00:11:35 Georg Christoph Lichtenberg: "Wenn ein Buch und der Kopf zusammenstoßen und es klingt hohl..."

This was awesome. Clearly it’s not for everyone lol but it’s important, interesting work that has a definitive impact on people.

18:45 Oder wir können das Weltbild das Gehäuse nennen, in das das seelische Leben teils eingefangen ist, das es teils auch selbst aus sich zu schaffen und nach außen zu setzen vermag. Wir leben immerfort in einem solchen Gehäuse. Den äußersten Horizont unseres Weltbildes halten wir ganz unwillkürlich für einen absoluten. Unser Weltbild ist uns immer irgendwo und irgendwie letzthin selbstverständlich. Und mögen wir auch noch soviel einzelnes als relativ erkennen, wir leben doch mit dieser Selbstverständlichkeit schließlich irgendwie in einem Gehäuse, aus dem wir nicht hinausspringen können. (O podemos llamar visión del mundo a la vivienda en la que está parcialmente contenida la vida mental, que también puede crear en parte a partir de sí misma y proyectarla hacia afuera. Vivimos en ese caparazón todo el tiempo. Involuntariamente consideramos absoluto el horizonte más externo de nuestra visión del mundo. Nuestra visión del mundo siempre está en alguna parte y, en última instancia, de alguna manera es evidente para nosotros. Y no importa cuántas cosas individuales reconozcamos como relativas, de alguna manera todavía vivimos en un caparazón del que no podemos salir.)

Sofern die Seele in der Subjekt-Objektspaltung existiert, sieht die psychologische Betrachtung vom Subjekt her Einstellungen, vom Objekt her Weltbilder. Die Weltbilder zu beschreiben, heißt die Arten, Richtungen und Orte des Gegenständlichen überhaupt festlegen. ( la medida en que el alma existe en la escisión sujeto-objeto, la visión psicológica ve actitudes del sujeto e imágenes del mundo del objeto. Describir la visión del mundo significa definir los tipos, direcciones y ubicaciones del objetivo en general.)

16:16 Bei jedem Geistestypus fragen wir nach seiner ,, Struktur". Wir setzen voraus, nur solche anschauliche Ganzheiten der Weltanschau- ung Geistestypen zu nennen, die eine einheitliche Struktur haben. Komplexere Gebilde sind charakterologische und soziologische Typen, die hier nicht zu entwickeln sind. Diese einheitliche Struktur läßt sich oft in Formeln fassen, die man dann das ,, Prinzip" des Typus nennen kann. Sie läßt sich manchmal mit einem Schlagwort be- zeichnen, das die ,,Idee" des Typus zeigt. Jeder Typus als solcher ist ein unendliches Ganzes (Para cada tipo mental preguntamos acerca de su "estructura". Suponemos que sólo aquellos conjuntos intuitivos de la visión del mundo que se llaman tipos mentales , tienen una estructura uniforme. Las estructuras más complejas son tipos caracterológicos y sociológicos que no pueden desarrollarse aquí. La estructura a menudo se puede expresar en fórmulas, que luego pueden denominarse el "principio" del tipo. A veces se puede describir con un eslogan que muestra la “idea” del tipo: cada tipo como tal es un todo infinito.)

16:00 Religion wie Philosophie suchen Festigkeit, Wirkungskraft, Herrschaft, Allgemeingültigkeit. Aber die Menschheit ist auf diesem Weg nicht einen Schritt ..weitergekommenDer Kampf der weltanschauungen untereinander ist an keinem hauptpunkt zu einer entscheidung gelangt(La religión y la filosofía buscan estabilidad, eficacia, dominación y universalidad. Pero la humanidad no ha avanzado ni un paso en este camino. La batalla de visiones del mundo entre sí no ha llegado a una decisión en ningún punto importante.)

