“A philosophical system is therefore a plane on which a collection of philosophical concepts can coherently coexist: a plane of consistency, or plane of immanence.”
“Deleuze presents this account in What is Philosophy? by noting that the plane of immanence is “a section of chaos” (WP 42); that which is outside of our conceptual schemata, and which escapes all rational consistency.”
“Talking about Ideas, Deleuze claims that each Idea is like a conic section (DR 187). If we take a three-dimensional cone and cut it along a two-dimensional plane, then depending on the angle of the plane to the cone, we will obtain a different curve. If we take a section that is parallel to the cone, we will have a circle. Cutting the cone at a more skewed angle will give us an ellipse, then a parabola, and finally a hyperbola. Each of these planes is whole, in that it contains a whole curve, but yet it is not complete, as it is only a section of the cone. Likewise, the singular points of each curve (where the curve meets infinity , where the gradient of the curve = 0) differ, but nonetheless all derive from the structure of the cone itself. Different philosophical systems are in the same manner objective presentations of the world that nonetheless are incommensurate with one another, each presenting a another, each presenting a perspective on chaos while leaving open the possibility of other perspectives. There is, for Deleuze, no possibility of a system that would reconcile all of these different planes in a grand Hegelian synthesis.” -(2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 7). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Here we get Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guattarri (relevance to the post-structuralist and post-modern movement. It comes down to a simple and perfectly accessible point:
There is something about reality that always transcends the language we use to describe it.
And if you think about it in terms of the arts, this movement seems almost inevitable. If you go back to Shakespeare and his classical influences, you see the idealization of language and context (his focus on the on the elite (in order to achieve an effect. Of course, at the time, the way people actually spoke was likely nowhere near as ideal as the language of Shakespeare’s plays –which is what probably what made them so appealing. Then Henrik Ibsen came along and took it down from the royal elite and brought it down to the level of the bourgeoisie middle class. And while this seemed like a step forward, it still had the feeling of the idealized as compared to the reality that people were actually experiencing. This is what eventually led to Tennessee Williams and his description of the life of the poor, but that still resorted to an idealized poetic language.
(And put in mind here that in the midst of all this we had Robert Frost who, despite his own neo-classicism, attempted to move poetry from the ideal resonance of Shakespeare’s day to the resonance of the plain spoken(
And we have seen as much in the last couple of generations. Compare, for instance, 2 movies made about D-day: The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. In The Longest Day (aside from a clear lack of the technology of Saving Private Ryan (there was a problem with the dialogue: namely it’s dependency on speechmaking. In other words, the problem with it was not just the technology they had at the time; it was also an issue of a developing sensibility. And you see that problem of sensibility in the stilted dialogue of pretty much every movie before…. well now.
But there is still work to be done. If you look at Saving Private Ryan, you will note a kind of adolescent fascination in Spielberg in that he seemed perfectly comfortable when his actors were in battle or engaged in masculine banter. But the whole thing seemed to stall when it came to the more personal moments: the monologues such as when Giovanni Ribisi was talking about his mother or Matt Damon was talking about his last memory of his brothers.
The point is that our whole cultural history has been a story of how we have dealt with the desire to make the language we use to describe reality a little more like reality itself.
Of course, this is a doomed project. In this sense, we can see why the non-classicist approach emerged such as that of the surrealists, avante garde, and the abstract expressionists in art, and the post-structuralists and post-modernists in theory. The idea was that if language can never truly reflect reality, why not play with it so that it can at least approach it.
And it is in this context that I would argue the import of Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri (at a personal/creative level and Rorty as a social extension (via dialogue (and Zizek in terms of his technique: a kind of intellectual bricolage. The 3 of them, to me, through their materialism, accelerate the evolutionary process of brain plasticity which has been the physical basis of our evolution as a culture.
Postcards:
Re: Postcards:
"I don't agree with Rand's intellectual vacuity and conceptual simple-mindedness, she basically uses a shallow image of philosophy and thought as a means to political realization and war- but I like that instinct of warfare in her, and she is indeed "on the right track" when it comes to value and the self. On the issue of love she both hits and misses it; yes love is as she says, but it is also what she says it is not, or is more than she is able to credit. In the best light she can be accused of throwing the baby out with the bath water- in reality I think she simply met the limit of her potential for some reason, perhaps consequently of a relationship or personal or money crisis, possibly also due to some hidden shame, and decided to arrest her intellect at a certain position that, in particular given her soviet experiences, was useful and self-validating for her.
She was a warrior and a novelist, and so had little need for understanding "for its own sake". All in all she is good to read from a certain perspective although her flaws and gaps can be tedious and distracting. Anyway it would have been fun to engage her in conversation, especially if you could get her drinking. I seriously think she lacked anything like what we have here, a true philosophical communion, and also probably became involved with fame and other famous people too soon. From all I've seen fame is the fastest route to ruin.
Regardless of her ideas The Fountainhead is a good novel, although the rest of her fiction not so much. Her philosophy is only able to captivate certain youthful minds, though; that doesn't mean we cannot appreciate the ways in which that thought of hers does cultivate here and there something beyond gross error, of course.
And she was quite a bit more honest and "human" than so many of the "intellectuals" of hers and our own time, despite - perhaps because of - the glaringness, the humanness of her errors."
Actually, this makes some really good points -that is going by the criteria of a balanced perspective. Touche!!!! I’m sorry I didn’t catch it earlier in that gives me a better sense of “the other side” by warranting trust. In this case, and the previous one, I’m not getting the feel of being beat over the head with it as I did with the movie version of Atlas Shrugged. That said, I want to make a few final points on the subject of Rand so that, hopefully, I can get back to my focus on Deleuze tomorrow.
Ultimately, my issue with Rand is a practical one. I might even say that it is a pragmatic one in that it goes to Rorty’s truly pragmatic motto:
Take care of Freedom, and the truth will take care of itself.
At some point or other, we have to step out of theory and address real world concerns with real world solutions. And right now, our real world concern is with the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global producer/consumer Capitalism that is eroding our democracies and threatens our existence through the depletion of our natural resources and our possible extinction through man-made climate change. And granted: Rand may partially deal with this through her disdain for monopolies. But this seems based on a nostalgic (a kind of fancy (longing for the Capitalism of Adam Smith: that based on shopkeepers, artisans, craftsmen, and family farms –that which may well have fulfilled the very same needs as Marx’s Communism.
