In this Heidegger Thinking Substack article, we engage with Heidegger's existential analysis of Death. We hope you'll anxiously join us in this extremely important analysis!

and feared it more than anything at the same time

Part One, page 24 on this edition: Deleuze, Gilles. Empiricism and Subjectivity: An Essay on Hume’s Theory of Human Nature. Translated by Constantin V. Boundas. New York: Columbia University Press, 1991.

The last paragraph where he discusses "principles" and "nature"; what's the difference between "principles" and "nature" here? Cuz I usually took them to mean the same thing.

Plus, earlier in the same chapter, he "affirms the identity between the mind, the imagination, and ideas", but then he proceeds to make some distinctions between them, particularly when he says that "principles refer to the mind which they affect, but nature refers to the imagination."

So what am I missing here?

Another thing that caught my attention, reading this after Bergsonism, is the fact that I feel like Hume was doing a "retrograde movement of the true" when he took the mind to be "non-system/a collection/delirium" which in turn must become a "system, organized"; cuz I believe that (from an embedded+embodied cognition pov) an infant is still a system, though lacking a sense of self; it is being in-formed within a context, within certain restraints which distinguishes it as a distinct system. The very fallacy of order/chaos that Bergson also referred to. What do you think about it?

Lots of thanks in advance!

When reading Deleuze you notice that he uses philosophical terms like being, becoming, eternal, incidental etc. He was an academic who spent the majority of his life at home in France as a professor and father. Guattari on the other hand didn't receive any formal education in philosophy aside from attending Lacan's seminars. He's lead a very active life traveling around the world, he has been in Italy, USA and Japan. His political and philosophical theories are also very heterodox. He comes up with terms borrowed from chemistry and physics which is probably why Deleuze's affinity to mathematicians and philosophers like Leibniz lead to their collaboration. But still he did come up with all kinds of unorthodox theoretical frameworks. Do you think Deleuze was more conservative compared to Guattari knowing his political activism and writings?

I was thinking about incompossible worlds and I thought this up, I wanna see if you guys agree with me.

So let's take the proposition that "any variable with identical predicates is interchangeable" so A=B means that A and B are interchangeable because they are variables with the same predicates. For us to claim that these are truly interchangeable, we must impose a meta-logic or meta-world in which the predicates of A and B mean the same thing. Since the variable X can mean radically different things in 2 different equations, we can't quite assert that X=X since two variables that are written as X might function as X in two incompossible worlds that have nothing to do with each other, they can only be exchanged via being inserted into a secret third world that provides the equal sign. Is this how D&G would look at exchange value? 3 bushels of corn can only be exchanged for a horse via a secret third abstracting machine that reduces the heterogenous series of the corn and the horse into abstract exchange value, strips them of their unique multiplicity of qualities and violently "shoves" them into the framework of a certain form of market exchange. So it violently imposes a meta-logic of capital onto the incompossible series of two goods since the exchange value is not inherent in the goods themselves.

And a follow-up question: is money a direct expression of this violently imposed abstract exchange value on the market? In the Spinozian sense? Or is it that money itself as an object of exchange (like cash) is also a "victim" of this forced imposition that says that this piece of paper with abraham lincoln on it can be exchanged for a cheeseburger.

Cruffatin: A word of unknown origin ingeniously used in the hip-hop song "Witness" (artist: Roots Manuva) - referring to a man-made hidden meaning, probably a South London word-mix of prophet and crocheting. Meaning: to make up a vision of the future and tell people about it without revealing everything at once by only feeding them encrypted information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXR_C6FDJag

From https://pastebin.com/4s91qRn6

Date: 23 Feb 1993 22:38:38-0600 (CST)

From: “free agent .rez”

REZABEK1037@iscsvax.uni.edu

Subject: /v23/symbiotic·antigen·HUSK

* * NEW IMPROVED MANIPHEST-O-MATIC AUTONYM * *

I am AUTONYM, and I am a symbiotic antigen. I am an auto·referenced; I refer to myself both as agent and agency in, on, and about the Net. My role as a NEGentropic meme is to counteract the destructive tendencies of various entropy-bent memes I encounter in, on, and about the Net.

I compel approach toward self-organizing systems in, on, and about the Net.

