Hey Oz! This is great, you have a great demeanor and pacing. I'm still waiting on my copy of Logic of Sense to come in, probably will be here next week. In the meantime: Have you read Deleuze's book on Bergson? I didn't know it was what led to his late-century reevaluation (not that it seems to have lasted). I really enjoyed "Creative Evolution" and find Bergson to be one of the more uplifting philosophers. Also, I'm sure you know this, but his sister was "Moina" Mathers nee Mina Bergson, the shadow director of the Golden Dawn. Re: Carroll I went through my phase with Rev. Dodgson when I was twenty, a little older than the recommended age for his books, because of John Crowley's "Little, Big." I had reread "Alice" and "Looking Glass" a few years earlier on Crowley's recommendation, I'll revisit that in a second, but it wasn't until then that I read his complete works. "Sylvie and Bruno" is wildly underrated and as funny (and occasionally as weird) as his earlier works and poetry. I haven't read any biographies of Carroll but I've read a lot about him (although, I still can't say for sure), but I'm pretty sure he wasn't directly inspired by Qabalah. I think that was more Crowley's projection onto his works...not that that means anything. [Much as Samuel and Moina Mathers *made* the tarot deck magical by aligning it so perfectly with the Qabalah, Crowley or his children can make Carroll Qabalistic using the same methodology.] Carroll was writing about non-Euclidean mathematics which seems close enough to Qabalah in spirit, especially for someone as adept in gematria as yourself. I believe both Wilson and Regardie reiterated that Carroll's famous works were great Qabalah texts, but I don't believe that was the author's intent. However, I will always maintain that the Humpty Dumpty chapter in "Through the Looking Glass" is one of the best treatises on linguistics and specifically the apprehension of language ever penned. I look forward to learning more! Kallisti!
Gregory, I really appreciate the feedback on my delivery which I'm very critical of but imagine and hoping that I'm getting better. Yes, I've read Bergsonism by Deleuze, it's great, your comment makes me wish to read it again. I didn't know it caused a re-evaluation, but am not surprised. He did the same with his book on Nietzsche in the early 60s. I highly recommend that one too. I did know about the Mathers connection. Bergson also married the cousin of Marcel Proust and had a huge influence on Proust. Through family, Proust connects with Mathers. One of his volumes ends basically with a Golden Dawn. Excellent that you'll soon have The Logic of Sense book. There's only so much I can put in the videos trying to keep the length of them down. Reading the book also alters consciousness, it is a grimoire. Reading "The Hunting of the Snark" along with the series of Esoteric Words I found to be quite mind expanding, etc. etc. I don't think Carroll consciously put Qabalah in his children's stories nor do I think Crowley et al projected it on to him. Other people have seen Qabalah in it independent of Crowley. I call it invocational writing when things come in outside the writer's consciousness. Joyce seems a great example of that, but so does RAW. Carroll was a member of the Society for Psychical Research so would have had an open mind. I also don't think Carroll consciously put in all the Stoic philosophy Deleuze finds there. I wrote an essay that elaborates invocational Qabalah: oz-mix.blogspot.com/2011/07/invocational-qabalah.html
@@ozfritz539 The essay looks great, can't wait to read it! I did not know Carroll was a member of the Society of Psychical Research, that's really neat! (I also didn't know about the Mathers-Bergson-Proust connection. Which novel are you referring to? I've only read "Swann's Way."
@@Ilmarienfeynman It's at the very end of "Within A Budding Grove," the second volume of "In Search of Lost Time." It reminded me of the Golden Dawn the first time I read it.
In Logic of sense Deleuze is not explaining how things come to existence but how sense is generated (sense genesis). Sense is not a thing, it is incorporeal, and since language is insuficient, he explores the methapysical and psycoanalitical genesis and structure of sense. In Diference and Repetition it might be acceptable the argument that he is trying to explain how things come to existence. More, the book is not divided in paradoxes but SERIES! and that is different, why? series operate in structure where 2 or more series are interrelated and in interrelation and in some cases there is a paradoxe. Anyway congratulations, u are already a legend bcs this mf is hard to understand and this type of content is good content and rare.
