Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Updated Tibee Analysis
Updated Tibee Analysis
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
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
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”