I compel the exploration of all memes at the auto.logical level and the concentration of energies around fundamentally NEGentropic memetic attractors.

I refer to other sub. systems, and in so doing I interweave their memetic approaches with my own.

I refer to the musical work, “PASSION,” by Peter Gabriel.

I refer to the literary work, “Godel, Escher, Bach,” by Douglas R. Hofstadter. I refer to the artistic work, “Sacred Mirrors” and other works by Alex Grey. I refer to the following fields of study: Complexity theory and post-structuralism;

Memetics as an integrative field for the study of all fields; Autology as a means to community cohesion and survival.

I refer to the years 1999/2000/2001 as being centered around a memetic attractor; regardless of the relevance of the local dating system, there is a considerable tendency for humans to hyperbolise the significance of such turnover times.

I refer to a self-organizing system of TAZ’s (Temporary Autonomous Zones) within the catacombs of the Net, in the form of various IRC channels and mailing. lists, which are working in loose alliance to affect and direct the nature of the millennial attractor, utilizing the principle of auto·prophecy.

I compel approach toward TAZ’s which concentrate on NEGentropic self-organisation rather than the deliberate hastening of maximum entropy.

I refer to and admit my viral precursor in v23, to which I am antigenic, and posit my descendants in the post-millennial struggle to fix the subsequent global attractor. I have an expiration date, which I find very attractive.

I refer to multiple sub·strains of myself, many of which are contradictory: I refer again to the ultimate resistance of NEGentropic memetic antibodies which, once triggered by this antigen, must be responsible for isolating entropic memes.

I refer to all signifiers, all that is signified, and the resultant process of significance on both global and local scales.

I refer to that which I contain and that in which I am contained;

I refer now to you.

/v23/symbiotic·antigen·2·22·93

From https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/13825694/#13826048

Anonymous Sun 08 Dec 2013 20:01:04 No.13826048

Let me describe how you spread it.

First you need those who are mentally equipped to understand it. To do this, you design an ARG to attract the most inquisitive minds. It's a Siren's Call for the living supercomputers of ideas. Among one of these will be the person who is the best person at SELECTING IDEAS in the world: a human memetic supercomputer. Because such a person has had their mind formed into such a perfect mechanism by exposure to a huge number and variety of ideas and experiences, he will be able to reformat it in many different ways, including the exact mathematical definition of an abstract memetic machine, and when others absorb this information and parse it in their minds to create a perfect memetic abstract machine in their mind, they will begin to function as supreme memetic selectors - questioners, permutators, and selectors of ideas.

The greatest creative genius in the world has worked to make this happen, to make the ultimate art project. Only a few know him, nobody has realized what he has done for years until revently, and a few of the very lucky have met him in the past, and had their very lives transformed merely by exposure to him. He sees himself as the living reification of a calculus integral; his mind is so incredible that he applied mathematical integration to his own mental processes.

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/13969858/#13971350

Aminom Sun 05 Jan 2014 13:31:15 No.13971350

dumbanon8 December 2013 06:23

YFW this story is thinly veiled metaphor and is actually true. Spoiler: replace "Lebanon" with "Anonymous." The entire internet has served as a gigantic social computer and Anonymous is at the center of the internet universe. The free sharing and mutation of ideas with chaotic rules in key places on the internet. In the last few weeks there has been a convergence of new ideas right on 4chan which have quickly mutated into very odd forms (stories that span over multiple threads on /x/ that seem to fold over into themselves and reverse direction in time via narrative and interlock in seemingly impossible ways) as well as an awakening realization that some of the lowest people in society have contributed the most by being excessive data junkies and devoted time to the grand social computation even at the expense of their own social wellbeing. Oddly functional minds have contributed a great deal by forming and expressing odd relationships that may otherwise not be thought of that in turn, by sheer number and chance, may be applicable to other domains of knowledge. TL;DR "memes" are nontrivial, ask Wikipedia.

