25:11 “No signification can be sustained, except by reference to other signification.” Reminds me of Baudrillard's simulacra, and all its reverberating referents, as illustrated in his cartography example (a map of a map of a map and so on... with no notion of 'original' land).
@@alvarohenriquez425 A smart connection! I think you’re certainly correct. This is confirmed by Gödel’s incompleteness: no system can have all its axioms be non-circularly justified. As such, to understand “sense”, “meaning”, or “signification”, one must rely on the internal dynamics of the system (aka the groundlessness of the simulacrum).
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Have you read 'Hegel in a wire' by Zizek? Your reply reminded me a lot of Zizek writing about the "Cantor/Gödel" rupture from classical metaphysics. This is what he wrote: "Cantor stands for set theory, through self-relating procedures (empty set, set of sets), and compels us to admit an infinity of infinities, and Goedel for his two incompleteness theorems which demonstrate that - to simplify it to the utmost - an axiomatic system cannot demonstrate its own consistency since it necessarily generates statements which can neither be proved nor disproved by it (incompleteness theorem)." I admit I don't incorporate Gödel's theorem (as much as, say, Baudrillard), because I struggled to understand his original experiment since I am not too interested in mathematics, but I would love to go back and understand the mathematical connection to his axiom, and to Baudrillard/Lacan. Anyways highly recommend Zizek's book!
@ A very helpful explanation! I’ve never read it and also have the most cursory knowledge of mathematics, so I’m doubtless as out of my element in a Gödel discussion as you (if not more). I’ll have to check out this work, as it sounds interesting!
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Another relevant note I took from the book: "What becomes palpable with Cantor/Goedel's rupture is the full extent of self-referential paradoxes that pertain to subjectivity: once we include our own position in the picture of the all, there is no way back to a consistent worldview. The Cantor/Goedel rupture thus renders impossible a consistent totality." The book is basically Žižek hypothesizing what would happen to subjective consciousness once it enters "The Singularity" ("neuralink" collective consciousness), what would survive of subjectivity, and if it's even possible to fully detach from subjectivity. Anyways lmk if you ever read book, it's a relatively short read, would like to hear your thoughts on it!
super interesting. Thank you for such a clear explanation. Also there is story by Le Guin that explore power of name just wanted to give shoutout to that awesome story.
25:11 “No signification can be sustained, except by reference to other signification.”
Reminds me of Baudrillard's simulacra, and all its reverberating referents, as illustrated in his cartography example (a map of a map of a map and so on... with no notion of 'original' land).
@@alvarohenriquez425 A smart connection! I think you’re certainly correct. This is confirmed by Gödel’s incompleteness: no system can have all its axioms be non-circularly justified. As such, to understand “sense”, “meaning”, or “signification”, one must rely on the internal dynamics of the system (aka the groundlessness of the simulacrum).
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Have you read 'Hegel in a wire' by Zizek? Your reply reminded me a lot of Zizek writing about the "Cantor/Gödel" rupture from classical metaphysics. This is what he wrote:
"Cantor stands for set theory, through self-relating procedures (empty set, set of sets), and compels us to admit an infinity of infinities, and Goedel for his two incompleteness theorems which demonstrate that - to simplify it to the utmost - an axiomatic system cannot demonstrate its own consistency since it necessarily generates statements which can neither be proved nor disproved by it (incompleteness theorem)."
I admit I don't incorporate Gödel's theorem (as much as, say, Baudrillard), because I struggled to understand his original experiment since I am not too interested in mathematics, but I would love to go back and understand the mathematical connection to his axiom, and to Baudrillard/Lacan.
Anyways highly recommend Zizek's book!
@ A very helpful explanation! I’ve never read it and also have the most cursory knowledge of mathematics, so I’m doubtless as out of my element in a Gödel discussion as you (if not more). I’ll have to check out this work, as it sounds interesting!
@@gavinyoung-philosophy Another relevant note I took from the book:
"What becomes palpable with Cantor/Goedel's rupture is the full extent of self-referential paradoxes that pertain to subjectivity: once we include our own position in the picture of the all, there is no way back to a consistent worldview. The Cantor/Goedel rupture thus renders impossible a consistent totality."
The book is basically Žižek hypothesizing what would happen to subjective consciousness once it enters "The Singularity" ("neuralink" collective consciousness), what would survive of subjectivity, and if it's even possible to fully detach from subjectivity.
Anyways lmk if you ever read book, it's a relatively short read, would like to hear your thoughts on it!
This is brilliant, thank you very much !
@@valija9060 Not a problem! Thanks for your kind words :)
super interesting. Thank you for such a clear explanation. Also there is story by Le Guin that explore power of name just wanted to give shoutout to that awesome story.
But also this made me think of incorporeal transformation in D & G 1000 plateaus
That's not the Ecríts translation I have, which is Fink, which looks identical to yours. I think where I am not therefore I am where I think not
@@rama_lama_ding_dong I’m reading straight from the page so idk what to tell you🤷♂️
13.13