Episode

[@_ARCATEC_]

💓 Substance beyond a Material World of Abstance, held in an Instance. “There is no limit without determinability, no determinability without limit. The limit is not the eNd.”

[@ClaytonNyakana]

I'm so grateful to you both for this conversation. I'm getting that a saturation of a limit feels like a no-thing phenomenologically and that is essentially what gives it the quality of limitlessness. If I'm getting it, that's a very freeing notion because then essentially as the Stoics would say, the obstacle is the way. And we should look for the limits because they are the portals to the phenomena that will be novel to us. Thanks Mr. Ebert, thanks Daniel. More of this please 🙏

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Beautifully put Clayton, and I agree that there is a powerful freedom that comes from realizing that facing and saturating limits is what leads to the limitless. Glad you enjoyed it so much!

[@PhilosophyPortal]

Thanks for this conversation guys, great work. The opening was a great exposition of Ebert's understanding of Static Drive. I appreciated the connection to Static Drive to Negentropy, which is essential for the creation of social boundaries, producing identity, and that it can become connected to an immortal identity which is not just an illusion, and may in fact be related to sublation, a highly desirable state of mastery, but also a dead state, that can be, as Daniel notes, counterfeit. On that note, I appreciated Daniel's emphasis on this motion as being "ironic", and that identities like husband, or professor, or CEO, or whatever can, again, be counterfeit, if they are not properly nested in a deeper stasis, that is death, as Ebert also notes. When we are unified with death perhaps there is something more real to the marriage, more real to the career identity, more real to whatever other lower order static identities are being produced, in the necessity of forming some boundary and identity as opposed to being boundary-less or identity-less or .. as becomes essential for the conversation: limitless. When we get good of understanding the fundamental irony of the process perhaps we can get better at playing with the boundaries of our limits with social groups and others in general, and thus have a more robust and anti-fragile status, and courage to confront the anxiety of that conflict, which could be deadly. I think Ebert is right to emphasis that an emphasis on static identities as partial objects or lack as such are less fundamental than limit. I don't know if this is in conflict with Lacan considering Lacan seems to sublimate the objet petit a in drive as the love of lack which can also be read in the mode of the drive as a love of limit which opens us to a limitless process or we might even say real immortality. As Ebert also suggests, this may be related to why religions are so enduring, because they are epistemological structures that actively tarry with the deepest stasis, death, and perhaps thus potentially give subjects access to immortality. But as Ebert also suggests, we don't actually have to be fundamentalists to do this, and maybe that's not even the best strategy, as accepting you are going to die or you are immortal (which may be the same), opens a creative approach to death that is not reducible to historical epistemologies. As is also emphasised by Daniel, maybe this is connected to a costly Deleuzianism, and it makes sense that we find a costly Deleuzianism beyond traditional fundamentalisms, as Deleuze was super concerned with pluralism, it is just a matter of whether we can foster a community as costly pluralism, which brings to mind David McKerracher's necessity of a milieu, and not just a scene. Perhaps this is why Daniel emphasises that Christianity has been "screwed" by the status anxiety that involves not talking to people outside of Christian identities, or talking to people that everyone at your Church thinks is a bad person. I fear that this is what is driving a lot of online resurgence of Christianity, i.e. creating social boundaries that reduce contact with cheap pluralism, but at the same time isolating communication into strict boundaries that will end up finding themselves in a death spiral because they are too closed in an extremely complex environment. Reducing complexity can be good for mental sanity in the short term but in the long term will lead to mortification because it is not a genuinely confrontation with death on the level of being in language. Now back to limit as death/immortality as such. Does limit as such allow us to bridge the gap between dialectical materialism and new materialism? I am not sure. From what I know the fundamental difference between dialectical materialism and new materialism is not limit, but rather the status of the subject. New Materialism, as discussed with Russel Sbriglia recently, and derived from Subject Lessons, is mostly about rethinking our relation to matter, and not thinking the subject (i.e. the big difference between the two orientations has to do with the nature of the subject). New Materialism resituates the subject in relation to matter as "vibrant" (for example), and not dead, its part of the general tendency to desire a "re-enchanted universe" against the concept of a dead-mechanical universe. This "old" materialist conception is charged with causing global warming, natural catastrophes, exploitation and manipulation of nature, atomic war, capitalist over-production etc, as a result of a hubristic and egotistical form of human excellence. In that sense, New Materialism wants to limit the subject to a specific form of ecological awareness and activism, and rebalance us with the earth as we were before the Old Materialism took over. Dialectical materialism is different because it is working with the subject and its limits as a dialectical process, as well as the subject of the unconscious, which knows no no (i.e. it thinks, or rather knows, it is immortal and limitless, i.e. it has to come to terms with the terrible burden of immortality). In other words, what is at stake, I would argue, between a costly and cheap Deleuzianism, is precisely a limit that works with the subject, and the constant production of new tensions that are its result (destined to destroy all static counter-feit identities). In that sense, the difference between Deleuze and Lacan seems to be about the status of the subject and limit. As opposed to working with the subject and limit, do we just have a multiplicity which enjoys its immediacy, and psychotically forecloses the power of limit? That is what it seems when New Materialism and its vibrant matter create a fake re-enchanted universe that refuses to really think through political difference as such. No wonder the academy has no trouble supporting New Materialism, when the academy itself forecloses the issue of politics on the deepest levels (following Daniel Tutt), and necessitating the emergence of this entire online conceptual ecology, which is engaged in a real revival of Hegel as impossible to discard in the history of philosophy (as Deleuze admittedly tried to do, i.e. think as if Hegel never existed). Then again, a costly Deleuze may be indispensable to think creativity and a costly pluralism against the threat of fundamentalism. Hopefully this comment just deepens the stakes of the tension.