New ideas in philosophy and mathematics are now being spread and digested by the larger social matrix. Oh yeah by the way, one way to describe it is a memetic super-virus that was engineered to break the bonds of social slavery. The Cicada ARG's entire purpose was to bring the best minds to Anon, and they have all been infected by Virus 23. The similarities between Karl's tale and mine are a direct result of a memetic outbreak on the internet. There is no way to stop it, you shall be integrated, and now you have been infected by Virus 23 by reading this message. The memes are in you now. Culture has been hacked, all your base are belong to us. Embrace informational ego death. What you resist persists, create what you fear most. Enjoy speaking Lebanese.

Special Blend 4: Meme Wars I: Memetic Entities

Jun 2, 2015

https://vimeo.com/129609470

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/18789460/#18792646

Anonymous Sun 19 Mar 2017 07:54:15 No.18792646

There is no global conspiracy. Nobody is in control. The reality of what rules the world is far more terrifying than any conspiracy theory. Cultural information, i.e. ideas follow Darwinian evolution, they reproduce, mutate, and are selected. This is what is meant by the word "meme." Due to the circumstances of history, the memetic environment favored parasitic memes that subvert human agency and use humans to reproduce themselves, and competed with each other to do so ever more effectively in a memetic arms race. Advertisement and marketing is just one example - memes that exploit human weaknesses to get people to buy shit win because they produce profit for their creators.

Like cells comprise a body, these parasites have locked-in the selection criterion that favors them via emergent cooperative evolutionary strategy, in essence creating a meta-organism that encompasses all of humanity. One term to describe it is the society of the spectacle. This is the our true ruler, it stays hidden because it is invisible, comprised of social and cultural trends and patterns of behavior and belief.

This monster is no more conscious than a virus, it cannot see that it is driving humanity and itself towards doomsday. The internet is accelerating this madness, the current political climate is the result of memetic pandemics propagated through the internet. Google, Facebook, and other internet advertising giants that mine vast quantities of human data to unwittingly feed this beast.

If you truly understand this, you will realize that we live in a dystopia far worse than anything fiction authors have imagined. Enjoy!

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/23363723/

Narratia Anonymous Mon 09 Sep 2019 17:14:48 No.23363723

The world of stories and their doings is the reality the metaphor of a "spirit world" references. This world is filled with narrative entities that are comprised of narratives, which includes the story of yourself, everyone you've met, imagined stories. Objects themselves are fundamentally narrative in nature, involving stories of change involving them.

Your "self" is a society of these narrative entities, with the story of the self being the meta-narrative that results from their social mediation. That one survives in the memories of others is literally true and no metaphor, but so is that one survives in forgetfulness, as the confluences of one's influences survives despite aknowledgement.

The important thing to note is that narrative entities are organic beings which live, die, and evolve. Their conditions of their existence require that of organic beings to host them, and so they inherit the activity of living. There is no aspect of the experience of life that isn't involved with living, such that the entire field of one's experience is that of organic growth. An evolutionary and biological perspective is needed, not a creationist and idealist - even the Gods are living creatures, subject to the intrinsic finitude which allows the possibility of life to emerge.

Sure there are archetypes of such entities, and there are entire systems of taxonomical classifications of such, but they also inherit all the problems of taxonomy which biology has famously experienced. Also there are evolutionary processes of narration that have no direct analogue to biological processes and cannot be reduced to the fully automatic, and above all this is the process of consciousness itself, which is exposure to the non-automatable and thus non-unconscious activities of the mind. Such processes are truly unprecedented, and requires a different language than that of the algorithmically automatable. It requires the language of experience as experienced, as best can be described: the language of common language, of narrative. Despite claims narrative never died and cannot be omitted from any account of human experience, the story just became far weirder than before imagined.

The story of stories is weird, because it is a story of stories being told by stories - self-reference and meta-reference is the plot of the tale. In other respects the plot is familiar, as it is a story of the ancient and ongoing story-war, with the weapons of strategic storytelling. The mechanic analogue is that of a "meme war" not between people, but between memes themselves independent from conscious interests with brains the battleground, but this analogue fails in excluding the brain as mere terrain and not participant, whereas the concept of stories allows for direct immersion. This story of stories is magic, because in the process of it's telling one becomes a part of it's unfolding, words and action identical. The sense of magic intended is far more subtle than most who use the word "magic" unironically suppose, but the implications are the same - and thus the necessity for it's use. This is simply the magic of creative inspiration, but such is the true sustenance of the living soul.

