Welcome to the Anthropocene. 

Welcome to the Anthropocene – Video of debate with Peter Sloterdijk and Bernard StieglerOriginally posted on Progressive Geographies: Welcome to the Anthropocene – Video of debate with Peter Sloterdijk and Bernard Stiegler (via Philippe Theophanidis) We no longer live in the Holocene. Welcome to the Anthropocene! For the first time in history it is not nature but man that is the biggest geological force. Since the industrial revolution…


  1. You have spurned such thoughts that I’m just constantly thinking of all the angles. Lol. Because in just the same way as there would be these monsters there’s also you for example that are not a monster (at least you don’t appear to me as a monster but You may be a monster) so this then makes me consider this subconscious this is Id thing. Because then not only is the monster being manifest from underneath so to speak but likewise you are too I think you’re saying the things that you’ve introduced into my world. Now should I say that consciousness manifest this type of ethical polarity? But then isn’t this pretty much what the 20th century has told us his nonsense? The ethical constructs themselves are likewise merely relative constructs of interactive ideological and cultural formations? Then how my coming upon any sort of monstrous manifestation? For shouldn’t even my understanding of the situation somehow to compel me or allow me to Chyna overcome this perpetually reinstatement of discrepant ethical manifestations of the unconscious? One would think that if I had come up on some sort of understanding of where this monstrousness comes from then in understanding that monstrousness then there would be some other sort of polemical manifestation against this very understanding since we’re dealing with consciousness manifesting itself within these polemical situations.

    I might then want to see that contrary to the for bidden planet monsters from the is where the id is some sort of primal base of consciousness, that there is no primal base of consciousness. There is no reverberation of some sort of primal booze of animal consciousness coming through into my present situation of awareness. That there is only this consciousness right here that has no primal base that has no monstrosity put against it it has no ethical relative essense.

    I might even be tempted to say that this monstrosity is indeed a past situation. That the monstrosity the monster comes from the situation of not understanding of not acknowledging of not being aware of the monster that is behind us and not present to us. In this way I may come to some sort of more real situation that these philosophical analyses thattake from his total contexts, from some situation of burning industrial revolution entropy these types of ideas are indeed magical ideas. That they arrive through magic, through what I’m calling the transcendental clause. And that there is no overcoming this type of transcendence. There is no way of analyzing discursive meaning to move away from this type of magical understanding of reality

    And so the pipe dream of Nietzsche and Hagel Kierkegaard the postmodernist and others Meillassoux, is that somehow through understanding the situation will be able to overcome the situation. But the problem always lay within the fact that the manner by which we are coming to this understanding is itself based the transcendental clause, is it self founded in magical thinking. Hence the pronunciation of two routes.

    1. A few of my friends are: what, why, how, when, where, who, because, .., although like Lou Costello I’m still confused learning the baseball team lineup of Who’s on First Base, What’s on Second Base, I Dont Know is on Third Base, etc.

      I think magical thinking is related to discovering the root cause of humanity’s problem. The Babel accusation and punishment is associated with imaginitive power. If literal, the God-like power of mind over matter, to manifest thought into reality.

      If God exists in the traditional Monotheistic sense, we are all simply the products of His, Hers, It’s Imagination.

      So whether true, false or somewhere in between, what is it that we imagine? Do we imagine monsters? Do we play a role in bringing them into being? Are we monsters? Isn’t that which can overcome and eat us a monster? Sharks? Lions and Tigers and Bears oh my! The living dead resurrected to eat us alive ad zombies? How about the starving and cancerous? Eaten from within. We fear the monster. Rightly so. We want power over, protection against monsters. Sympathetic magic is a phenomenon in the world.

      t IZizek cites an anecdote about Niels Bohr: surprised at seeing a horse-shoe above the door of Bohr’s country house, a fellow scientist exclaimed that he did not share the superstitious belief that horse-shoes kept evil spirits away, to which Bohr snapped back, ‘I don’t believe in it either. I have it there because I was told that it works even when one doesn’t believe in it’. find myself in such a world, attempting to rationalize its meaning.