But that is not where we’re at thanks to a growing population and the mass production required to take care of its needs. In that sense, Rand may well be (since she could not have anticipated the emergence of what Robert Reich refers to as SuperCapitalism (in the same boat as Smith and Marx in that all three could not have foreseen future developments and all three were working from bad assumptions about how human nature would play into it: that being that if humans found the happiness they assumed they would, they would fall into place. But then we assumed as much with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in that we thought that cramming democracy down their throats would cause it to spontaneously take off in the Middle East.
So much for grand narratives.
And therein lays my issue with Rand in that she saw (because of the reactionary response to her experiences in Russia (Capitalism as a Grand Narrative and government as the only problem. This makes it a pragmatic issue for me in that the biggest threat to our freedom is the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of producer/consumer Capitalism –whether it was the Capitalism Rand was pimping or not. I believe that the only way to deal with this is through an expansion of the public economy (through public transport, city planning that houses people close to their place of employ, offering necessary goods without a consideration of profit or CEO bonuses (the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that (and in general the government offering of goods and services without the added expense (the added exchange value as compared to the actual buying power created by it (of profit seeking behaviors (that would work alongside the workings of the market.
It just seems to me that true freedom must act outside of our role as producer/consumers. And that must, by definition, include government intervention in the economy. And Rand (whether through her own arguments or those of her advocates (has shown herself to be a major obstacle (via her grand narrative (to that goal.
She was a warrior and a novelist, and so had little need for understanding "for its own sake". All in all she is good to read from a certain perspective although her flaws and gaps can be tedious and distracting. Anyway it would have been fun to engage her in conversation, especially if you could get her drinking. I seriously think she lacked anything like what we have here, a true philosophical communion, and also probably became involved with fame and other famous people too soon. From all I've seen fame is the fastest route to ruin.
Regardless of her ideas The Fountainhead is a good novel, although the rest of her fiction not so much. Her philosophy is only able to captivate certain youthful minds, though; that doesn't mean we cannot appreciate the ways in which that thought of hers does cultivate here and there something beyond gross error, of course.
And she was quite a bit more honest and "human" than so many of the "intellectuals" of hers and our own time, despite - perhaps because of - the glaringness, the humanness of her errors."
Actually, this makes some really good points -that is going by the criteria of a balanced perspective. Touche!!!! I’m sorry I didn’t catch it earlier in that gives me a better sense of “the other side” by warranting trust. In this case, and the previous one, I’m not getting the feel of being beat over the head with it as I did with the movie version of Atlas Shrugged. That said, I want to make a few final points on the subject of Rand so that, hopefully, I can get back to my focus on Deleuze tomorrow.
Ultimately, my issue with Rand is a practical one. I might even say that it is a pragmatic one in that it goes to Rorty’s truly pragmatic motto:
Take care of Freedom, and the truth will take care of itself.
At some point or other, we have to step out of theory and address real world concerns with real world solutions. And right now, our real world concern is with the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global producer/consumer Capitalism that is eroding our democracies and threatens our existence through the depletion of our natural resources and our possible extinction through man-made climate change. And granted: Rand may partially deal with this through her disdain for monopolies. But this seems based on a nostalgic (a kind of fancy (longing for the Capitalism of Adam Smith: that based on shopkeepers, artisans, craftsmen, and family farms –that which may well have fulfilled the very same needs as Marx’s Communism.
But that is not where we’re at thanks to a growing population and the mass production required to take care of its needs. In that sense, Rand may well be (since she could not have anticipated the emergence of what Robert Reich refers to as SuperCapitalism (in the same boat as Smith and Marx in that all three could not have foreseen future developments and all three were working from bad assumptions about how human nature would play into it: that being that if humans found the happiness they assumed they would, they would fall into place. But then we assumed as much with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in that we thought that cramming democracy down their throats would cause it to spontaneously take off in the Middle East.
So much for grand narratives.
And therein lays my issue with Rand in that she saw (because of the reactionary response to her experiences in Russia (Capitalism as a Grand Narrative and government as the only problem. This makes it a pragmatic issue for me in that the biggest threat to our freedom is the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of producer/consumer Capitalism –whether it was the Capitalism Rand was pimping or not. I believe that the only way to deal with this is through an expansion of the public economy (through public transport, city planning that houses people close to their place of employ, offering necessary goods without a consideration of profit or CEO bonuses (the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that (and in general the government offering of goods and services without the added expense (the added exchange value as compared to the actual buying power created by it (of profit seeking behaviors (that would work alongside the workings of the market.
It just seems to me that true freedom must act outside of our role as producer/consumers. And that must, by definition, include government intervention in the economy. And Rand (whether through her own arguments or those of her advocates (has shown herself to be a major obstacle (via her grand narrative (to that goal.
Re: Postcards:
First of all, some good writing as always. Secondly, Thanks for giving me my around 500 words project for today. And lastly, I am having a really shitty day (much of which I attribute to Capitalism and the money grubbing goons that run it. So if I come off as a little nasty (not knowing what will follow every word I type (I apologize ahead of time. I mainly want to start with this point:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing. Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this. “
At this point I would like to deal specifically with your second point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings.”
Now isn’t that the exact same thing that Capitalism does? I mean we need look no further than the natural cheer squad of Capitalism: the economists. What else would they cheer for (even the ones I like: Krugman or Reich (but Capitalism given the dynamic system it is and their need to prove themselves to be engaging in science. In a market economy there are all these complex interactions by a multiplicity of players (who are assumed to be rational (that which, as you put it, gives privilege to the symbol and sign over the well being of the “individual entity” (while in a command economy, the leader sees that people don’t have enough bread and orders that more bread be made –not much for economists to do there. This is why we can easily see more liberal economists going Keynesian (the mixed economy (while recognizing that any argument for a fully command economy would be career suicide. This is because in order for an economist to be justified as a scientist, they must be able to claim to find predictability in an unstable system. And this means that Capitalism must resort to the VERY same abstractions and generalizations that you accuse Marx and Zizek of.
And I’m a little confused by what you mean (by what criteria you are working from (when you refer to them as a little bit crazy. Are you referring to the same criteria by which our healthcare systems determine those who don’t fit into or come near the ideal producer/consumer as mentally unfit?
