He implies that the bluer bowerbird preceded the evolution of the more expressive bowerbird. Do we know that hereditary expressiveness is more primitive than deliberate expressiveness? If not, than maybe humans are no more expressive than animals, its just that ours is more voluntary, which leads to greater indiduality.
the not human is still described within patriarchal terms: the "other", the bird, is spoken from a male perspective. before looking at "not humans" look at the humans that were cancelled from cultural history
Many powerful ideas come from people who aren't at the top of the ivory tower. In fact, I wonder if there are some advantages to having stayed closer to the ground: less specialization, less devotion to one particular model or interpretation, less 'psychology of previous investment'.
It should also be noted that a substantial number of people with Ph.Ds have some pretty dumb ideas, too...
The way this guy is explaining Deleuze is strikingly similar to these fluttery integral movement advocates. As I see it this is nothing more than some new age 'intellectualization' of unscientific delirium. Are we so weak of a species that at the mere thought of engaging this void of reality, we must create new Gods in the form of 'universal consciousness'?
Am I interpreting this all wrong? If so, could someone please illustrate any tangible arguments which Deleuze presents?
It seems, interestingly enough that some people are understanding this in reverse! Deleuze is trying to be radically anti humanist not simply ascribing a human form of conciousness to animals. What he seems to me to be saying here is that by studying the nature and structure of conciousness, of expressivity etc we can than lead ourselves out of the limitations of a simple humanism by realising that these structures do not just apply to a narrow human subject.
..MMm I definately disagree. I am more of the opinion that The way this guy is explaining Deleuze is strikingly similar to these fluttery integral movement advocates. As I see it this is nothing more than some new age 'intellectualization' of unscientific delirium. Are we so weak of a species that at the mere thought of engaging this void of reality, we must create new Gods in the form of 'universal consciousness'? Am I interpreting this all wrong? I
Such a lowbrow comment shows a lack of a real argument. But I suppose a "substantial" argument such as making a mockery of man based upon his credentials will do.
Nucleotides stand for more than one protein, or at least don't correspond on a one to one basis. He may have just been saying that to simplify for his audience, but I figure I ought to point that out.
de nada, compartilo con los colegas y suscribi tu cuenta a la de EGS para que te enteres cada dia de las cosas nuevas que estamos poniendo en youtube viene muchas mas de la sesion de clases que comienza la proxima semana.
He implies that the bluer bowerbird preceded the evolution of the more expressive bowerbird. Do we know that hereditary expressiveness is more primitive than deliberate expressiveness? If not, than maybe humans are no more expressive than animals, its just that ours is more voluntary, which leads to greater indiduality.
coreolis7 3 months ago
the not human is still described within patriarchal terms: the "other", the bird, is spoken from a male perspective. before looking at "not humans" look at the humans that were cancelled from cultural history
TVCyborg 7 months ago
Many powerful ideas come from people who aren't at the top of the ivory tower. In fact, I wonder if there are some advantages to having stayed closer to the ground: less specialization, less devotion to one particular model or interpretation, less 'psychology of previous investment'.
It should also be noted that a substantial number of people with Ph.Ds have some pretty dumb ideas, too...
shantih433 10 months ago
go Manuel - great stuff about expressivity!
ottoimken 2 years ago
N den i shot the bird
HAHAHHAH YESSS
mahyarmohaghegh 2 years ago
My favorite part of this video is when the students gasp and giggle when they hear about the Bower bird.
heffmarg 2 years ago
rereading the history of science, as the most of have thought does not imply some sort of metaphysical conclusions 9gildedtermite for example)
ultrak0w 2 years ago
This guy is a long way from anywhere... to be nice.
QUIETEXPECTATIONS 2 years ago
He goes away of really thought by Deleuze....seems to me.....but, sorry am not english......
Help to translate Abécédaire in english please!!!
Monada3 2 years ago
your diagnosis of 'unscientific delirium' appears alarmingly 'unscientific' wouldn't you say?
SleepDee 2 years ago
great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
claitontesch 2 years ago
The way this guy is explaining Deleuze is strikingly similar to these fluttery integral movement advocates. As I see it this is nothing more than some new age 'intellectualization' of unscientific delirium. Are we so weak of a species that at the mere thought of engaging this void of reality, we must create new Gods in the form of 'universal consciousness'?
Am I interpreting this all wrong? If so, could someone please illustrate any tangible arguments which Deleuze presents?
GildedTermite 3 years ago
It seems, interestingly enough that some people are understanding this in reverse! Deleuze is trying to be radically anti humanist not simply ascribing a human form of conciousness to animals. What he seems to me to be saying here is that by studying the nature and structure of conciousness, of expressivity etc we can than lead ourselves out of the limitations of a simple humanism by realising that these structures do not just apply to a narrow human subject.
protEAsE2 3 years ago 6
..MMm I definately disagree. I am more of the opinion that The way this guy is explaining Deleuze is strikingly similar to these fluttery integral movement advocates. As I see it this is nothing more than some new age 'intellectualization' of unscientific delirium. Are we so weak of a species that at the mere thought of engaging this void of reality, we must create new Gods in the form of 'universal consciousness'? Am I interpreting this all wrong? I
shakeyourdimsims 2 years ago
Is this just a part of this new age philosophy of 'everything is living, ergo conscious'?
GildedTermite 3 years ago
he calls himself a "street philosopher"??
maybe because he only has an undergrad art degree?
StopTouchingMyFood 3 years ago 3
catty much?
plutoohno 3 years ago
you, my friend, are a dick, but i lqtm'd. good show, golf clap.
defdeezy 3 years ago
Such a lowbrow comment shows a lack of a real argument. But I suppose a "substantial" argument such as making a mockery of man based upon his credentials will do.
PallaAurinkoon 2 years ago
@StopTouchingMyFood
I am not convinced that having "only" one level of post secondary degree is any measure of the worth of ones thoughts
rjgignac 1 year ago 8
Nucleotides stand for more than one protein, or at least don't correspond on a one to one basis. He may have just been saying that to simplify for his audience, but I figure I ought to point that out.
comradepinko 3 years ago
de nada, compartilo con los colegas y suscribi tu cuenta a la de EGS para que te enteres cada dia de las cosas nuevas que estamos poniendo en youtube viene muchas mas de la sesion de clases que comienza la proxima semana.
egsvideo 4 years ago
Que maravilla!!!Gracias EGS....
albertomunoz1 4 years ago