Fabulous conversation. Ideas on question of evil and good is at some point or towards a course determined perspective. For example the joker and Batman, or fundamentally asserted ' patters of behavior' which all have tracks on power history and many different things create hard boarders before they are challenges enough to become ' justified' at a certain time and extent. I'll give you an example from a popular sci-fi show the strain, the show displays that at some level predator ( via a vampire disease probably focus the scenario of the hierarchy on the human) this then isn't granted by traditional truth a status of lawful and duty obliging acts to be with( after all it is of the same plain of reality that pain would be, it demands a response). It was shocking but obviously question us to amend our operations of existing. The basis of life unfortunately ( this subject to my bias of opinion is conflict, however it can be controlled by knowing and education to over expand instincts of biology ) and having done so we transcend parts within 'existing and tangible' field of life.

This is a fantastic presentation . Such great questions from the panel and audience and amazing answers from the speaker

Wonderful discussion. Thanks for sharing

Adding to Prof. Ghaemi's point regarding the value of science, I'd like to point out that "even" observational studies are often valuable. Yes, they are prone to confounding and effect mediation and their conclusions mustn't be inflated, but they are often the impetus for further studies with a more rigorous design. RCTs are expensive and time-consuming affairs; we can't just draw exposures and outcomes out of a hat to examine a causal association between them. Prior observations are necessary to guide us to an appropriate research question and study design. In short, even "false" science mustn't be discredited as worthless and observational studies are by no means an argument against science or science-based decision making as a whole.

What will you all do if what Mr Desmet says comes true.

The science follows the money. If the pandemic has proven one thing it is just that.

The problem isn't science per se but TECHNO science aka technique which Jacques Ellul illustrates with 3 main points "1 Automatism of Technical Choice: “‘The one best way’: so runs the formula to which our technique corresponds. When everything has been measured and calculated mathematically so that the method which has been decided upon is satisfactory from the rational point of view, and when, from the practical point of view, the method is manifestly the most efficient of all those hitherto employed or those in competition with it, then the technical movement becomes self-directing. I call the process automatism.”2 Self-Augmentation. Technique has reached a stage at which it is largely “being transformed and is progressing almost without decisive intervention by man.… Modern men are so enthusiastic about technique, so assured of its superiority, so immersed in the technical milieu, that without exexception they are oriented toward technical progress.” Thus, there is a machine-like inevitability to technical progress even if it is not, in fact, life-affirming.3 Monism. “The technical phenomenon, embracing all the separate techniques, forms a whole … the technical phenomenon presents, everywhere and essentially, the same characteristics.” In other words, very different spheres of life, from economic activity to government to education to scientific investigation to religion and beyond all exhibit the same approach and the same goals of technical efficiency and optimization." From Ideological Possession

Yuri Landman, your argument regarding translation details lacks merit. Do you want to say that "massavorming" translates into "Massenbildung"? And "Massenbildung" is equivalent to "Massenformation"? And then you correct yourself by sliding linguistic details in your favor? Freud's "Massenbildung" is rendered into English as "group formation." One can assume that Desmet, who wrote his Dissertation on Freud, is familiar with "The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud" that is translated from the German under supervision by James Strachey. Scholarship requires one to translate from the original language (German) into the target language (English), without making detours into third languages (Dutch). There are several academic shortcomings in the book, some of which are pointed out in the video or in the published papers (Open Source). These shortcomings occur in the Arendt interpretation, in the misleading interpretation of scientific data, and in the absence of the broader related discussion that is taking place in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and political science. In fact, the omission of a key text, namely Sergei Chakotin's 1940 book "The Rape of the Masses: The Psychology of Totalitarian Propaganda" is, one could say, rather concerning. In his studies on Pavlov (hypnosis), LeBon, Freud, and others, Chakotin develops the same anti-technological viewpoint as Desmet does in his book. Yet, no mention of Chakotin in Desmet's book, even though he appears to heavily draw from Chakotin. If Desmet did not know of Chakotin's work, that would show lack of knowledge about the subject matter he is writing about; even worse would be the situation if Desmet were to know Chakotin's work and does not mention it at all, despite the fact that both texts display very similar viewpoints. Once again, consider the possibility that all parties in this video are concerned about the larger topic under discussion, albeit from different vantage points. Nonetheless, misleading or factually incorrect argumentation does not benefit anyone.