And what kind of bothers me about this is that you and your ally, as apologists for Rand, are basing your arguments on what I don’t understand about Rand. Fair enough. But then you offer me the very same understanding I have of her framed in a different way. Let me articulate. You started your point with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
Basically a positive review of Capitalism which you then followed with a negative point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this.”
I could almost hear a nervous and condescending chuckle after –like I’m being played or something. But let me ask you something: how different is this than my original understanding of Rand’s message: that the only system under which we can achieve our higher selves (of self valuing (is Capitalism?
But allow me to turn your prized concept to Marx and recognize the self valuing at the core of his project as well as that of Zizek and social democrats like myself. Allow me to describe Marx, yet again, in a novel and historically accurate way: he was a man who found what he loved to do (his self valuing: what justified his point A to point B (who wanted others to experience what he had and saw Capitalism (the petty and mundane bullshit it can pile on you everyday (as an obstacle to, as you call it: self valuing. And he loved it enough (his self valuing (to sacrifice all normal creature comforts and live in poverty while watching his children die.
Trust me: neither Rand nor Capitalism nor whatever radical solution you’re pimping has a monopoly on self valuing.
Reference: http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop ... 1867#p1867
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing. Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this. “
At this point I would like to deal specifically with your second point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings.”
Now isn’t that the exact same thing that Capitalism does? I mean we need look no further than the natural cheer squad of Capitalism: the economists. What else would they cheer for (even the ones I like: Krugman or Reich (but Capitalism given the dynamic system it is and their need to prove themselves to be engaging in science. In a market economy there are all these complex interactions by a multiplicity of players (who are assumed to be rational (that which, as you put it, gives privilege to the symbol and sign over the well being of the “individual entity” (while in a command economy, the leader sees that people don’t have enough bread and orders that more bread be made –not much for economists to do there. This is why we can easily see more liberal economists going Keynesian (the mixed economy (while recognizing that any argument for a fully command economy would be career suicide. This is because in order for an economist to be justified as a scientist, they must be able to claim to find predictability in an unstable system. And this means that Capitalism must resort to the VERY same abstractions and generalizations that you accuse Marx and Zizek of.
And I’m a little confused by what you mean (by what criteria you are working from (when you refer to them as a little bit crazy. Are you referring to the same criteria by which our healthcare systems determine those who don’t fit into or come near the ideal producer/consumer as mentally unfit?
And what kind of bothers me about this is that you and your ally, as apologists for Rand, are basing your arguments on what I don’t understand about Rand. Fair enough. But then you offer me the very same understanding I have of her framed in a different way. Let me articulate. You started your point with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
Basically a positive review of Capitalism which you then followed with a negative point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this.”
I could almost hear a nervous and condescending chuckle after –like I’m being played or something. But let me ask you something: how different is this than my original understanding of Rand’s message: that the only system under which we can achieve our higher selves (of self valuing (is Capitalism?
But allow me to turn your prized concept to Marx and recognize the self valuing at the core of his project as well as that of Zizek and social democrats like myself. Allow me to describe Marx, yet again, in a novel and historically accurate way: he was a man who found what he loved to do (his self valuing: what justified his point A to point B (who wanted others to experience what he had and saw Capitalism (the petty and mundane bullshit it can pile on you everyday (as an obstacle to, as you call it: self valuing. And he loved it enough (his self valuing (to sacrifice all normal creature comforts and live in poverty while watching his children die.
Trust me: neither Rand nor Capitalism nor whatever radical solution you’re pimping has a monopoly on self valuing.
Reference: http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop ... 1867#p1867
Re: Postcards:
“Good to see a VO [Value Ontology] analysis. Of course you are right. But this is not denied; but the question of how self-valuings behave is deeper, ore more 'wicked', tricky and 'Nietzschean' (devilish) than the question as Marx addressed it. "Capital" is too much an externalization of the problem,. The very problem is self-valuing, the fact that it has sharp edges.”
First of all, Perseus, your soothing tone comes to me at a good time in that it has soften the edges (and the possible intellectual outcomes (of what feels like a crisis period in my personal life. Truly, brother, I’m seeing angels and white-lights.
That said, the issue of self valuing (or what can also be loosely associated with self-interest (is a lot deeper than the old progressive tactic of pointing towards the status quo’s self interest. As you and Iona seem to be assuming: we are all (in fact it is evolutionarily programmed into us (self interested. I have long abandoned any romantic notion of my progressive and anti-Capitalist efforts as being purely altruistic. I am not a martyr. I am simply someone who sees it in his interest to work towards a system that looks out for the interests of others: the cooperative evolutionary model (our baser impulses working in league with our higher cognitive functions (as compared to the competitive (that which, in evolutionary terms, has gotten us to this point thus far: our baser impulses putting our higher cognitive functions in their service.
This is why I find myself in full agreement with Rand’s assertion that accusations of selfishness are often leveled by those who are acting out of their own selfishness.
Furthermore, I would tend to agree with your point:
"Capital" is too much an externalization of the problem,. The very problem is self-valuing, the fact that it has sharp edges.”
It was pretty much the point Iona was getting at with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
At first, Iona’s point seemed like a self contradiction in that it felt like they were saying Capitalism is not self valuing and then arguing that it was. It took me a few to make the distinction between Capitalism as self-valuing (what can be associated with self interest (and Capitalism as “sign and symbol” of self valuing.
And I would point out here that Zizek made a similar point (Iona? (in recognizing that Capitalism is not some concrete thing that we can just eliminate and take care of all our problems. It’s an ideology. And ideologies do nothing while people do –and all the time. As I have recognized for some time: there is nothing new about Capitalism; it comes down to a problem that has existed since the beginning of civilization and human interaction: that there has always been a handful of people who felt they deserve a little more than everyone else, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else.
In a sense, Perseus (and perhaps even Iona, your take on self-valuing (what I would argue to have a family resemblance to self-interest (is starting to feel like Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic complex and the individual acts of desiring production of which it is composed.
Reference:
http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/posting ... 20#preview
First of all, Perseus, your soothing tone comes to me at a good time in that it has soften the edges (and the possible intellectual outcomes (of what feels like a crisis period in my personal life. Truly, brother, I’m seeing angels and white-lights.