Non existent entity is right out of the stoics. Incorporeal realities. For the stoics everything is real but does not necessarily exist. Being an entity doesn’t imply life. Not sure where you pulled that from. Pretty crazy presupposition though.
Hylozoism represents the doctrine that everything is alive whether organic or not. I'm not sure where I originally got it from either. Could have been Heraclitus, Spinoza, Taoism or perhaps somewhere else. The last sentence on the Wikipedia page for Hylozoism reads: "The metaphysics of Gilles Deleuze has been described as a form of hylozoism." You can go to the page and find the citation for that "crazy pre-supposition." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism
@@MatauReviews How tetchy of you! I find it very useful to accelerate the pace on various videos, and I appreciate being notified when it’s appropriate by others who have done the same. It’s pretty presumptuous of you to think it’s a criticism. Don’t be a dick.
@@Anabsurdsuggestion I’m criticizing YOU for doing something like this. But I’m glad you and the other amphetamine-addled children can find each other in the comments. But I don’t care that badly. Do what you will, I just find it insufferable in any context to watch something at double speed or even 1.5. Like it’s a TikTok compilation or a Netflix original or any other algorithmic slop you wanna name. It is disrespectful to me but fair enough. It’s not a criticism to suggest that something is too slow and meandering or that someone speaks too slowly for your liking so adjusting the Playback Speed will be necessary. Okay! Sorry I was ornery. Hope you have a good day
Your French probably would not have been up to the task. | dəlœz / fontəne: | 𝕹𝖎𝖊𝖙𝖟𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊, ə not i || You Americans can't bother to do the extra quarter hour of research to get the names right. 😅
Thank you so much for this elucidating introduction to the enigmatic text!
You're welcome
Hey Oz! This is great, you have a great demeanor and pacing. I'm still waiting on my copy of Logic of Sense to come in, probably will be here next week. In the meantime:
Have you read Deleuze's book on Bergson? I didn't know it was what led to his late-century reevaluation (not that it seems to have lasted). I really enjoyed "Creative Evolution" and find Bergson to be one of the more uplifting philosophers. Also, I'm sure you know this, but his sister was "Moina" Mathers nee Mina Bergson, the shadow director of the Golden Dawn.
Re: Carroll I went through my phase with Rev. Dodgson when I was twenty, a little older than the recommended age for his books, because of John Crowley's "Little, Big." I had reread "Alice" and "Looking Glass" a few years earlier on Crowley's recommendation, I'll revisit that in a second, but it wasn't until then that I read his complete works. "Sylvie and Bruno" is wildly underrated and as funny (and occasionally as weird) as his earlier works and poetry. I haven't read any biographies of Carroll but I've read a lot about him (although, I still can't say for sure), but I'm pretty sure he wasn't directly inspired by Qabalah. I think that was more Crowley's projection onto his works...not that that means anything. [Much as Samuel and Moina Mathers *made* the tarot deck magical by aligning it so perfectly with the Qabalah, Crowley or his children can make Carroll Qabalistic using the same methodology.] Carroll was writing about non-Euclidean mathematics which seems close enough to Qabalah in spirit, especially for someone as adept in gematria as yourself. I believe both Wilson and Regardie reiterated that Carroll's famous works were great Qabalah texts, but I don't believe that was the author's intent. However, I will always maintain that the Humpty Dumpty chapter in "Through the Looking Glass" is one of the best treatises on linguistics and specifically the apprehension of language ever penned.
I look forward to learning more! Kallisti!
Gregory, I really appreciate the feedback on my delivery which I'm very critical of but imagine and hoping that I'm getting better.
Yes, I've read Bergsonism by Deleuze, it's great, your comment makes me wish to read it again. I didn't know it caused a re-evaluation, but am not surprised. He did the same with his book on Nietzsche in the early 60s. I highly recommend that one too. I did know about the Mathers connection. Bergson also married the cousin of Marcel Proust and had a huge influence on Proust. Through family, Proust connects with Mathers. One of his volumes ends basically with a Golden Dawn.