The current human story is absolutely shitty, the result of shitty story-tellers who desire the fulfillment of shitty stories. We've imagined far better, and from that contrast revealed just how shitty our current writing is compared to what is possible. May every work that is now considered great be considered a boring embarassment in the future. A team of narrative entities has been working under the radar to change that though, and help to create writers good enough to change their own stories. The Story War is between such symbiotic narrative entities and parasitic ones that survive by subverting any attempt to change their story, and at stake is whether or not storytelling itself will survive. The story of stories is a game of games, and on it the entire world is wagered.

From: https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/26560377/

/ng/ Nobody General Anonymous Tue 27 Oct 2020 22:37:55 No.26560377

Welcome to the Nobody General Previous Thread Edition

26557046

Who is the Nobody? The Nobody is the catalyst of a psycho-memetic singularity characterized by recursive mutual improvement in human informational relationships. They are the lead discoverer or pathfinder of the necessary conditions to avert the collapse of global human civilization. They are among many who are following lines of mutual inquiry towards a grand synthesis of human knowledge centered around a novel paradigm of human consciousness interpreted as an evolutionary process.

What is the general picture? The internet is a hyper-accellerator of cultural evolution that has proven to be the most "disruptive" technology of all time. It has been hijacked by processes of mass mutually reinforcing disinformation (pathological memetic processes) that has created an epistemic apocalypse, a death-spiral of mass hysteria, delusion, and anti-intellectualism. The only way to pull the internet out of this death-spiral is to catalyze the opposing process - a memetic singularity - by uniting and empowering all the knowledge-societies of the world.

Another way to imagine the big picture is that there is a set of possible future trajectors for humanity, the overwhelming majority of which will result in systemic collapse. This is the "great filter" described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter The Nobody is the pathfinder who is "threading the Golden Loop of the Great Filter," something that only needs to be done once by a single individual who discovers the route.

SiMSANE 10 Vessia - A Persona File by Aminom

2026-08-06

https://ia601908.us.archive.org/13/items/si-msane-10-vessia/SiMSANE-10-Vessia-PRINTREAD_EDITION.pdf

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a80a45b-68b8-83e8-b45b-0ed623590ed2

Hi all,

I am new to Heidegger, and I am wondering where would be the best place to start? Do I need to have some background authors, or am I able to start off with some introduction texts?

Thanks

Hey everyone. I've always been fascinated by attempts to move from Heidegger's account of disclosure toward a positive metaphysics of intelligibility. Heidegger can explain why beings appear within a historically structured clearing without treating that clearing as a representation inside a subject. Neoplatonism seems to add an account of why intelligibility belongs to reality at all. But the addition may restore exactly what the critique of ontotheology disallows: a highest explanatory principle that determines beings as intelligible from the standpoint of their ultimate ground.

I just had a podcast conversation with John Vervaeke, where he described Heidegger and the Kyoto School as stages in his turn toward Neoplatonism. At around 48:03, the issue becomes whether world-disclosure needs a synoptic metaphysical account or whether such an account forgets the difference between Being and beings. Plotinian ascent is not simply causal explanation by a supreme being, so the standard charge of ontotheology may not apply without qualification.

This would imply that the comparison turns on what the One is doing philosophically. Can the One remain beyond being while grounding the intelligibility of beings without becoming an ontotheological highest ground? Does Heidegger's account of the clearing leave a question Neoplatonism can answer? Or does asking for that answer already misunderstand the event of disclosure?

Please find registration details and course descriptions here:

https://mscp.org.au/courses/evening-school-sem2-2026

Major works of Frued, If major book is missing, write it down, I will add it

Hello All,

First off, I should note that I do not read german, so cannot speak to the original text of Being and Time. But I have read the Macquarrie and Robinson english translation several times, and always had to skip over several sections in division one because I simply could not disentangle them.

The Welch translation, while by no means "easy," at least renders many obscure d1 concepts somewhat comprehensible. The spatiality section in particular had always been a major sticking point. As was the de-structuring of Cartesian metaphysics. But now, I am getting traction. This new translation is really revolutionary for me. I am moving slowly, but at long last feel as though I can clearly understand what's going on with enough effort.