That said, the issue of self valuing (or what can also be loosely associated with self-interest (is a lot deeper than the old progressive tactic of pointing towards the status quo’s self interest. As you and Iona seem to be assuming: we are all (in fact it is evolutionarily programmed into us (self interested. I have long abandoned any romantic notion of my progressive and anti-Capitalist efforts as being purely altruistic. I am not a martyr. I am simply someone who sees it in his interest to work towards a system that looks out for the interests of others: the cooperative evolutionary model (our baser impulses working in league with our higher cognitive functions (as compared to the competitive (that which, in evolutionary terms, has gotten us to this point thus far: our baser impulses putting our higher cognitive functions in their service.
This is why I find myself in full agreement with Rand’s assertion that accusations of selfishness are often leveled by those who are acting out of their own selfishness.
Furthermore, I would tend to agree with your point:
"Capital" is too much an externalization of the problem,. The very problem is self-valuing, the fact that it has sharp edges.”
It was pretty much the point Iona was getting at with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
At first, Iona’s point seemed like a self contradiction in that it felt like they were saying Capitalism is not self valuing and then arguing that it was. It took me a few to make the distinction between Capitalism as self-valuing (what can be associated with self interest (and Capitalism as “sign and symbol” of self valuing.
And I would point out here that Zizek made a similar point (Iona? (in recognizing that Capitalism is not some concrete thing that we can just eliminate and take care of all our problems. It’s an ideology. And ideologies do nothing while people do –and all the time. As I have recognized for some time: there is nothing new about Capitalism; it comes down to a problem that has existed since the beginning of civilization and human interaction: that there has always been a handful of people who felt they deserve a little more than everyone else, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else.
In a sense, Perseus (and perhaps even Iona, your take on self-valuing (what I would argue to have a family resemblance to self-interest (is starting to feel like Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic complex and the individual acts of desiring production of which it is composed.
Reference:
http://www.humanarchy.net/forum/posting ... 20#preview
Re: Postcards:
First of all, Perseus, out of all of FC’s multiple personalities, I like you the best. You have this sincere humility about you that makes it fun disagreeing with you –probably because of your willingness to respect those that disagree with you. There have been very few people with which I have had such a privilege. And even Iona, despite their tendency to get frustrated and resort to jabs, is sincere enough about their process to resist going for my throat.
The cool thing about this is that even though I can feel the same Neo-Neitscheian gospel (what Raymond Tallis refers to as Darwinitus and Putman as Macho ethics (that I felt in KTS, this is a big evolutionary step up from Satyr punctuating every argument with “little girl” and Lyssa basically sticking her tits in my face and snarling:
“You can’t have them because you’re too much of a pussy.”
Still, as much as I’m enjoying the playful rough-housing, after this response, I really need to move on to other things: like my present study of Deleuze. Anyway:
“d63 - without wanting to sacrifice the light you perceive - and I am always well disposed to you - I see here the same error I see in Marx. You seem to work from the assumption that the will to power is an exception, existing only in humans of a lower quality. At the same time, you speak from the will to power. I.e. you condemn those who have power and use it in way as that you can not value, and define history as the process of people who you do value taking power away from those that you do not value. “
First of all, no one is denying the role that the will to power (a metaphysical notion that has passed the the pragmatic truth test of working: much as evolution has (is playing in people’s lives. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Marx was perfectly aware of the Will to Power at work in Capitalists. In fact, Marx’s whole argument centered around the power people have over their circumstances.
What we are dealing with here is a fundamental contradiction built into the neo-Neitzscheian/social Darwinist/Randian argument. It comes down to nihilistic pitfall of sociopathic, that which, having no real criteria by which to judge its actions, turns to the one criteria that almost seems to have a kind of praxis about it: that of power. This results in the rather circler argument:
“I have power because I am right. Therefore, I am right because I have power.”
And therein lies the contradiction of assuming that we should submit to greatness because it is the result of the Will to Power of the individual. I mean wouldn’t the same Will to Power (via self-valuing (be at work if those at lower levels pooled their power and put in check the power of that individual? Wouldn't socialism (or even communism (be as much an expression of The Will to Power as Capitalism?
And once again: how is the higher principle of worshipping greatness any less religious than worshipping the higher principle of a higher power? Why should I prostrate myself before greatness (and the wealth that comes with it (anymore than I should a god?
“The Marxian assumption is that people really are 'good' i.e. do not want power, but only want to share themselves with others, and consume only precisely what others can miss.”
Pretty much like the assumption that the benefactors of Capitalism will not use their power to manipulate government to their advantage, don’t you think? Like assuming that they will be so happy with the results of it that they will willingly play by the rules laid out by Smith –even when it works against their interests. Why do you think that Capitalists (quoting Rand like they would the bible (put so much effort into maintaining the distraction and illusion that government is the problem? I mean it’s not the government that runs the media. This is why everyone around you is so doped on the fashionable cynicism of acting like all politicians go into it with malignant intents (which is utter fucking nonsense (while the role that corporate lobbyists and big money is playing in it is getting a free pass. Like many lawyers (and despite the popular jokes about them (a lot of politicians are people, just like the rest of us, who go into it thinking they can beat the system and actually do some good –then find out it’s never that easy. We can’t even be sure if the electoral process is even real anymore or a modern version of Plato’s allegory of the cave: a puppet show put on (via media (to make us think we are participating in the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global Capitalism. I mean you really have to wonder about the way media comments on it like it was a sporting event (a kind of controlled randomness that must stay within certain perimeters (in the same upbeat way a weatherman can predict bad weather.
And do we not pay good money for the “experience” of participating in democracy on these boards?
The cool thing about this is that even though I can feel the same Neo-Neitscheian gospel (what Raymond Tallis refers to as Darwinitus and Putman as Macho ethics (that I felt in KTS, this is a big evolutionary step up from Satyr punctuating every argument with “little girl” and Lyssa basically sticking her tits in my face and snarling:
“You can’t have them because you’re too much of a pussy.”
Still, as much as I’m enjoying the playful rough-housing, after this response, I really need to move on to other things: like my present study of Deleuze. Anyway:
“d63 - without wanting to sacrifice the light you perceive - and I am always well disposed to you - I see here the same error I see in Marx. You seem to work from the assumption that the will to power is an exception, existing only in humans of a lower quality. At the same time, you speak from the will to power. I.e. you condemn those who have power and use it in way as that you can not value, and define history as the process of people who you do value taking power away from those that you do not value. “
First of all, no one is denying the role that the will to power (a metaphysical notion that has passed the the pragmatic truth test of working: much as evolution has (is playing in people’s lives. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Marx was perfectly aware of the Will to Power at work in Capitalists. In fact, Marx’s whole argument centered around the power people have over their circumstances.
