Lacanian Analysis of Youtube Influencer Tibee MIT, 5 eyes, and Finance protege 1

Reading Newton's Principia Mathematica

by candlelight
175,695 views
•Jun 17, 2019
8.1K 213 Share
Save

Tibees
336K subscribers
Isaac Newton's Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (Principia Mathematica),
originally published in 1687. This is a reading of the first section (definitions and laws of
motion). Newton's laws (at 36:23) and the definitions at the beginning are somewhat
understandable but the rest of the passage is mostly incomprehensible. My video reviewing
the Principia: https://youtu.be/1KA9z4J0d4E In the latter half of the video, only the
corollaries are read out and not their explanations which were often very visual and didn't
make sense to listen to. There is also a small section about absolute motion from the first
scholium which is missing. Translated to English by Andrew Motte (1729) and revised by
Florian Cajori (1947). 💌 Your invitation to subscribe to my channel:
https://www.youtube.com/user/tibees?s... Other videos of mine that you might enjoy: 📕
MIT Astrophysics exam: https://youtu.be/v1IgfeYSM5U ⏳ America's Toughest Math
Exam: https://youtu.be/u03ST3ho9OU 🍪 Baking ancient Mathematics:
https://youtu.be/CoVTAAQ41Eg 👕 Tibees Klein Bottle Kitty shirt:
https://crowdmade.com/products/tibees... social media: Twitter: @TobyHendy Instagram:
@tibees_ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Tibees

1,196 Comments

Add a public comment...

Pinned by Tibees

Tibees

9 months ago
Newton's laws (at 36:23) and the definitions at the beginning are somewhat understandable
but the rest of the passage is mostly incomprehensible in my opinion. My video reviewing
the Principia: https://youtu.be/1KA9z4J0d4E
391
Lacanian Analysis of Youtube Influencer Tibee MIT, 5 eyes, and Finance protege 2

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

Another appreciative thing to measure would be, as Tibee squeezes the trigger she had
implanted in her vocal chords, unbeknown to the flesh that was to receive an order from the
mainframe generating (s.2 * n) = n >1, sorry long detour the pressure that is manifested as
Tibee invests a not inconsiderable degree of pressure upon her fingers to make sure that "I
wuv you Bob Ross" is brought into existance.

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 1 second ago

Ok, tibee. Sorry, I am practicing playing my guitar so I may contribute to culture in the
appearance of the self-presentation of the misrecognition of the master of
telecommunications. So, we have an expression we will denote by the letter "s", and "s" =
"I wuv you Bob Ross" (gently applying pressure upon the vocal chords so that we may
unconsciously appeal to the most endearing of childhood memories). Now, what it looks
like to me is that "s" = a branching issue. Now, "s" = either-or. Either "s.1" the latter state
of misrecognition tibee wants to be in must be lodged as the unforgiving slug-in-the-
temple, Zeno´s clock, or, "s.2" Tibee will not want the other to legitimize said degree of
retroactivization. Now, there is a sort of imbalance given the type of MIT structure one is
confronted with. That being the case the infinitely infinitesimally small fluxions are
gasping away at s.2 mercilessly out of existence as, let us call the "either-or" disjunction
"alpha", as alpha approaches negative phi, or, zero at a rate of (s.2 * n) > 1. The degree of
the unlikelihood that tibee will select s.2 is at the level of quantum mesurements (the radius
of said particles). Well, ok. I hope that you are feeling great as you help Trump keep us
safe.

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 9 minutes ago

Ok, kinda continuing with the exercise. I think it will be a better investment of my tax
dollars. Ok, let us call the following expression p. p = (this is fictional tibee not real tibee)
"Ohh, so you want me to treat you like an object then?" The answer, we will denote the
answer by the letter "q". So, q = "no, that would be exploitative". We have p and q as a
possibility or p or (inclusive, or, inclusive to exclude the exclusive) q. What should "r" look
like?

Gonzalo Ivan Gil 54 minutes ago

Watching it and thinking about all the other mechanics he inspired. I offered some
measurable variables. What about this. How to measure the following (contradiction as an
implosion of the following, or, contradiction as the truth of the concept). I will use your
name as the name of the subject to which this applies because no other name comes to
mind: "Why do you think the inanimate object you insist exists does not exist as a real
object" or refuses to exist as such. I often wonder how it must be like at MIT so close to so
many weapons, and the atmosphere of constantly giving orders as if some other type of
social relation has dissolved. A new air some kind of new realm of freedom must find itself
Lacanian Analysis of Youtube Influencer Tibee MIT, 5 eyes, and Finance protege 3

welcome into the lungs of the new students. They must have felt as if they have been
delivered from some weight, or, some kind of obstacle. Their minds, after the clearing,
opened up to new vistas. I wonder how it would be like to go through that, and then have to
step outside, and deal with all the strange demands people insist upon as they pretend they
have the appropriate social means with which to interact.

Ok, continuing where we left off. By now there is a telecommunicational quantum satellite use of a
particular signifier as you find yourself in antagonism with the standards to whom you wanted to
cheat out of obedience/identification/duty to not let the fiction have its way with you. In this day
and age the use of 12,000 NATO quantum satellites (I am sure you are more than acquainted with
them: see wsws.org, or, Global Intelligence Today by Zed books) would be communicating, digital
bathing as the Deftones will not tire to remind you, a particular signifier. Let us say that in this case
they are using the “Humiliation”. The latter, your trust worthy pentagon friends, will be mobilizing
logistically with other youtube friends, the Tibee army etc, in order to remind you of the a <> $
antagonism. The latter to make sure to help you understand that Hegel´s sense-certainty and the
rationalists are empirically proven false. After making sure you use the “a lozenge” in order to
guide you in your relation with the world (You may loop back to my “speculations” of MIT
students, the air they breath, the weight they are relieved of (See Lacan on the ego on this:
Seminar Ten perhaps, or, Eidelzsteins´ “Otro Lacan”) you will be presented with another branching
tree issue. And, in this instance as well, the very asymmetrical antagonism will present itself in a
number of ways.

The first will be between the antagonism itself, let us call it the empty universal “x”, with itself
leading to particularizing itself into “Acess to the truth of what has taken place: implies an
epistemological gain. Or dialectically shiting towards such”, or, preserving, canceling, and elevating
the following particularization, the second one, of the initial antagonism: “Opt for the fantasy to
be lodged at the foundation of your unconscious (Lacan´s sexuation formulae), and once
reinforced in place, displace to misrecognize where it came from. The latter has a 99.99999999%
of being the case. The former 0,0000000000….1 of being the case (the radius of some quantum
particle or another). Since the second options will be the case, given you are an MIT student, you
will be assured to be further removed from the fiction that you are, in no uncertain terms, sure
that is characterized by two things: It is a fiction (it is the case that it is false), and two “Fuck it, it
will not get away with it. You aint going out like that”