Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
The Žižekian Subject as the Abyss of Hell (Theologico-Philosophical Theory of Damnation)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 лип 2022
- TREY’s book “Aphesis: The Impossibility of Subjectivity”: amzn.to/3hzxZAR
WE make at least 3 videos a week on Patreon discussing everything from philosophy, to theology, to biblical typology, to music, and to whatever else comes to my head. / telosbound
TELOSBOUND THEOLOGICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION: docs.google.co...
THEOSBOUND: / theosbound
DISCORD: / discord
INSTAGRAM: / telosbound
ODYSSEY: odysee.com/@te...
GET The Philosopher's Notebook amzn.to/3h7Iyrn
HASHTAGS:
#philosophy #theology #metaphysics #ontology #orthodox #christianity #orthodoxchristianity #communion #church #jesus #christ #catholic #bible #hegel #negation #dialectics #epistemology #psychoanalysis #logic #ethics #theory #socialtheory #apologetics #God #aphesis #subjectivity #paradox #contradiction #reading #books #intellectual #politics #conservative #politicaltheory #sigma
There is such a wealth of knowledge on this channel man.
The image in this video reminds me of a Nightmare/Dark Dream I had where I descended, layer by layer, darker and scarier as I got deeper, into the depths of Hell and a Dark Abyss of abstract and bizarre formations and horrifying creatures. It’s like the image here, except upside down. It was definitely Hellish, but not stereotypically “fiery” Red and Devilish. It was definitely dark and in the depths of darkness. Just thought I’d share.
You and Jay Dyer doing a Zizek themed stream while he does Zizek impressions would be gold.
Fantastic work here. About to eat a hotdog now 🌭
Currently eating a costco hot dog.
@@gg079 brother it is the best buck fitty spent ever
@@telosbound he threatened to end his life. He is a truly great man!
pizza-pockets here
@@telosbound True story
This is the most terrifying account of Hell. It goes beyond the usual and valid critiques of Hell and accounts systematically for its own reality as a loving relation, an objective reality and a subjective reality.
As a fervient non-infernalist that has experienced some of what it's described here, it gives me pause.
Yet I am confident that this is not a properly logical form. And I base it on the essential nature of the self(which is not mere passive reception) but active as well. This implies that even in Hell there's also dynamic movement, not only in the form of the phantasmagoric imagination but in its drive. The condemned cannot remain condemned for as long as God is and is in communion the I has an imperfect time.
Beyond this, God's loving communion would not maintain this fiction. This is not the full expression of the loving communion nor is it just or kind. Even if nothing else were valid, I am fortified in God's Love. That alone suffices for the negation of Hell eternal. Besides, such a state would imply the loss of Christ's redemptive nature.
I also think that the nakedness of the imaginary would not merely constitute the break that gives rise to torment, but its own negation: when God reveals the stark truth of the mode of the subject, its own perverse and imperfect mode is revealed. The will, which is always oriented towards God has no illusions to be deceived upon. This revelation is forcefully humbling. The only way Hell could maintain is if God allows a veil of illusion to remain. This cannot be done by the subject alone, for left under its own naked subjectivity its utter nakedness will disallow the possibility of covering up through an intermediate form(like we do right now in this plane, by appealing to factors like our body and so on).
Even if such illusion were possible, God would be acting unjustly and unlovingly by letting such a soul remain eternally in the torment of its own illusion which does not even accomplish that soul's free will.
whoa I got a little bit depressed. so hell is like an endless while loop so long as 1==1 condition remains. sorry for computer science terms.
Excellent, and I like how you asked, “How does negativity emerge out of the Chain of Being?” Is there negativity in nature? It would seem to me that negativity emerges as a result of nature’s ability to reference itself, and the question is if this ability is itself “part of nature” or only in it. Does “reference” require something found in nature that isn’t reducible to nature? This seems to be a very big question, and as Javier has been discussing lately, perhaps Buber’s I-You is a revelation of irreducibility? Hard to say.