wow on 59 mins. Mass formation is translated from the NL word massavorming. Le Bon speaks of 'a psychological crowd' instead of massavorming. Massavorming is on the back cover of Canetti. And a few times inside the book. In Freuds book about 30x (in English it's translated as crowd formation). In German it is in his book mentioned as Massenformation. Somewhere around pag 25 and several other times. The word massavorming pops up several times in Prof Kurt Baschwitz excellent study about the history of mass psychology. Prof Paul Reiwalds likeminded book, very similar to Baschwitz: I started counting Massavorming since this claim of non existing was too ridiculous. the word pops up on page: 19, 22, 24, 45, 57, 80, 100, 106 2x, 112, 117, 118 ,120, 121 3x, 125, 163 2x,165, 255, 256 3x, 257 2x, 316, 317, 337, 340 3x, 341, 345, 356, 402, 409, 410 2x, 413, 414 🤣🤣🤣 You need more proof? Nassir Chaemi rants heavily about Desmet, but is inaccurate himself as much.

Thank you to all who have initiated a dialogue. Please be patient, we are reaching out to the respective presenters for their reply.

Have Brandom and Zizek met? They have both done a lot of work in bringing back Hegel!

The pinnacle of structuralism is Mandelbrot's fractal theory. Bourbaki is the birthplace of structuralism, and Mandelbrot belongs to that lineage. Since then, structuralism has slowly declined.

Thank you to all participants, to the Karl Jaspers Society of North America, and especially Helmut Helmut Wautischer.

great video

If you're trying to do nothing, then your not doing nothing; because trying is doing something.

No comments? Wow. Okay. No one is going to read this. But just in case... The Axial Age obviously is little more than a modern intellectual construct. I found this discussion a quite rambling attempt to define the term but never getting there. So, it sounded to me a discussion where no one has decided exactly what it was they were going to talk about. There was talk about being interdisciplinarian but not once did I hear the term, "Late Bronze Age Collapse," which since it was concurrent I doubt simply coincidental and perhaps causal. Prior to this Axial Age, Bronze Age Mans pan-cultural obsession was the stars; and the mathematics involved in this proto astrology was incredibly sophisticated. Although it continues it looses its place as the Queen of Mans approach to metaphysics. Also missing here is a focused discussion of religion (I include Greek or Buddhist philosophy in my broad definition of "religion,) specifically what were the common elements of a change in perspective that gives us reason to suggest there was something like an Axial divide? I see a study of the thoughts of Man as part of a continuum of the evolution of human consciousness that begins with Neolithic art and burial ritual and seems to be leading to a rather bleak eschatology of the Singularity to where human consciousness will be relocated into machines (a completely foolish idea on it's face.) If there was an Axial Age then it would have been a gradually forming cycle within a much larger teleology in Mans conceptualization of his place visa-a-vise the ontological natural world out there. In this much there is a progression (or regression). Without a central focus I found this discussion defuse and aimless. The comments of these men were all interesting and I'm sure erudite, but as a discussion I found it completely disjointed, confused and incoherent. Reminded me a lot of business meetings I'm forced to suffer through these days.

Documento valioso

24:04 - 24:19 The face of one gradually, and then suddenly, considering a brand new thought. My comment to Tony, re: K being inconsistent: Kierkegaard's reliance on paradox itself seems intentional, per his disdain for intellectuals seeking to explain existence/philosophy to other people and thereby relieving them of any responsibility themselves. Within his usage of inconsistent positions there seems to be this underlying unity. There's no self-consistency from the vantage point of rationalism, but that is the paradigm Kierkegaard is trying to break in the first place.