      Speculation about abstractions falls short of anamnesis, total recall.


      However I’m still stuck trying to remember Who is on First Base.

  2. Is the voice dictation: I would have to say that I’m kind of a party pooper I suppose. That the monster being unconscious or or subconscious or something like that is when consciousness leaves something about it and it’s meaningful estimation of reality out of the picture as if what’s in front of me is incomplete and so there must be some sort of hidden that amounts to its completion. Indeed this is a real estimation this is a real way of coming upon oneself in the world for sure. But I suppose that that that is why I say my work has to do with what is not real. Because I don’t think in the way where there is this stratified world of which I might I’m in individual human being a bunch of within a bunch of common other human beings other individual human beings that have this again stratified consciousness platform upon which individual arise. Indeed I have to approach life in this way I have to live in the real world. But this is the significance of say Leo Tarde. For I think this significant question that he brings up and he was the person who came up with the term postmodern his significant question is what do you do with a situation where you bring a case to the court that is in capable of hearing your case.? from that point on from his voicing of that situation once we begin to really actualize what that question involves, then we begin to see that there is an effort towards overcoming that situation but also that the situation does not involve a common humanity. That the common humanity is itself the court. From there we can begin to understand what Laruelle is saying what he is trying to say so far as a motion of reconciling that postmodern condition. The same with Badiou. As well we began to understand what the speculatively realists were attempting to avoid by positing their situation.

    But I could go on forever and that’s why I write books.

    1. Top of the line MGM 1950’s movie breaking new ground in science fiction genre while also making a unique psychological statement. If you have not seen the movie, you might find it entertaining. I only sent you a wikipedia summary to cut to the chase.

      1. Yes. Im gonna watch it.

        So far as the anthropocene: there is only always councidence and the momentary hiatuses of having to do something. Where the hiatus is seen to be substantial, where a coincidence is short and secondary, there we have Metalluca, Five Finger Death Punch, Taylor Swift, 21 pilots affirming reality as ground. Opinion, taste : all these function to offer whatneeds overcoming and the path to over come it. But it is never overcome. Only in reality does the carrot get eaten andneeded again. Libidinal; right?

        But if the Grateful Dead is merely a musical taste, a genre preference, then country musc have an equal bass for crdibility. And this is plain nonsense. Since they operate differently.

        The world becomes a strata notbecause we analyze reality inany way. Butbecause of ‘world forces’ by which our activity is determined. Humanity will never destroy itself: only in ideoligical distance will this appear to be a danger.

      2. Quick take on some of it:

        It’s about the necessary struggle to attain through painful and pleasurable experience, eternal positive selfhood in relationship to and with other selves. No remorse. No regrets.

        The paradoxical opposite is self inflicted negation, nihilism, suicide, death drive, abyss, no-thing.

        Light and darkness.

        It’s about drama, tragedy, comedy. Learning the causation of human suffering and happiness.

        It’s about tough love learned through failure, success, try again persistence. It’s about chaos and form. It’s about indestructible energy and entropy.

        It’s about infinite possibilities and opportunities. It’s about time, it’s about space. It’s about doctors and lawyers. It’s about reconciliation of:

        White Trash …


        … with the N word, … where I think Zizek makes a valid real world point regarding how it gets done in actuality (not theory, and with regard to readiness level, not for the thin skinned).


        And more stuff too. Certainly.

        When I figure it all out I’ll let myself know. Then you.


      3. Let us also consider the wisdom of the Hokey Pokey dance and lyric instruction:

        “Everybody form a circle
        Put your left foot in
        Your left foot out
        Your left foot in
        And shake it all about
        You do the hokey pokey
        And turn yourself around
        Now put your right foot in
        Your right foot out
        Right foot in
        Then you shake it all about
        And then you do the hokey pokey
        Turn yourself around
        That’s what it’s all about”

        Notice again. “That’s what it’s all about.”