What we are dealing with here is a fundamental contradiction built into the neo-Neitzscheian/social Darwinist/Randian argument. It comes down to nihilistic pitfall of sociopathic, that which, having no real criteria by which to judge its actions, turns to the one criteria that almost seems to have a kind of praxis about it: that of power. This results in the rather circler argument:
“I have power because I am right. Therefore, I am right because I have power.”
And therein lies the contradiction of assuming that we should submit to greatness because it is the result of the Will to Power of the individual. I mean wouldn’t the same Will to Power (via self-valuing (be at work if those at lower levels pooled their power and put in check the power of that individual? Wouldn't socialism (or even communism (be as much an expression of The Will to Power as Capitalism?
And once again: how is the higher principle of worshipping greatness any less religious than worshipping the higher principle of a higher power? Why should I prostrate myself before greatness (and the wealth that comes with it (anymore than I should a god?
“The Marxian assumption is that people really are 'good' i.e. do not want power, but only want to share themselves with others, and consume only precisely what others can miss.”
Pretty much like the assumption that the benefactors of Capitalism will not use their power to manipulate government to their advantage, don’t you think? Like assuming that they will be so happy with the results of it that they will willingly play by the rules laid out by Smith –even when it works against their interests. Why do you think that Capitalists (quoting Rand like they would the bible (put so much effort into maintaining the distraction and illusion that government is the problem? I mean it’s not the government that runs the media. This is why everyone around you is so doped on the fashionable cynicism of acting like all politicians go into it with malignant intents (which is utter fucking nonsense (while the role that corporate lobbyists and big money is playing in it is getting a free pass. Like many lawyers (and despite the popular jokes about them (a lot of politicians are people, just like the rest of us, who go into it thinking they can beat the system and actually do some good –then find out it’s never that easy. We can’t even be sure if the electoral process is even real anymore or a modern version of Plato’s allegory of the cave: a puppet show put on (via media (to make us think we are participating in the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global Capitalism. I mean you really have to wonder about the way media comments on it like it was a sporting event (a kind of controlled randomness that must stay within certain perimeters (in the same upbeat way a weatherman can predict bad weather.
And do we not pay good money for the “experience” of participating in democracy on these boards?
Re: Postcards:
“One if the main problems in "social-psychology" is the molecular-molar , micro-macro problem. While Nietzsche describes a top/ down microcosm (of kings, oligarchies), the molar (or the statistical (by stochastic processes (is structured by mean value (normalization) which defines its actual process. Nietzsche’s Building of Governments and Marxian economic laws, which act above us all [grand narratives] in the form of statistical laws, is where crisis and catastrophes occur -a bit like in Thom’s theory of Catastrophe. The makeup of the individual, describing the subjective experience, is a very complex process (Zarathustra goes alone into the wilderness and in into a cave). Culture and theory knows a lot about the complexities by which humans and society exist. Deleuze & Guattarri is thus cast into a minority status because of this complexity. Mathematics is complex as well; but it is dominated by other "Forces" gravitating towards a kind of mind/language based jargon. Officially, the little things between earth and sky "school wisdom does not dream of" are taken into account. But technically this mostly means: Copied, utilized, and adapted... the problem, not the solution.”
This, Harald, has been an on the spot translation highly susceptible to chance as well as my personal biases and agendas. I apologize if I am getting you wrong.
As I get it, you are basically arguing that theory basically participates in a kind of simulacrum that is implicit in the failures and exploitation of producer/consumer Capitalism. In this sense, while theory presumes to be working for the good of humanity, it is simply facilitating Capitalist values by seeming to know something that most people don’t.
To put it another way, we have to distinguish between theory and the more practical matter of everyday reality. As I have recently come to realize, we have to recognize that theory, for the most part, is mainly done for the sake of theory. It’s a form of play that may (through a kind trickledown effect (or may not have an effect on the lives of everyday people.
Consider, for instance, Deleuze and Guattarri’s assertion in What is Philosophy?, that philosophy is mainly a form of conceptual play with the main goal of creating yet more concepts. Now if you think about it, there is a kind of Bourgeoisie complacency in such an activity. It is simply done for the sake of doing it. Hence: the issue that many more political thinkers had with Deleuze. And this is not to say that there is no value in it since what is produced in the experimentation can still trickle down and have very practical effects on the everyday discourse.
Still, we have to make the distinction between theory and the practical in that theory, because of the imperative to sell itself, is always drawn to the radical purely for the sake of the radical. Its sense of value is always drawn to the novel. That’s what sells it. This, in turn, can result in a kind of theoretical overkill and overreach in which the theorist can make statements that seem to make sense to those who are trying to achieve the same intellectual level the theorist is at, but is ultimately superfluous to the more practical matter of everyday life. For instance: why would I need every worker in the world to read Das Kapital to know they’re being exploited? I haven’t even read it myself.
We see this same theoretical overkill and over-reach in the romantic pining of the basement overman: the Neo-Nietzschean gospel of the fearlessly fanciful ( who would sit in a environmentally controlled space, their faces blazing in the dim glow of their computer screen, typing odes to the good old days when men were men and their hope for a Mad Max-like post- apocalypse that will take us back where we need to be, and, in the pauses, raise their fist: tight, trembling, and ready for action.
In this, we see theory gone wrong as wrong can be. I mean I get it: such fancy can drive people to do more than what they normally would. Even Ayn Rand had value to that extent. Still, that does nothing to change the fact (and may the soul of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that every day, I see people suffering because our politicians are too busy kissing the ass of their country club buddies to do anything for us. And it doesn’t take a lot of theory to see that. In fact, theory can only distract from it.
This, Harald, has been an on the spot translation highly susceptible to chance as well as my personal biases and agendas. I apologize if I am getting you wrong.
As I get it, you are basically arguing that theory basically participates in a kind of simulacrum that is implicit in the failures and exploitation of producer/consumer Capitalism. In this sense, while theory presumes to be working for the good of humanity, it is simply facilitating Capitalist values by seeming to know something that most people don’t.
To put it another way, we have to distinguish between theory and the more practical matter of everyday reality. As I have recently come to realize, we have to recognize that theory, for the most part, is mainly done for the sake of theory. It’s a form of play that may (through a kind trickledown effect (or may not have an effect on the lives of everyday people.