Congratulations to Roger and thanks Helmut for making this wonderful video!

At 1:39 or so you mentioned John E. Smith and Ruth Marcus. I'll take a stab at what they'd think. PPPPP Prof. Smith, in response to the work going on in the Yale English Department during the 1970s, always said, "Well, the more philosophy the better. Take it where you can get it. But there are standards in this, these people make a lot of mistakes which they wouldn't make if they had a more thorough understanding of the history of the discipline and if they really had command of the critical tools developed within philosophy. " John Smith thought philosophy was something inevitable, but that didn't mean he believed that rigor went out the window. Write as best you can and hope that your work catches a wide audience, inspiring more than the professionals to take up with important ideas in critical fashion. However, the importance of reaching a wide audience shouldn't overcome the demand of producing good arguments. That was his complaint about people like Derrida, Paul de Man, Geoffrey Hartman, et. al. PPPPRuth Marcus? She had a very narrow conception of philosophy. I know that Carlin knows that. She didn't have much use for the work being done by most of her colleagues at Yale, including John Smith. She would likely have had very little use for a book like Carlin's.

Re. Philosophy, Technology, Warfare, Reasonableness and Instrumental Rationality in "the digital revolution"..... See Gregory J. Walters, *Human Rights in an Information Age: A Philosophical Analysis,* Toronto and London: University of Toronto Press, 2001. Please, I am humbly asking you not to see this reference as self-serving. Some of us have been thinking about these issues for 30, 40 years!

A wonderful example of what Karl Jaspers called "loving communication." On pragmatism? America- The Philosophical? Or, "America" -- the Beer....and a new historical meaning of e pluribus unum. I did not hear the name of George Herbert Mead (1863-1931). Dewey referred to Mead as “a seminal mind of the very first order". It was Mead who contributed an original theory of self-development through communication, "reasonable communication" a la Jaspers, or, "Jaw, Jaw, Jaw," as Churchill stated. The emergence and temporality of our present historical situation, however, requires more than historical methodological interest. To be sure, what a Philosophy is, always shows in its Political nature, according to Karl Jaspers; admittedly, absent in Jaspers, for the most part, is the political economy of philosophy. Perhaps this focus could stimulate some next steps forward. So thank you so much for your hard work, your hard won reflections and ideas, and your commitment to American philosophy of the very first order. PS. Re. speaker comments on Martha Nussbaum, Amartya Sen, capacities approach (pragmatism?), etc., I would humbly ask all too please read Alan Gewirth, *Reason and Morality,* (University of Chicago Press, 1978), *The Community of Rights,* (University of Chicago Press, 1996), and *Self-Fulfillment* (Princeton University Press, 1998). Gewirth, alas, has too long been neglected by academic philosophers, even those of the most pragmatic mindset. Normative political philosophical theory, and, therefore, moral philosophy, is of utmost significance now. Thank you all so much for your wonderful contributions! Peace, GJW

The commentor at 1:13:09 really nails what I'm concerned about. Our chances for success in this process as a species are greatly hampered if we cannot grasp the basics of how to live well as humans *together* in the first place. I think we should be very careful about how we proceed here in the absence of reliable and dependable systems that really produce harmonious results for humans. On the other hand Max More is right - we don't have the choice to wait for us to get it right, and it seems rather likely along certain modes of analysis that we may not be capable of constructing the kinds of systems yet that would allow us to live in the way we tend to want (if we were to imagine drawing from all of the most prosperous / greatest well being based societies we have on offer at present, this would be much closer, but it may not be possible to actually implement a system in practice that takes the best of what is best from all our societies currently have to offer). All we can do is try to provoke the conversations that will help us to fall into a viable "entry window" into our future - the possible paths forward may be many, but there may also be narrow windows that permit long-term and desirable outcomes. The other comment that I would make on this discussion is that we really have to clarify the freewill discussion. Francesca was right there, but she still feels the need to evoke some kind of "freewill" out there, but she still doesn't explicitly define what she means by that. The ideas we have about agency and our freedom of will have to be modified significantly. Perhaps further progress in neuroscience will help us understand just how the self emerges or is constructed by our neurobiological processes (at least in the 3rd person sense to some degree), but we may never be able to bridge the gap on the hard problem of consciousness. None the less, clarity on our human circumstances as they are now is essential if we are going to make good decisions about how to proceed. This pervasive myth in our culture about contra-causal free will, or that we are already islands of agency in and of ourselves, or that we *could* have done otherwise - these ideas have to be challenged and ultimately to fall out of favor. It's profoundly confusing to maintain this ballast when we are making choices about what we should do. If it's actually true that we make better choices when we accept this myth - it's important that we drag that into the light and understand how and why that's the case. It's almost always the case that rather than accepting a misconception as a cognitive shortcut we would be better served if we broadly acknowledge and identify some deeper truth about ourselves - whatever it may be.