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

A truly incredible comment, Cadell, and you beautifully and clearly got at the heart of the issue . Ebert’s opening was fire, which indeed made me think of irony (a love of mine), and I agree that the better we understand irony the better we can “play with boundaries”-the mistake is engaging in such play without first taking irony seriously, which would require facing negativity. But if we do face it, antifragility is possible. I agree that limit is more fundamental than lack, but also see the danger in this being taken to suggest lack is not deeply real and a necessary negativity to ever-face (as is so critical for life, as you have taught on ). So much danger lies here, and I find myself struggling over the last few years to find the best way to word all this without slipping into a ditch on either side of the road. I found a great aid in Ebert’s emphasis on limit, and I agree that this wouldn’t necessarily conflict with Lacan (there are some sections in “The Not-Two” by Lorenzo Chiesa that might also help with this point-I hope to write on all this). I also like what you said about a creative approach opening today that isn’t reducible to historical epistemologies. I think that is right and has bearing on what you said about Costly Deleuzianism and the question of McKerracher’s excellent work on a milieu, which for me also brings us to the return to religion which doesn’t tarry with Pluralism (as you noted). Much rides on taking this problem seriously. ‘Reducing complexity can be good for mental sanity in the short term but in the long term will lead to mortification because it is not a genuinely confrontation with death on the level of being in language.’ - Fire, completely agree. And on the major question of if limit might help us bridge Dialectical Materialism and New Materialism, I agree with everything you said. I agree it comes down to the question of the subject, and I loved what Russell had to say in your conversation with him. I oppose any “New Materialism” or the like which denies the existence of the subject in any form: this gets into the Rhetoric vs Discourse distinction that is at the center of Belonging Again II. There is a subject, and it cannot be dissolved and must be tarried with: any form of Deleuzianism or “New Materialism” which doesn’t do this is what I would call “cheap” (and dangerous). I disagree with any New Materialism that tries to “reenchant the universe” without working through the negativity of the subject: that, in my experience, results in an overlooking of political-economy and sociology that is very problematic. Limiting the subject to “ecological awareness and activism” is not enough at all. What I’m trying to figure out as I lie in bed late into the night is if there is a way to take Deleuze or the work of say Bonnitta Roy (who I love) and consider it with Lacan and Hegel. This seems possible to me, but this might not be “New Materialism” anymore. I like Bergson a lot and his vitalism, and this is what I see hope in. Perhaps I should speak of “Creative Evolution” and “Dialectical Materialism” more than “New Materialism” and “Dialectical Materialism?” I’ll have to get more refined on that…I need to finalize work on Deleuze and Bergson… ‘In other words, what is at stake, I would argue, between a costly and cheap Deleuzianism, is precisely a limit that works with the subject, and the constant production of new tensions that are its result (destined to destroy all static counter-feit identities). In that sense, the difference between Deleuze and Lacan seems to be about the status of the subject and limit.’-Completely agree. ‘No wonder the academy has no trouble supporting New Materialism, when the academy itself forecloses the issue of politics on the deepest levels (following Daniel Tutt), and necessitating the emergence of this entire online conceptual ecology, which is engaged in a real revival of Hegel as impossible to discard in the history of philosophy (as Deleuze admittedly tried to do, i.e. think as if Hegel never existed).’-Also completely agree. I personally am more concerned about a Deleuze that forgoes Lacan than I am a Lacan who forgoes Deleuze (the first is more dangerous, I think), but I also see ways Deleuze with Bergson can be incorporated. Again, perhaps what I have in mind is more “Creative Evolution” than “New Materialism,” so I will think on this hard. Thanks again, Cadell, a really magnificent comment that helps me think through all this a lot. Always a pleasure and honor to hear from you.