Consider, for instance, Deleuze and Guattarri’s assertion in What is Philosophy?, that philosophy is mainly a form of conceptual play with the main goal of creating yet more concepts. Now if you think about it, there is a kind of Bourgeoisie complacency in such an activity. It is simply done for the sake of doing it. Hence: the issue that many more political thinkers had with Deleuze. And this is not to say that there is no value in it since what is produced in the experimentation can still trickle down and have very practical effects on the everyday discourse.
Still, we have to make the distinction between theory and the practical in that theory, because of the imperative to sell itself, is always drawn to the radical purely for the sake of the radical. Its sense of value is always drawn to the novel. That’s what sells it. This, in turn, can result in a kind of theoretical overkill and overreach in which the theorist can make statements that seem to make sense to those who are trying to achieve the same intellectual level the theorist is at, but is ultimately superfluous to the more practical matter of everyday life. For instance: why would I need every worker in the world to read Das Kapital to know they’re being exploited? I haven’t even read it myself.
We see this same theoretical overkill and over-reach in the romantic pining of the basement overman: the Neo-Nietzschean gospel of the fearlessly fanciful ( who would sit in a environmentally controlled space, their faces blazing in the dim glow of their computer screen, typing odes to the good old days when men were men and their hope for a Mad Max-like post- apocalypse that will take us back where we need to be, and, in the pauses, raise their fist: tight, trembling, and ready for action.
In this, we see theory gone wrong as wrong can be. I mean I get it: such fancy can drive people to do more than what they normally would. Even Ayn Rand had value to that extent. Still, that does nothing to change the fact (and may the soul of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that every day, I see people suffering because our politicians are too busy kissing the ass of their country club buddies to do anything for us. And it doesn’t take a lot of theory to see that. In fact, theory can only distract from it.
Re: Postcards:
"I appreciate the transit points idea, and find it easy to map into my cosmology. Please complete your parentheses and allow the thread to have a point.
you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard...
I really like postcards, even with tiny writing, they go with a cup of coffee..."
I apologize for the one way parentheses, but they're how (given the spontaneous nature of what we do on the boards (I capture the deferred nature of thinking (the meaning derived from the unspoken sub-currents of any given statement (and what would normally be expressed in footnotes (within the body and flow of the text.
It's not something I would be as bold about in the act of writing a more finished piece. If I did: I would really have to polish it (and I'm talking hard work and clever consideration of how punctuation works (to the point of feeling more like poetry than prose. I would have to tighten it to the point (in a way similar to Henry James' long and complex sentences: that kind of enfolding within enfolding (that no one could be confused about what refers to what.
For me, it's a kind of Derrida-ian deconstruction of language that considers the sound-like sense of punctuation. And I don’t do it out some heavy-handed affectation towards being different or radical purely for the sake of the radical (or out of some obnoxious desire to offend people or expect them to “accept me for who I am” (or, above all, to assert that what I have to say is so important that others are obligated to decode me; I do it because it is a manner I have become comfortable enough with to, in the small window I have on the boards, spontaneously express (to jam w/ ( what I am experiencing from the after-flow (the inertia (of my footwork: whatever study I happen to be engaging in at the time.
To give you a sense of what I’m talking about: I have actually turned to a tactic suggested in your point:
“you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard...”
One thing I like to do (in the context of the boards (is create posts that refer to (and quote (previous posts of mine. This allows for a rhizomatic approach that allows for various centers expanding into other centers in an intellectual complex that, ultimately, has no center: only experiences and results: kind of like the way fireworks unfold.
Once again, I do not do it to offend or to engage in the radical purely for the sake of the radical. I do it for the same reason I bounce off of you: the jam: the board being a board (a place to experiment (not to get famous (I do it to see what the inertia (the momentum (can do.
It’s how I jam w/ myself. And the beauty of it (to me at least (reminds me of why I put myself through all this.
you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard...
I really like postcards, even with tiny writing, they go with a cup of coffee..."
I apologize for the one way parentheses, but they're how (given the spontaneous nature of what we do on the boards (I capture the deferred nature of thinking (the meaning derived from the unspoken sub-currents of any given statement (and what would normally be expressed in footnotes (within the body and flow of the text.
It's not something I would be as bold about in the act of writing a more finished piece. If I did: I would really have to polish it (and I'm talking hard work and clever consideration of how punctuation works (to the point of feeling more like poetry than prose. I would have to tighten it to the point (in a way similar to Henry James' long and complex sentences: that kind of enfolding within enfolding (that no one could be confused about what refers to what.
For me, it's a kind of Derrida-ian deconstruction of language that considers the sound-like sense of punctuation. And I don’t do it out some heavy-handed affectation towards being different or radical purely for the sake of the radical (or out of some obnoxious desire to offend people or expect them to “accept me for who I am” (or, above all, to assert that what I have to say is so important that others are obligated to decode me; I do it because it is a manner I have become comfortable enough with to, in the small window I have on the boards, spontaneously express (to jam w/ ( what I am experiencing from the after-flow (the inertia (of my footwork: whatever study I happen to be engaging in at the time.
To give you a sense of what I’m talking about: I have actually turned to a tactic suggested in your point:
“you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard...”
One thing I like to do (in the context of the boards (is create posts that refer to (and quote (previous posts of mine. This allows for a rhizomatic approach that allows for various centers expanding into other centers in an intellectual complex that, ultimately, has no center: only experiences and results: kind of like the way fireworks unfold.
Once again, I do not do it to offend or to engage in the radical purely for the sake of the radical. I do it for the same reason I bounce off of you: the jam: the board being a board (a place to experiment (not to get famous (I do it to see what the inertia (the momentum (can do.
It’s how I jam w/ myself. And the beauty of it (to me at least (reminds me of why I put myself through all this.
Re: Postcards:
The trees are watching us:
everywhere,
all the time.
They hover and bend above us
like a stern jury
or loving parents.
Either way
we will be judged.
They hold above us
not only leaf and limb,
but the wisdom that comes with time
and silence
in the face of a busy and noisy world.
Still, the trees are speaking
through silence
or the rustle of leaves in the wind
or the brittle resonance
of thin limbs
against the crisp blue
of a cloudless autumn day.
And when we talk,
the trees are always listening,
silently:
always waiting(
forever waiting
(for us to get the message.
everywhere,
all the time.
They hover and bend above us
like a stern jury
or loving parents.
