Postmodernism and Power in the Age of AI - Deep Noetics X The Living Philosophy

I’ve wanted to dip the toe in the waters of longer-form conversations for some time now so when Seán from ‪@deepnoetics‬ suggested a conversation I was only too happy. Seán is studying Neuroengineering (computer-brain interfaces) at the Max Planck Institute in Leipzig, Germany. As well as being schooled in the world of cutting-edge brain technology Seán did his undergrad in theoretical physics and is deeply interested in Jung, Heidegger and Postmodern thinkers like Deleuze and Baudrillard. He suggested it would be interesting to talk about power and Integral Philosophy. I loved this chat and I’m sure you will do as well. I’d love to hear your thoughts and feedback on the podcast.
Also if you’re interested in what Seán’s putting out he’s running a course at Halkyon Academy with seminars running over six weeks (from the 14th of May). Details of that below:
***
ENROLL HERE for the course on the Philosophy of the Machine: halkyonacademy.teachable.com/...
The machine has taken us onto a technological journey. A journey which is said to drive progress and allegedly is approaching an end point. This end point has been referred to as the technological singularity. It is the event after which technics runs off and escapes human agency. In times of deepfakes and ChatGPT, the voices are getting louder, prophesizing the arrival of AGI (artificial general intelligence) as well as the singularity.
But why? Where do these narratives originate from? How did technology attain this central role in our world? As always, philosophy mirrors what has been playing itself out within ourselves. Our science, ideology, technology, system and myth have been captured by the machinations of the machine. Join us in this years' course and we will dive into the depths of these machinations!
________________
⭐ Support the channel (thank you!)
▶ Patreon: / thelivingphilosophy
▶ Ko-fi: ko-fi.com/thelivingphilosophy
_________________
💬 More from The Living Philosophy
▶ Discord / discord
▶ 📨 Subscribe with email: thelivingphilosophy.substack....

[@drakeallen369]

I loved this conversation and sorry for dumping what I've been thinking about on here but I thought it was closely related to the conversation. I appreciate your videos, they all seem to make me feel a little less insane

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

"I would say Jordan Peterson is a conservative post-modernist." Shots fired. God it's satisfying seen somebody besides me calling this.

[@alsing8010]

Great talk and just wanted to say how important and helpful you are to the philosophy side of the youtube. Keep it up and thanks for the work you put into these things.

[@ReynaSingh]

Great conversation. Keep it up

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Reyna! I got an email from Sean the other day and he was telling me you guys ended up having a chat I'm looking forward to watching it!

[@FirstRisingSouI]

I listen to a lot of science videos & podcasts, and this talk is a refreshing perspective, getting out of all of the self-reference and repetition of the mainstream conversation. Thank you very much, will be checking out Seán's content!

[@liammatthewart4609]

I would not say I’m an expert on all things “post modern” but being an painter I have studied this within the art world. That being said the primary purpose is to evoke emotion through imagery. And what emotion is it that we most often see in post modern art? For me I see a lot of irony within post modernity. And also pop art is a post modern list art form which consist of kitsch and commercialism type art. I think it’s important to compare this to older schools of thought on art even going back to appelles and Socrates.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

Pretty sure Jung has more in common with the continental philosophers. (Big student of Nietzsche after all.) If anything it's Freud that would be of the analytic persuasion I would have thought.

[@sebastianrtj]

Loved it!

[@drakeallen369]

My initial exposure to the concept of archetypes came from reading Jung, but my understanding of them has been further enriched by the work of Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze's philosophy of difference and multiplicity offers a useful framework for thinking about archetypes as dynamic, complex, and ever-shifting patterns of meaning. To Deleuze, archetypes are not fixed, universal forms but rather immanent potentials that emerge from the interplay of difference and repetition. Like Jung, Deleuze sees the recurrence of certain motifs and images across different cultures and historical periods as evidence of these underlying potentials. However, he emphasizes the creative and transformative potential of these archetypes, rather than their stabilizing function. Deleuze's concept of the virtual is particularly relevant to understanding archetypes. The virtual refers to a realm of pure potentiality, where new possibilities are generated through the interaction of difference and repetition. Archetypes are virtual insofar as they are not fully actualized, but rather exist as virtual multiplicities that are always in the process of becoming. The actualization of an archetype occurs through its encounter with a particular set of circumstances or conditions, which bring its potentialities to the surface in a unique way. Deleuze's concept of the rhizome is also useful for thinking about archetypes. The rhizome is a non-hierarchical, non-linear mode of organization that emphasizes lateral connections and multiplicity. Archetypes can be seen as rhizomatic insofar as they are not fixed or hierarchical, but rather emerge from the interplay of multiple and shifting connections. The rhizome is a useful metaphor for the fluid and dynamic nature of archetypes, which are always in the process of becoming and evolving. In Deleuze's philosophy, the body is also a key site for the emergence of archetypes. The body is not a fixed entity, but rather a constantly changing assemblage of flows and intensities. Archetypes emerge from the interaction of these flows and intensities, and can be seen as embodied patterns of affect and sensation. Dreams, for Deleuze, are not simply symbolic representations of the psyche, but rather intensities and flows that emerge from the body's interaction with the world. Overall, Deleuze's philosophy offers a rich and nuanced way of thinking about archetypes as dynamic, virtual, and embodied patterns of meaning. By emphasizing the creative potential of these archetypes, rather than their stabilizing function, Deleuze opens up new avenues for exploring the ways in which meaning emerges from the interplay of difference and repetition

[@Verulam1626]

How would the fluidity of gender work if the body is understood as rhizomatic?