[@82472tclt]

SHIT! I’m not nearly dead enough! This explains EVERYTHING!

[@82472tclt]

Well…and also my nothing deficiency

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

@@82472tclt I keep missing my 5 o'clock appointment for death (I blame Daylight Saving's Time). And the store lacks pills to treat the nothing deficiency. I complain at the register, but the void just stares back...

[@aspasiapsychology]

Can’t wait to watch this one 🎉🎉

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Thanks Aspasia! We had a great time, and I've been writing for the last few days on thinking this together with our talk and Jockin's work. Alex Ebert is truly great!

[@aspasiapsychology]

@@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel amazing! I can’t wait to read that once it comes together. I would love to talk together some time in the future. I am only a fraction of the way into this conversation, and it is wonderful. I’ll let you know if any particular threads stand out once I’m done.

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

@@aspasiapsychology Thanks Aspasia, it means a lot that you would check this out and be interested!

[@brentleygoremusic]

Very very good ❤

[@andrewluber880]

Amazing conversation! There's a lot to unpack here. First, I want to say your bookshelf is wonderful, Daniel, and Ebert, that studio looks incredible. The explanation of FreQ theory was particularly compelling. Ebert you genius! It really resonated with me, and I feel like I've grasped what you're saying. It beautifully outlines the ironic state! I will say, once in the static, one enters the story dimension where a different logic emerges-a logic of theme, or a thematic limit. With that said, there's a great book called "On Goodness" by David Wolfsdorf that outlines the limit of goodness. He demonstrates that this limit inherently contains a dynamic unfolding due to it being heavily contingent on the context or situation towards which the idea is oriented. Understanding what a "good limit" is, allows one to correlate it with the notion of "static," because a dynamic unfolding that homogenizes is, in essence, a "good limit." Wolfsdorf describes this static dimension as a place where a purpose, given its set of contexts, is achieved to a significant degree, capturing what it means to enter the "static." Next, I feel Martin Heidegger is extremely relevant. His Dasein analytic is essential for outlining the limit of limit, which at its core is a "good limit." Understanding what to care about allows one to navigate the dialectic appropriately. For Heidegger, making limit a first principle suggests death is presuppositionless, while also prioritizing limit because it encompasses death but not death itself. Once a limit is met, a new one emerges, leading to a new unfolding. This movement towards meeting a limit is an unfolding that presses through to a new limit. A crude example is you hear a song or watch a movie, and you start to imagine alteration to the song aka a remix or a spin of movie perhaps. The limit of a song sparks the creative process of potentially creating other songs which are inspired by the initial song's limit. In any case, in each cycle (if you grant me calling it that), death manifests as a limit; limit manifests as a lack. The pivotal point is indeed the limit, hence the prioritization should be on the limit. Lastly, I essentially agree with all the claims that were made. The only contentious point for me was the difference and absence, which Daniel articulated nicely, showing how things at this level become particularly nuanced. I completely agree that the presentation of this dimension matters a lot. This creative approach to death represents this nuanced dimension, which I believe is best addressed through storytelling. Focusing on the structure of the theme-essentially, its nature-can clarify certain aspects and lead to more productive disagreements. And just to clarify how theme captures limit, difference, and absence/excess. The clear limit of a story is its end. The absence of theme in the story is due to the impossibility of the theme being fully manifested within a particular moment within the story. Hence within the story the theme is absent but by the end of the story (the story’s death) the theme is fully present. Difference is also involved because for example a main character is in state A in the beginning and finished in state B and yet the main character is still the same technically. The story in this sense is both A and B and yet is still one cohesive story. This points to the inherent difference a story contains in terms of its existential orientation during the unfolding of a story. In any case, this video was wonderful, and you both are fantastic! I felt compelled to share my knee jerk thoughts because y'all truly struck a chord in me, so thank you!

