u/esoskelly

Hello All,

First off, I should note that I do not read german, so cannot speak to the original text of Being and Time. But I have read the Macquarrie and Robinson english translation several times, and always had to skip over several sections in division one because I simply could not disentangle them.

The Welch translation, while by no means "easy," at least renders many obscure d1 concepts somewhat comprehensible. The spatiality section in particular had always been a major sticking point. As was the de-structuring of Cartesian metaphysics. But now, I am getting traction. This new translation is really revolutionary for me. I am moving slowly, but at long last feel as though I can clearly understand what's going on with enough effort.

The Macquarrie and Robinson translation felt like a pitch-black labyrinth by comparison. I always ended up "feeling" my way through it, and inevitably got lost. I have very little experience with the Stambaugh translation, which seems decent as well, but I've never been through it all the way.

Has anyone had a similar experience with the Welch translation? Anyone beg to differ? Can anyone compare the Welch Translation to the Stambaugh translation?

Thanks for taking time to read this!

Hello Pynchonites!

I'm a bit new to this, currently working on Gravity's Rainbow, having already read a decent chunk of V. It's quite a rabbit hole figuring out what's going on, a stimulating project to say the least. I also read conspiracy theory (and a lot of philosophy) as a hobby. I think it's safe to discuss this, as most of the risque subject matter that Pynchon discussed is de-classified or common knowledge by now.

Thomas Pynchon seems to have been very interested in conspiracy theory, as his books often mention themes that were tightly related to real-life conspiracies. I won't go into too much detail here, as it is easy to look up for yourself if you are truly interested.

But then, there are also conspiracy theories about Pynchon himself. He was clearly a mysterious figure, as there is very little easily-accessible biographical information about him. Peter Moon has written a bit about this, but the theories seem like a bit of a stretch. Moon seems to think that Pynchon's work was intended as a kind of "inside joke" for a really specific community, and absurdist humor for everyone else.

I have a couple questions on this front: (1) was Pynchon intentionally creating an atmosphere of intrigue around himself, or were there legitimate reasons for his mysteriousness?; and (2) did the "secret" theories he hinted at throughout his books reveal information that, at the time, *was not accessible to the general public*?

Addendum: Has anyone really dug into these questions? Is there any really substantive research into Pynchon's biography? Do his books have significance beyond a literary exercise? Of course there's a lot of goofy, knee-slapping fun in his books. But there's also a lot that is *dead serious.*

I tend to find that the goofy stuff is an irritating distraction from the more serious content. But clearly, Pynchon is writing for a kind of "esoteric" pop culture. Some of us are looking for hidden meanings. But a lot of people are just here for the lulz. And maybe the lulz are the whole point. I'm confused, and don't even remember what I was supposed to be asking about. Help?

Thanks for your time.

Is Hegel's system dependent on the universality of Euclidean geometry? That is, that there are certain axioms that define with finality what forms infinite space can take?

This would be consistent with Kantian metaphysics, which used Euclidean geometry as proof of the efficacy of synthetic reasoning. That is, Euclidean geometry is proof of reasoning that applies both to Concepts and Intuitions.

In Hegel's work, this takes on a more Platonic flavor, where "bad" infinity is limited in concrete, definite ways by universally-valid postulates. The infinite is self-limiting, can only be folded up in a finite number of ways.

Now here's where I think I'm in over my head. Wouldn't Fractal and other Non-Euclidean geometries disprove such a position? That is, they make geometry appear to be a localized, relational phenomenon. I don't understand Non-Euclidean geometry (or Chaos Theory) well enough to say for sure, but it would seem that, at minimum, these frameworks interrupt the alleged finality of Euclidean systems.

Am I missing something here? Can someone tell me if I am completely off-base? Admittedly, I have very little knowledge of mathematical theory. But my vague understanding of these concepts suggests that they might upend traditional metaphysics (including those of Hegel). Who wants to help set me straight?

Hiya All,

I'm curious whether any of the Fraters/Sorors have caught wind of a new edition of that weird, brilliant, bumbling classick, Magick Without Tears...?

As we all know, there's nothing quite like it. Crowley's other works are important in their own right, but arguably Magick Without Tears is his major contribution to the Occultist community in general. Yet, as we are also aware, this book has not been officially published for a long time.

The latest full, semi-official edition was published by New Falcon. That book was not designed to last for decades. The binding is glued, even (woe is my wallet!) in the hardcover edition. Even if one is lucky enough to find a copy with the binding intact, there is a constant risk of breakage.

Since then, there have been a few cheap, shorter unofficial print on demand editions - editions that do not befit the offbeat grandeur of the text itself. It looks like there was new hardcover edition on the cusp of publication last year, before this was stopped in its tracks by (somewhat un-thelemic) intellectual property-type litigation.

With all of that in mind: (1) does anyone know if/when a new edition is going to be published; and (2) is there any legitimate reason why publication has been put off for so long? If I was in the OTO, I'd want to get this book out there. It could really help establish the organization's legitimacy.

The Theosophical Society published gorgeous editions of most of their classics. Why has the OTO dragged its feet on one of Crowley's major crowning achievements?

Hello,

I have loved this particular Jonas Munk song ("Schelling") for many years. It seems like a very particular style of music, which I would expect that there would be more of, but I am having a very hard time identifying it.

The only remotely similar music I've been able to find is Mother Mallard's Portable Masterpiece Co., and certain songs by Oneohtrix Point Never (such as "Russian Mind").

Are there other similar albums? Is there an actual articulable genre for this type of music? Can someone fill me in?

Amy Klobuchar is extremely unpopular with a large segment of the voting public in Minnesota. I'd venture to say that no progressive or leftist is excited about her. And many are outspokenly opposed to her.

And those who she is popular with seem to like her in a "pragmatic" way. They like her because they think she will win, not because they especially like her policies or persona. Personally, I don't think we should assume she will win.

Is she really going to run with no meaningful opposition in the primaries? Is no one going to step up to the plate? Why is this?

Edit: I'm drowning in pro-Amy comments here, many of which are telling me not to listen to reddit. Very confused by this.

Edit #2: If you support the sentiment of this post, I'd encourage you to make your own post. The comments section here is totally choked out by pro-Klobuchar people. There isn't much room for meaningful discussion like I'd hoped.