I like the points on hell as a withdrawing of being, and also the points about how the self contains a present that cannot be accessed, for it is only the self that is reachable without extension. And yet to reach it intellectually we have to “turn toward it,” which unveils “self-relating negativity” because of the inevitable failure of extension to be “present.” We contain a presence that we can never make present, and thus that presence sets us up for failure. We “are” that failure in a way, and Hell is that failure left to fail and fail and fail…Hell isn’t the “achievement” of self-negation, but the looping of self-negation into loop after loop after loop…drunk on a fantasy of giving and receiving its own being.
As always, marvelous and insightful work!
@@telosbound Yes! I pumped. It will be a delight to have the chance to speak with you both again.
@@telosbound I've been doing the same...Haven't read him since...oh...2015...Hope Javier will still be my friend...
This sounds a lot like Berdyaev, although he affirms that hell cannot be eternal
Love your intro to this video
Question: at 12:40 what is "they" referring to in "the nothingness from which *they* were created" ?
Very very very interesting. I'd have a lot of questions, but maybe the greater one is: why to add a medieval consistence in the concepts of hell, heaven, gift from God, communion with God? Maybe there's a mistake in considering them consistent as something external to a historically determined conscience, the christian one. But it's a guess. And I'm probably wrong in understanding what you're saying.
The early part of your video reminds me of Levinas' "Time and The Other"
is it just me or this guy has basically explained daoist "hell" through zizek and christian hell analogy
@@telosbound tao te Ching to start
@@telosbound id rather go with interpreters first, rather than going straight into texts
Even though he is considered "pop entertainer" i think alan watts is good at laying foundations and giving you refrences for further research, and well for us westerners, he is a good start because at his core, he is comparative philosopher/theologist, coming from christian education/upbringing
What?
Physicist Robert B. Laughlin wrote:
It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed [..] The word 'ether' has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity.
This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. . . . Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry. [..]
It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.
Main articles: Pilot wave and De Broglie-Bohm theory
Louis de Broglie stated, "Any particle, ever isolated, has to be imagined as in continuous "energetic contact" with a hidden medium."
However, as de Broglie pointed out, this medium "could not serve as a universal reference medium, as this would be contrary to relativity theory."
How did the idea of ether come?
The idea of an ether was introduced into science by Descartes in Principia philosophiae (1644). Until that time, forces between two bodies that are not in direct contact were assumed to act through space-by action at a distance.
Is ether and space same?
The element ether, called “akasha” in Sanskrit is the first of the five great elements (pancha mahabhutus). It comes first because it is the most subtle of the elements. Often referred to as “space,” it is the essence of emptiness.
It is the space the other elements fill.
*cough* gravity sucks *cough*
[5th Element Aether > Gravity]:
The author reviewed the experimental ether-drift experiments and publications of Michelson-Morley, Dayton Miller, Michelson-Pease-Pearson, and more recent others, from the late 1800s through the present.
Many of these historical studies presented positive results in detecting a cosmic ether, and ether-drift through space.
Among these experiments, the most widely cited Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887, which did show a slight positive result (and never the claimed “null”), was found to be the least significant or robust in terms of experimental procedures and actual data collected, as compared with the far more important 1920s’ study by Miller on Mount Wilson near Los Angeles, California.
Most ether-drift experiments yielding claimed negative results were plagued by various unwarranted assumptions about the capacity of an ether-drift to penetrate dense materials such as stone buildings or metal shielding, or that ether flow would “contract” matter, including measuring instruments, leaving the ether-drift undetectible.
Some obtained positive results, but the authors chose to interpret them as “negative” due to unwarranted assumptions demanding extremely fast ether-drift velocities near to the Earth’s surface.
Miller was the first to experimentally account for these issues, his most important study made atop Mount Wilson in a thermal shelter, with the largest light-beam interferometer ever constructed, and where the light-beam path was enclosed only by light glass or cardboard.
His procedures accounted for a matter-retarded cosmic ether-drift with a reduced velocity closer to the Earth’s surface.
Miller thereby obtained significant positive results over four epochs of study.
Albert Einstein also was aware of these issues, and admitted openly that if Miller was correct, then his own relativity theory would “collapse like a house of cards.”
In subsequent years, however, the followers of Einstein defeated this evidence for the cosmic ether by public ridicule and political tactics, not too different from the modern “skeptic” movement.