Either way
we will be judged.
They hold above us
not only leaf and limb,
but the wisdom that comes with time
and silence
in the face of a busy and noisy world.
Still, the trees are speaking
through silence
or the rustle of leaves in the wind
or the brittle resonance
of thin limbs
against the crisp blue
of a cloudless autumn day.
And when we talk,
the trees are always listening,
silently:
always waiting(
forever waiting
(for us to get the message.
Re: Postcards:
“ Is there any intrinsic logic to your parentheses-usage?”
First of all: glad you asked Niklas. Not only did you give me a focus for today’s postcard, but you also gave me an opportunity to articulate (for myself as well as others (on an idiosyncrasy that is not just a choice but a habit (that which has evolved in me as a comfortable way to communicate (on my use of the one way parenthesis: something I’m quite sure confuses (and even frustrates (a lot of people on these boards.
First of all, I would note that the term “logic” has a dual functionality. On one hand, it is an attempt to explain how the brain and mind knows something in almost mathematical terms. At the same time, it can act as a kind of overcoding in that it can serve as what Frost referred concerning the poem: a momentary stay against confusion. Logic, like science, must work by isolating systems in the metonymic hope that it will tell us something about reality as a whole. In this sense, logic (as well as science or art or philosophy (is up against the same limit as language or any semiological construct: it must, by nature, always fall short of the reality it is attempting to describe. Or as Deleuze and Guattarri point out in A Thousand Plateaus:
“A book does not reflect the world. It forms a rhizome with it.”
In other words, language (or any other system of signs we have formed (can never be a perfect mirror of reality as much as a machine interacting with the various machines reality presents it with.
And my d.constructive use of the one-way parenthesis (as well as the colon (works within the parameters described above while exploiting a sensitivity to the FEEL (the inner sound (of punctuation.
(I’m a big fan of the ellipsis as well “….” which gives me the feel of trailing off into nothingness(
The one way parenthesis is primarily my way of capturing the movement of the mind (my mind at least: ADD perhaps? (in that while it, in terms of the overcoding, would seem to be moving in a linear way, it is always working in the face of a multiplicity (a bombardment if you will (and struggling to capture that overflow within the limits of the of tools we have to deal with it. Derrida managed to capture this in terms of differrance in which the meaning we absorb from a thing is always deferred in that its meaning is always dependent on other meanings absorbed from other things. And this is the way we experience thought (and even experience itself (while all we can do is express it within the linear medium of language.
Yet we try. We can see as much in philosophy’s use of the footnote which designates the text as being more than a 1 dimensional linear process, but rather more like a 3 dimensional sculpture that can be approached from multiple directions: that is given that what the philosopher is expressing is always bigger than the words you might be reading at any given time.
My use of the 1 way parenthesis is my way of folding those deferred meanings into the linear process of the text. As difficult as it must seem to others, I’m only trying to make it more convenient.
First of all: glad you asked Niklas. Not only did you give me a focus for today’s postcard, but you also gave me an opportunity to articulate (for myself as well as others (on an idiosyncrasy that is not just a choice but a habit (that which has evolved in me as a comfortable way to communicate (on my use of the one way parenthesis: something I’m quite sure confuses (and even frustrates (a lot of people on these boards.
First of all, I would note that the term “logic” has a dual functionality. On one hand, it is an attempt to explain how the brain and mind knows something in almost mathematical terms. At the same time, it can act as a kind of overcoding in that it can serve as what Frost referred concerning the poem: a momentary stay against confusion. Logic, like science, must work by isolating systems in the metonymic hope that it will tell us something about reality as a whole. In this sense, logic (as well as science or art or philosophy (is up against the same limit as language or any semiological construct: it must, by nature, always fall short of the reality it is attempting to describe. Or as Deleuze and Guattarri point out in A Thousand Plateaus:
“A book does not reflect the world. It forms a rhizome with it.”
In other words, language (or any other system of signs we have formed (can never be a perfect mirror of reality as much as a machine interacting with the various machines reality presents it with.
And my d.constructive use of the one-way parenthesis (as well as the colon (works within the parameters described above while exploiting a sensitivity to the FEEL (the inner sound (of punctuation.
(I’m a big fan of the ellipsis as well “….” which gives me the feel of trailing off into nothingness(
The one way parenthesis is primarily my way of capturing the movement of the mind (my mind at least: ADD perhaps? (in that while it, in terms of the overcoding, would seem to be moving in a linear way, it is always working in the face of a multiplicity (a bombardment if you will (and struggling to capture that overflow within the limits of the of tools we have to deal with it. Derrida managed to capture this in terms of differrance in which the meaning we absorb from a thing is always deferred in that its meaning is always dependent on other meanings absorbed from other things. And this is the way we experience thought (and even experience itself (while all we can do is express it within the linear medium of language.
Yet we try. We can see as much in philosophy’s use of the footnote which designates the text as being more than a 1 dimensional linear process, but rather more like a 3 dimensional sculpture that can be approached from multiple directions: that is given that what the philosopher is expressing is always bigger than the words you might be reading at any given time.
My use of the 1 way parenthesis is my way of folding those deferred meanings into the linear process of the text. As difficult as it must seem to others, I’m only trying to make it more convenient.
Re: Postcards:
The very real effect is that the increasing influence of Republican ideology in America may well lead to an experiment with Fascism.
Re: Postcards:
Plus that, Caroline, there is the point made by phenomenology: that for every external event (noema) there is a corresponding internal event (noesis). In other words, no matter what may be or not be out there, what we are always dealing with as concerns reality is what is in our brains via our sensory apparatus. It may seem to be happening “out there”; but the only place it can really be happening is “in here”.
And anyone who has experimented with psychedelics knows this. If the extreme realist position was true, that reality is just there and we are simply registering it, then the psychedelic experience would be one of reality looking pretty much like it always does with hallucinations imposed upon it. But most of us know that is not how it works. The psychedelic experience is that of reality itself being changed: usually one of it looking more like a cartoon.
And this positioning of reality for us pretty much confirms your point:
“We understand reality to the extent that we need.”
It pretty much fits in with the evolutionary model of consciousness in that it evolved out of an interaction between the physiological brain and its environment. It is why, as you point out:
“Reality for an ant consists within the anthill. All it knows is all it needs to know. “
:Which pretty much confirms your conclusion:
“We can try to know more than we currently know, but it has a cap IMO.”