[@drakeallen369]

@Verulam1626 The differences between cultures and individuals are not hierarchical, but rather constitute a flat ontology in which all elements have equal importance. Instead of comparing ourselves to others based on their sources of information, we should embrace the unique perspectives that arise from our own assemblages of desire. Rather than seeking a fixed identity, we should celebrate the becoming of the self as a continuous process of deterritorialization and reterritorialization.

[@Verulam1626]

@@drakeallen369 if there is any truth to that then it is for its utility in prescribing and devising reality

[@drakeallen369]

@Verulam1626 Yeah, it's my personal interpretation of reality so far, and it's always pending change. I wouldn't try to convince or push any of my ideas on someone who was content with their own ideals. I'm not married or really into defending my thoughts at the risk of causing someone discomfort. At the end of the day, I see myself as a fallabalist.

[@Verulam1626]

@@drakeallen369 if so, you are much better in the likes of zetetic and Socratic philosophy. Particularly, Plato-Aristotle

[@paulrowe4409]

Dropping the Berserk name in reference to Existensilism, lets go

[@seanwooten6410]

Great broadcast. I was particularly fascinated by your left/right brain stuff. I hope you go further with it. I also appreciate that your pal McFadden spells his name correctly: Sean. Here in America, I get no end of grief for it. They want me to spell it Shawn.

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Thanks Sean!

[@taulantsalihi5512]

Equalizing Chomsky's self-obsessive critique of capitalism with Baudrillard's genuine critique of loss of content is off the target.

[@PFJung]

Oh right on! Looking forward to watching this. Glad we could unite the Irish in this spirit of dialogue - Go n-éirí an bothar leat!

[@deepnoetics]

My man!

[@TheLivingPhilosophy]

Haha I'm finally back from my hike and going through my comments. This one brought a big smile to my face

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

[Archetypes.] The archetypes could "bubble up" form the church, but the primary function of the church is to _protect_ people from the experience of God: the unconscious does all of this sporadic stuff that can exert tidal stress on social systems and individuals, so the church gives you an explanation for what that is so that these systems bend instead of breaking.If you want to encounter God, you don't go to church you go climb a mountain or live in a cave for years on end. As an example, the experience that you are God is remarkably common. Anyone at any time can have the same experience that Jesus had for no discernible reason. But when people like this come along, we have various mechanism for dealing with them; He's said to be insane, in communion with God rather than becoming God, an angel has visited him, a devil has possess him, etc. so he doesn't wind up starting his own cult an sparking a civil war. The thing with Jesus is that, somehow or other, he turned out to be a very theologically sophisticated man and was able to circumvent the "firewalls" of his day. It was just a case of the bug mutating in such a way that the immune system no longer knew how to suppress it until ti was too late. And so this new religion called Christianity got loose and spread chaos and bloodshed. Without religious structures (and whatever structures may serve in their place for the modern day) the entire system of force relations would go up in smoke from a messiah being born every minute. We don't have to worry about people claiming they're God anymore because gods have been discredited, but we still get infections like NFT scams, political ideologies, fads, waves of psychopathology, and so on.

[@amanofnoreputation2164]

"Maybe later he's not my boss." Well it's interesting because there seems to be a polarity on this idea and how it relates to power expressed in Judaism. The idea that the father's son is taken to be the one who inherits his status and role is expressed in how to say something is "the son of" something else means for that thing to be of the same nature as it. So this is why saying that Jesus is the son of God is so equivalent with saying Jesus _is_ God. A son of Belial is an evil person because Belial was a false god or a demon as far as the Jewish faith was concerned, and a son of a bitch is a bitch. In the modern era, that term in particular has taken on an idiomatic quality. This is why Israel is synonymous with the Jews even though it refers to one individual: the people are taken to be of the nature of Jacob as their patriarchal forebear. Naturally, as a result, their enemies, the Amalekites, are taken to be descendants of Esau, Jacob's brother. The reason we don't consider this to be the case any longer is partly because the Bible later emphasizes in other areas that the son is not to be punished for his father's crimes, which eventually extended to the idea that everyone is responsible for themselves, which in turn created the social structure of the individual as we know it now where having a child is like inviting a stranger to live with you until he is of a certain age. This understandably put considerable strain on the notion of original sin; if I'm not responsible for my father's crimes, why is all for humanity punished for Adam's crime? Are not both the law and word of God? This is a paradox Jordan Peterson just takes in his stride: he wants it both ways with everyone being distinct individuals and subjects of originals in at the same time. A very good example of these kinds of tension where Judaism seems to do some soul search and be like, "Wait, this doesn't make any sense . . ." and actually begins to do the whole "wrestling with God" thing is the book of Job which discusses that if good fortune and increase is the measure of one's piety, why do bad things happen to pies people?

[@ejenkins4711]

Maybe the institution have to collapse into chaos, marriage is crumbling and the knock on effect mhmmm

[@ejenkins4711]

OR dundun daaa, maybe the ancients built a quantum compooda and its just looking for AI to find the cosmic code ⌚🦁🦍CGJ

[@mistycloud4455]

agi will be mans last invention

[@huguettebourgeois6366]

Your guest: like, like, whatever, whatever, I think, I think etc. Not convincing, needs to work on his language skills. Philosophy demands it.