on amazon so I could make sure to get the right one for sure @_@;;
It is the right one :-)
www.amazon.de/Thousand-Plateaus-Schizophrenia-Gilles-Deleuze/dp/0816614024
Jason wrote also:Concerning the quantum mathematics, yes there are symmetries but there is also randomness is space. The are particles (minus and plus charge) are getting created everywhere, that rush towards one another and annihilate themselves. We can only observe this random pattern but there is no Symmetrie in it, well that's at least what physicsts say about it. To be frank, the other argument where you created multiple version of yourself "breaking space and Time" isnt right in my opionion. To trancende space and time has to actually refer to yourself in your physical body and not through some imaginary figure of yourself. I find the rizom idea quite fascinating because there is definitely fractal nature in this world, yet I would stay agnostic about any judgements concerning what's behind our universe. This checklist approach seems to me to be using an established liertaly method of investigating, yet using it on something that is by definition without meaning, I mean this in a early widgensteinien sense. Happy Montag!
Well, the interpretation of quantum mechanics is still open in many directions. According to Hugh Everett interpretation of the quantum mechanics (the many worlds interpretation) there is no coincidence, it is only a location determination in the multiverse. This fits also to Tegmark, who sees the universe on a mathematical basis. This mathematics is then defined by fundamental symmetries. And clear, the different instances of me were good above all for the joke. Ansich they should also refer somewhat to David Deutsch's theory, in which the simulation ability of the brain can be transferred in principle. Similarly as in the well-known example: The thinking transcends the locality in a certain way when uploading, but of course not really the material basis.
What do you mean when you say you dont know how much we have? Are you in danger or ill?
Instead of unrealistically trying to write and essay in a UA-cam comment I'll just say that I'm disagreeing with a lot of statements yet I enjoy the video rather as thought experiment.
The double articulation is something that interests me though. I don't think I understood it properly. But I don't have the time nor the energy at this point in my life to read anti Ödipus for a year. I'd love to see that method of understanding in comparison to others, in order to highlight its difference.
I was referring more to the thoroughly unstable state of the world and the urgency to make the world more Deleuzian/Guattarian. But I'm working as a psychooncologist, so it's even harder to assume that life will go on for several decades. I went through something similar myself last year, but I'm healthy now. But even before all this, I always found human life rather precarious.
The double articulation can be found in a thousand plateaus, but I think I have worked out an interpretation that most experts in the field would disagree with. But in the literature, I haven't really found a workup or application that has convinced me either. And fundamentally, I would also probably disagree with most of what is in the video. UA-cam, or at least my channel, is not really philosophical. Personally for me, it's just about experiments with concepts of subjectivity that can allow a (continuous) transformation and a fluid experience of the world.
God is a lobster. 🦞
“Double articulation” sounds an awful lot like Aristotle’s hylomorphism with a dollop of Spinoza’s expressionism on top. And because Aristotle has been (doubly) articulated by Aquinas and the scholastics as well as anybody, I think we’re a lot closer to the God of Abraham than we can even understand.
Order isn’t so much in decay as it is in flux-decay being compost that makes the ground of Being as fecund as it, out of which grow rhizomes and lobsters and everything else.
I would rather say it is Louis Hjelmslev with Spinoza. But I know Aristotle too little and even Spinoza not really well. Therefore this is worked up from the linguistic side. With the attempt to connect it somewhat with physics and mathematics.
@@Zentapir Thanks for responding, Zentapir-love the channel, and connections to mathematics are exactly what Deleuze wanted, from what I understand. And thanks for spreading the wealth that is Deleuze! I will go and do likewise.
i am on too much sativa for this rn
Even if it is common to seek God on drugs, I can only recommend to consume this video sober. There are plans to release a sativa-compatible version, but that will take some time.
@@Zentapir ily little deleuzian anteater (?)
@@theofthe2299 did you just confuse me with an anteater? tapirs are very modest and humble, but there are limits...
@@Zentapir that makes much more sense! sorry im not good at identifying little creatures but I love you!
Great video ❤❤❤😍
Ich habe gerade vergeblich auf deinem UA-cam Kanal nach irgend einer Möglichkeit gesucht dich privat zu kontaktieren. Email vielleicht?
[...] hat sich ja schon erledigt :-)
Hmm.
"don't expect a miracle". OK, I'm leaving...