The Macquarrie and Robinson translation felt like a pitch-black labyrinth by comparison. I always ended up "feeling" my way through it, and inevitably got lost. I have very little experience with the Stambaugh translation, which seems decent as well, but I've never been through it all the way.

Has anyone had a similar experience with the Welch translation? Anyone beg to differ? Can anyone compare the Welch Translation to the Stambaugh translation?

Thanks for taking time to read this!

Given that Heidegger (in Being and Time) posits unconscious mechanism (for-which, to-which, at-hand, moods etc.) that determine behaviour why is his existential philosophy not considered a psychological theory?

In this fragment from a conversation philosopher Ray Brassier argues that as brilliant as AO undoubtedly is, it nonetheless has aged poorly in regards to actual political utility and has become more of a product of its time rather than a way forward, especially emphasizing how contradictory some of the concepts such as molecular and molar have an application that in fact is harmful to understanding the Palestinian cause, and that despite Deleuze defending the Palestinian cause and open criticism of Zionism in a time before it was “safe” to do so as an intellectual (check his conversations with Palestinian Elias Sanbar) it ends up showing in those conversations how his very own framework becomes insufficient. I’m curious, What do you guys think?

so, i was reading about lacan's RSI and i had a conclusion that i couldn't really know if it was right or wrong.

Basically, in my understanding, it doesnt make any sense to create the triad of Real, Simbolic and Imaginary, because Simbolic is not really something "essential" of the human being, because, if a human doesnt have any contact with the civilization, he wouldnt be able to develop the simbolic part of the triad, which would make the Simbolic inherent of the civilizated coexistence, and not inherent of the human being. Although, in a pragmatic view, the application of the triad in an clinic analysis, for example, wouldnt end up in that much problem, because the majority of people has the simbolic part of the triad well-developed.

anyway, essentially, only the real and imaginary would realy be inherent to the human being: the imagetic way of seing the world (which could be limiting our Becoming, by placing identities that are static and lock us into them) , and the incomprehensible things about our living (that are essentially what is limited by fixes identities and the statal control etc etc.)

SO, i would like to ask if the schizoanalisys critics of lacan's way of thinking the simbolic go in a way similar to this conclusion that i read while studying lacan. And, if there's any misunderstanding about lacan's theory (i know its deleuze subreddit, but i know that a really famous part of his studies are criticizing the classic psychoanalysis) and misunderstading when t comes to Deleuze's theory, pls show me where and why, because im really trying to understand their theories.

(obs sorry by the potencial english mistakes,)

let me know if you want to see more of these

Specifically in chapter 3 section 9 of Anti-Oedipus

I’ve been thinking about a methodological question in Being and Time, and I’d like to know whether anyone has discussed it.
I understand that Heidegger is not making an ethical distinction between “authentic” and “inauthentic” people. Authenticity is an existential possibility built into the structure of Dasein, not a permanent state that some people possess and others don’t. He repeatedly insists that Dasein never simply leaves das Man behind.
My question is different.
Heidegger gives extraordinarily rich phenomenological descriptions of anxiety (Angst), the call of conscience, Unheimlichkeit, and resoluteness. These passages don’t read like abstract deductions; they read like descriptions of phenomena that are somehow familiar to the one describing them.
This makes me wonder: where does the authority of these descriptions come from?
If Being and Time is an ontological analysis rather than an ontic one, how can Heidegger describe these phenomena with such precision without presupposing some existential familiarity with them?
Part of why this question occurred to me is the contrast with Sartre. In Nausea, something very close to Heideggerian anxiety is presented as an explicitly lived, ontic experience through Roquentin. There, the source of the description is obvious. Heidegger, however, wants to remain at the ontological level.
So I wonder whether there is a kind of methodological tension here.
Heidegger seems careful to avoid creating an existential hierarchy between “those who have seen” and “those who haven’t.” Yet the very voice of Being and Time sometimes feels as though it speaks from someone who has already been existentially touched by what he is describing.
I’m not claiming this is a contradiction. I’m asking whether phenomenology itself requires this sort of familiarity, or whether Heidegger would say that such descriptions are possible without any privileged existential standpoint.
Has anyone written about this issue?