The Shankland, McCuskey, Leone, and Kuerti article claiming to have reviewed Miller’s Mount Wilson data, well after all the old ether-drift experimenters were dead and could no longer defend their findings, were also specifically reviewed and found to not support their own stated conclusions, thereby leaving the question of a cosmic ether and ether-drift as an open and unresolved question, or one which positive evidence indicates has been proven out.
More recent ether-drift experiments from the last quarter of the 20th and early 21st Centuries, notably by Galaev, Múnera, and others, using radiofrequencies, light-beam interferometery, and other novel methods, have provided further proof for the existence of a cosmic ether in space. www.scientificexploration.org/journal/
псевдоинтеллектуальный бред
@@telosbound I don't think that guy speaks Chinese either
It’s as pseudo-intellectual as your unwillingness, timidness and cowardliness to dive into the depths of your consciousness and find out what Hell is for yourself. You know, what they’re talking about here.
@@Wesenschau joke flew over yo lil head
Newton 🚫
vs
Leibniz ✅:
Ten whole, rational numbers 0-9 and their geometric counterparts 0D-9D:
0 and it's geometric counterpart 0D are "necessary".
1-9 and 1D-9D are "contingent"; on their predecessor with the exception of 0 and 0D.
0 and 0D are our only whole, rational and not-natural number and geometric dimension.
1-9 and 1D-9D are whole, rational and natural.
0D is Leibniz's 📚 Monadology 🔘.
Newton's 1D-4D only nonsense was clearly his thinking if 1D-4D is "natural" then it must also be "necessary".
This is a fundamental error and is repeated throughout Newton's Calculus/Physics/Geometry/Logic.
Newton's 1D-4D does not match quantum physics. Newton defines 0 and 0D as "not-necessary" due to them being "not-natural".
Similar words with different definitions. Newton is not a "genius".
Leibniz's 0D-3D (0D-9D actually) does match quantum physics:
0D Monad is Quark
(SNF)
1D Line is Lepton
(WNF)
2D Plane is Guage Boson
(EMF)
3D Volume is Higgs Boson
(GF 🚫 replaced with Dayton Miller’s Ether ✅)
Newton's 1D-4D 🚫
Leibniz's 0D-3D ✅ (0D-9D more accurately)
Newton drinks his own pee.
0D Monad 🔘 is
"One with Everything", literally
" . with 0 "
„If the potential of every number is in the monad, then the monad would be intelligible number in the strict sense, since it is not yet manifesting anything actual, but everything conceptually together in it.“
- Iamblichus On the Monad
The Theology of Arithmetic
Fibonacci sequence starts with 0. Big brain.
0D Monad 🔘 is Quark 🟢🔵🔴 in quantum physics:
No spatial extension. Zero size.
Exact location only.
6 thousand trillion trillion trillion (39 zeroes after 6k) times stronger than the force of gravity (which should be Dayton Miller’s Ether)
Can every human on earth read Leibniz's Law of Sufficient Reason? Thanks.
[0D necessary and 1D-9D contingent universe;
3 sets of 3]:
1D, 2D, 3D = spatial
(line, width, height)
4D, 5D, 6D = temporal (length, breadth, depth)
7D, 8D, 9D = spectral
(continuous, emission, absorption)
Symmetry/entanglement:
1D, 4D, 7D line, length, continuous
2D, 5D, 8D width, breadth, emission
3D, 6D, 9D height, depth, absorption
Hamilton's 4D quaternion algebra UPDATED from Newton's 1D-4D nonsense to Leibniz's 0D-3D matches perfectly.
Not a coincidence.
There is no 1 (contingent) or its geometric counterpart 1D (contingent) without 0 (necessary) and its geometric counterpart 0D (necessary).
We don't exist in 1D-4D without 0D. Period.
Newton was/is so backwards on the fundamental level and possibility mentally 🧠 handicapped ♿.
(don't forget fraud)
No more 4D space-time, time-dilation, graviton nonsense.
We have a workable Theory of Everything solution right now.
How do we do a planet-wide swap to actual smart person Gottfried Leibniz?
(And Plato, Tesla, Miller)
So I won't even get to enjoy my own demise? Man to never exist truly is the best gift I'll never be so lucky.
What is even going on what's the point of all this 😂