Excellent that you'll soon have The Logic of Sense book. There's only so much I can put in the videos trying to keep the length of them down. Reading the book also alters consciousness, it is a grimoire. Reading "The Hunting of the Snark" along with the series of Esoteric Words I found to be quite mind expanding, etc. etc.
I don't think Carroll consciously put Qabalah in his children's stories nor do I think Crowley et al projected it on to him. Other people have seen Qabalah in it independent of Crowley. I call it invocational writing when things come in outside the writer's consciousness. Joyce seems a great example of that, but so does RAW. Carroll was a member of the Society for Psychical Research so would have had an open mind. I also don't think Carroll consciously put in all the Stoic philosophy Deleuze finds there. I wrote an essay that elaborates invocational Qabalah:
oz-mix.blogspot.com/2011/07/invocational-qabalah.html
@@ozfritz539 The essay looks great, can't wait to read it! I did not know Carroll was a member of the Society of Psychical Research, that's really neat! (I also didn't know about the Mathers-Bergson-Proust connection. Which novel are you referring to? I've only read "Swann's Way."
@@Ilmarienfeynman It's at the very end of "Within A Budding Grove," the second volume of "In Search of Lost Time." It reminded me of the Golden Dawn the first time I read it.
Nice, thanks. I agree, a video like this was needed, I hope you'll follow up
Thank-you. Yes, I plan to have a video for all the series. I'm up to Series 26 on Language which I'm about to post.
@@ozfritz539 great :)
Great Stuff OZ!
You wouldn't happen to be related to John Malkovich are you?
Love the video!
No, I'm not , but I've heard that before.
In Logic of sense Deleuze is not explaining how things come to existence but how sense is generated (sense genesis). Sense is not a thing, it is incorporeal, and since language is insuficient, he explores the methapysical and psycoanalitical genesis and structure of sense. In Diference and Repetition it might be acceptable the argument that he is trying to explain how things come to existence. More, the book is not divided in paradoxes but SERIES! and that is different, why? series operate in structure where 2 or more series are interrelated and in interrelation and in some cases there is a paradoxe. Anyway congratulations, u are already a legend bcs this mf is hard to understand and this type of content is good content and rare.
Non existent entity is right out of the stoics. Incorporeal realities. For the stoics everything is real but does not necessarily exist. Being an entity doesn’t imply life. Not sure where you pulled that from. Pretty crazy presupposition though.
Hylozoism represents the doctrine that everything is alive whether organic or not. I'm not sure where I originally got it from either. Could have been Heraclitus, Spinoza, Taoism or perhaps somewhere else. The last sentence on the Wikipedia page for Hylozoism reads: "The metaphysics of Gilles Deleuze has been described as a form of hylozoism." You can go to the page and find the citation for that "crazy pre-supposition."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hylozoism
Playback at x1.5.
Grow up
@@MatauReviews How tetchy of you! I find it very useful to accelerate the pace on various videos, and I appreciate being notified when it’s appropriate by others who have done the same. It’s pretty presumptuous of you to think it’s a criticism. Don’t be a dick.
@@Anabsurdsuggestion I’m criticizing YOU for doing something like this. But I’m glad you and the other amphetamine-addled children can find each other in the comments. But I don’t care that badly. Do what you will, I just find it insufferable in any context to watch something at double speed or even 1.5. Like it’s a TikTok compilation or a Netflix original or any other algorithmic slop you wanna name. It is disrespectful to me but fair enough. It’s not a criticism to suggest that something is too slow and meandering or that someone speaks too slowly for your liking so adjusting the Playback Speed will be necessary. Okay! Sorry I was ornery. Hope you have a good day
Your French probably would not have been up to the task. | dəlœz / fontəne: | 𝕹𝖎𝖊𝖙𝖟𝖘𝖈𝖍𝖊, ə not i ||
You Americans can't bother to do the extra quarter hour of research to get the names right. 😅
Thank-you for commenting and pointing out my mispronunciation. Pardon my non-French. My French or lack thereof has nothing to do with the task.