28:46 He's right about the importance of prioritizing machine ethics and actually I would add resolving certain inherent ethical contradictions that have emerged and become subsequently reinforced by our economic and other sociocultural systems. At 29:35, this distinction between being a process and having a "subjective point of view" is a false one. The self is *already* a neurobiological process - I don't understand why he would think that becoming closer to approximating the process of science within our individual cognition would necessarily endanger our ability to appreciate things in the subjective / emotional / "sense of awe" respect. I also don't see why this would interfere with the project of subsequent exploration into our potential cognitive capabilities are from either an objective classical / 3rd party empirical approach or an introspective 1st person approach involving contemplation and meditation and thinking differently about what we actually paying attention to. We are already processes, and one can already appreciate the world and our circumstances on different levels and in different ways. One can be completely logical in understanding the reason for the beautiful rainbow while simultaneously appreciating it on an emotional / aesthetic level - and we can go as deep as we wish (in principle anyway) along either of those paths. I see no reason why a mind that we would judge to be more capable on any metric we could name would be capable of less than our own present minds. It's important to remember that if the option for upgrading entails a foreclosure on certain positive experiences that are now available to us, very few people will be willing to make that switch. Even if one were to take a rather Machiavellian view of human nature, what good is such great power if acquiring it entails the foreclosure of any and all desire to acquire or exercise it? I use this as an extreme case to make the point, but in practice - we'll also need to have found better answers to the questions of how to redirect and modify the instinctive desires that have been drummed into us by evolution that doesn't partake of either extreme of unbridled hedonistic abandon or a complete eschewal of our desires, the satisfaction of which no doubt provides a significant portion of the joy most people experience in their lives. There are no doubt deeper pleasures possible, and greater opportunities to reduce suffering than we have yet stumbled upon. There are no doubt more sustainable and socially beneficial joys to be had that increase the opportunities for win-win scenarios among all stakeholders, in Prince - we simply have to martial our tools and our conversations in such a way that we can develop processes and approach an evolutionary trajectory rendering us most likely to discover them.

excellent discussions on KJSNA conferences with APA!

So Dale actually does talk this way

I saw frans TED talk. Its was informative but it seemed really unorganized and all over the place. Interesting though.

I have an aunt (Sandy) in Long Beach, CA who has a deep brain electronic implant. I (in MN) tried to return a call from my mom who was out of town at my brothers house (in AZ) and another aunt of mine here in MN picked up the phone and said "who is this" I said, "Steve, I was trying to reach my mom in AZ." My aunt said.. "it showed up on my phone as Sandy in Long Beach... figure that out". :) The call was routed through my aunts deep brain implant? It's interesting.

I also wondered if there was an implied consensus that transhumanism won't occur according to Kurzweil's calculation.

I really enjoyed Max More's comment about our limited chance at morality with our current brains and hormones (1:15:20). I agree that technology isn't waiting for humans to gain morality. It's forging on in all areas at an exponential pace (to paraphrase Kurzweil).

See karljaspers.us for activities of KJSNA