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Amazing, Luber, thank you for this comment! Fre(Q) Theory is indeed fire, and I’ve been writing and thinking on it a lot since this talk. I think what you said on Heidegger is spot on, and the points on theme regarding the question of excess and absence are exactly what need to be traced out. And so Daniel starts writing on sticky notes and posting them everywhere…the toaster, the flying squirrel in the forest, the garage door...

[@andrewluber880]

I forgot to mention why the FreQ theory particularly struck a chord with me. As I mentioned in my earlier comment, it really highlights the circuit of irony, which in turn shines a light on storytelling. Once in the “static” state, you're essentially within the story. At that point, a different logic emerges that, practically speaking, helps you remain in the static state as it relates to the ironic state. This means that the dynamic and static aspects are in constant oscillation, and storytelling is the art of navigating this oscillation.

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Really beautifully put, my dear friend, completely agree! Your work often comes to mind when I consider Fre(Q) Theory; well said!

[@missh1774]

Love this!

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Thanks for saying so Miss H! I love speaking with Ebert, and the great Hegel, Lacan, Deleuze debate has kept me up at night for the last few years, so it's great to have a chance to talk about it. I think Fre(Q) Theory is a great help in all this! Just need more time in the day to iron out the details, which is always when things get fun...(nervous laugh)...Thanks again!

[@_ARCATEC_]

31:38 👍 Media vita in morte sumus

[@Aaron-xb4rq]

It seems that only that which is limited has value. That which is limitless has little to no value (or is at least taken for granted). Because we also see that once something which we previously thought was limitless suddenly is seen as limited, it automatically becomes more valuable. Therefore, it's because of the limit of death that our life is inherently meaningful. Without death, life would be meaningless. So thank God for death. However, this is where religion seems to have gone off the rails in its attempt at dealing with death. Instead of facing the limit of death head on, religion, Christianity specifically, has convinced its believers that death is not a limit and that life is limitless (i.e., eternal). The unfortunate and I think unintended consequence is that by proclaiming life as limitless, life automatically loses value. However, this has created in believers a deep-seated, existential terror. Their beliefs tell them that life is limitless, but their lived experience still screams of the limitation of death. Therefore, the Christian's religion hasn't actually helped him face the certitude of death, but has actually made the problem worse. The fear of death then results in all manner of egoistic (sinful) behaviors that seek to find meaning in life, typically through the acquisition of pleasure and the avoidance of pain. This vicious cycle of actions is often at odds with Christian morals and results in ever more problems for the believer. Instead, if the limit of death was actually faced and accepted, life could be seen as infinitely precious and lived as such. Ironically, accepting the limit of death doesn't produce a lack but actually a fullness, which creates a sense of belonging to a chain of being that transcends one's individual existence and gives life inherent meaning.

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

That's a really beautiful comment, and I agree with what you described. Peter Rollins works to correct this problem in a way, as can help "Christus Victor" thinking, but these are not widespread notion. Hopefully that will change, for indeed this cycle keeps occurring. Death is to be faced, for death can make life precious in courage.

[@_ARCATEC_]

Pythagorean level dialogue. Beautifully bridging categories of Being in terms beyond propositionality. I wonder what Alex's 'Static Drive' is to my "Intuition Drive"?¿ 🤔 •X(s z q(δ )Z( ∆)Q z S) Y• •X( zi q(δ ) Z𝐈 ( ∆)Q zi )Y•

[@validatedself]

Wow you folks are serious cosmonauts traversing planes uncharted. The beauty of your thought I rightly see, though many of the intricacies escape my feeble mind. On the notion of limit, my pithy though perhaps cheap words are thus, Limitiation is the boundary of life and death. To receive limitation and to know it's shape and from whence it came is elemental to a proper relation with the source of life and being. Or something like that perhaps

[@O.G.Rose.Michelle.and.Daniel]

Good morning and thanks so much for coming by! I think that way you described limit as knowing the limit between life and death, and how that connects to the source of being, is a nice way to put it! The limit creates a dialectic between the two, which can then be a source of thinking and living the Beauty of the Absolute Idea (to allude to Hegel). Anyway, thanks so much, and I hope you are well!