        There’s our answer.


      4. I watch the movie. Thanks you open up a whole new door. Is a lot to consider. Aside from the fact of how the daughter who is never known another human being all of a sudden knows how to enter into the social graces of having a boyfriend. Lol

        I think I’m in a have to write a post on this. Because it would be a long one and actually you’ve given me another chapter to the next book of mine ‘the second moment of the significance’. Indeed it if the moment a decisive significance can be described in my first book as a sort of grammatilogy, then the second book it is indeed about monsters and things like that. but then we have to kind of look at that this idea of monsters really is a sort of cool manner of looking at the situation. That’s why brought up bands like Metallica and five finger death Punch. Because everyone always wants distractions. They want distractions by which to identify themselves in the world in order to have problems that they can come up with attitudes to feel good about themselves against other people. Innoway having a monster having a Lovecraft other dimensionalization monsters is really just a cool thing. And doesn’t really approach the issue. Because what it tends to do is argue itself by sheer numbers of interest. In this way we could have another line of support for what I’m calling real and not real. What is real is that nonsense is the monsters is the subconscious is id. all these things distract from what is occurring. They localize human beings and specifically human consciousness as a segregated element of the universe but more of an object that the universe is centered around. The whole basis of having an object oncology or an object orientation where there is no centrist subject is the removal of this kind of subconscious and world reflected adversarial reality.

        But for sure again this is what I’m calling real and not real. Because for one no one wants to have a non-centrist subject. This is what I mean by no one can want to be selfless. No when can want to have the moment of decisive significance. No one can choose to get out of this state of reality through any just sort of discursive means. What occurs then is something that is outside of choice. So long as we have choice upon these larger issues, talking here not so much about the regular daily choices of what I want to feed my dog say, more specifically these larger choices of destiny and ideology and analysis and scholarship and politics and all the stuff where we choose, there we have the isolated and segregated human being analyzing itself. And again that is why I say there are two irreducible routes. That it is not that there is this real route such about such as I’ve described, where in this other route kind of answers to; it is actually a situation where there is a real route that functions that contains and implements power along specific lines of method and reason, and then there is a Nother route what I’m calling not real route that wields it’s own power and it’s on Manor. It is an entirely different order of being that does not reduce to a unitive real method.

        And I would say it is the want for choice into this other routes that brings monsters that brings subconscious repercussions. Is not a real situation but rather a situation of polemical route

      5. You’re welcome. Thanks for helping catalyze my thinking with your blog posts.

      6. I like that dance. Lol. Its fun sometimes. I like : the kids they dance and shake their bones, while the politicians theowing stones, singing ashes to ashes all fall down.

      7. People are idiots. Thats another real fact. People dont like Zizek because (as usual) they dont undetstand him, and, are trying to justify their (already) fragile activist idenity. People are dumb. Even those who are educated; they just have social clout.

  3. But. I would say that the ‘monster’ is indeed the ‘real world’. This is why we hear ohilosophers (like Kierkegaard) saying how thier time is ‘pivotal’ or ‘lots of change’. Every time is that way so long as we are invested in the transcendental cluase.

  4. Around 18:52 Sloterdijk begins his description of the Monster.

    We already know the outcome of what happened on Altair IV.

    The Monster is from the unconscious ID (Animal-Man). The Monster is us. Can the Monster be overcome?

    Nietzsche (Thus Spake Zarathustra): “Behold, I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…”

    Is the outcome for Earth certain or uncertain?


    1. Sadly enough, Im tending toward only human. Everything else is a syptom of consciousness attempt to avoid its own determination. Anything that posits ‘other-than’ human is human consciousness being itself, establishing itself In and as world.

      In a way, i see the coming to terms with this perpetual transcending operation as ‘magical thinking’. The idea that we have any purchase upon the world to transform it, is part of being human. But it never becomes more than itself.

Leave a Reply to landzek Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s