And given your point, is it any wonder we are dealing with the confirmation bias of the right-wing elements we are currently dealing with?
Thanks for helping me push beyond my previous creative hymen. I now understand the other in a way I never have before.
And anyone who has experimented with psychedelics knows this. If the extreme realist position was true, that reality is just there and we are simply registering it, then the psychedelic experience would be one of reality looking pretty much like it always does with hallucinations imposed upon it. But most of us know that is not how it works. The psychedelic experience is that of reality itself being changed: usually one of it looking more like a cartoon.
And this positioning of reality for us pretty much confirms your point:
“We understand reality to the extent that we need.”
It pretty much fits in with the evolutionary model of consciousness in that it evolved out of an interaction between the physiological brain and its environment. It is why, as you point out:
“Reality for an ant consists within the anthill. All it knows is all it needs to know. “
:Which pretty much confirms your conclusion:
“We can try to know more than we currently know, but it has a cap IMO.”
And given your point, is it any wonder we are dealing with the confirmation bias of the right-wing elements we are currently dealing with?
Thanks for helping me push beyond my previous creative hymen. I now understand the other in a way I never have before.
Re: Postcards:
“How can you escape isms?”
Yes, it seems we're always turning towards them as a momentary stay against confusion in the process of defining ourselves and our take on reality. Still, we have to be careful about making ourselves slaves to them. When it comes to the day to day, no ism will provide us with an all purpose answer. From a practical (and perhaps pragmatic (perspective we have to take things on a case by case basis.
(and it is important to note here that there are a lot of isms that don’t necessarily contain the syllable “ism”: religion-ism, philosophy-ism, good old common horse sense-ism, etc, etc(
To give you a for instance: many people may assume from what I write that my whole political philosophy and view centers around “Socialism” or “Marxism” and a complete rejection of “Capitalism”. And this is simply not true. I have very concrete views about what I would like to see done such as an expansion of the public economy (that which works outside of profit seeking behaviors (into areas where the private sphere fails: the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that. And it would include things that would not necessarily include spending taxpayer money such as better city planning where people can afford housing close to the place they work and expanded public transport so cars become what they should be: a luxury rather than a necessity. My main issue with Capitalism is the role of grand narrative and higher principle that has basically been shoved down our throats. In this sense, Capitalism is an ism that has gotten out of control. At the same time, there are some things that Capitalism is good at such as technology and the luxuries that come with it: the things we enjoy but don’t necessarily need. When it comes to that, I say to the private sphere: have at it and enjoy your Learjet, rich man. Nor do I see stripping the rich of all their assets and distributing BMWs in the ghettos as a solution to anything.
Isms are the product of wannabe gurus. And what freedom loving human being would need a guru? And the cornerstone of any ism is a theory. And while there may be a trickledown effect (something that, BTW, suggests a hierarchy (between theory and day to day reality, I think we have to be careful about thinking of theory (the ism (as a mirror of day to day reality.
And I only bring this up as an extreme example (not as a description of our present reality: but you have to put in mind that the holocaust was rationalized through an ism and a theory about what would make the world a better place. This is not to say we would be better off if we done away with theory altogether: that would be yet another ism: non-theory-ism. Theory is a beautiful pastime that can justify a point A to point B. It has done as much with mine –has even come to own it: which is why I’m always here. But like language (which it is a product of (it must, by necessity, always fall short of the reality it is trying to describe. As much elation and ecstasy as we experience through it, we have to keep it in perspective in terms of day to day reality.
Yes, it seems we're always turning towards them as a momentary stay against confusion in the process of defining ourselves and our take on reality. Still, we have to be careful about making ourselves slaves to them. When it comes to the day to day, no ism will provide us with an all purpose answer. From a practical (and perhaps pragmatic (perspective we have to take things on a case by case basis.
(and it is important to note here that there are a lot of isms that don’t necessarily contain the syllable “ism”: religion-ism, philosophy-ism, good old common horse sense-ism, etc, etc(
To give you a for instance: many people may assume from what I write that my whole political philosophy and view centers around “Socialism” or “Marxism” and a complete rejection of “Capitalism”. And this is simply not true. I have very concrete views about what I would like to see done such as an expansion of the public economy (that which works outside of profit seeking behaviors (into areas where the private sphere fails: the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that. And it would include things that would not necessarily include spending taxpayer money such as better city planning where people can afford housing close to the place they work and expanded public transport so cars become what they should be: a luxury rather than a necessity. My main issue with Capitalism is the role of grand narrative and higher principle that has basically been shoved down our throats. In this sense, Capitalism is an ism that has gotten out of control. At the same time, there are some things that Capitalism is good at such as technology and the luxuries that come with it: the things we enjoy but don’t necessarily need. When it comes to that, I say to the private sphere: have at it and enjoy your Learjet, rich man. Nor do I see stripping the rich of all their assets and distributing BMWs in the ghettos as a solution to anything.
Isms are the product of wannabe gurus. And what freedom loving human being would need a guru? And the cornerstone of any ism is a theory. And while there may be a trickledown effect (something that, BTW, suggests a hierarchy (between theory and day to day reality, I think we have to be careful about thinking of theory (the ism (as a mirror of day to day reality.
And I only bring this up as an extreme example (not as a description of our present reality: but you have to put in mind that the holocaust was rationalized through an ism and a theory about what would make the world a better place. This is not to say we would be better off if we done away with theory altogether: that would be yet another ism: non-theory-ism. Theory is a beautiful pastime that can justify a point A to point B. It has done as much with mine –has even come to own it: which is why I’m always here. But like language (which it is a product of (it must, by necessity, always fall short of the reality it is trying to describe. As much elation and ecstasy as we experience through it, we have to keep it in perspective in terms of day to day reality.
Re: Postcards:
“ I am not a devotee of Rand and disagree with her foundational beliefs however she does revitalize the argument about ‘human nature’ which has been central to mainstream theorizing of global philosophies and the political economy. While some political theories assume that there is a universal disposition to the way all humans act (however that may be depends upon the theory), others believe that there is no universal human nature at all. Plato set the key facets of the classical realist understanding of human nature in some detail – relating this back to other issues we’ve look at so far in the course, it’s obvious a version of this understanding of human nature permeates contemporary global political economy (albeit perhaps in a more sophisticated way). ‘Human nature’ is central to problem-solving theories, which tend to generalize and universalize. That is not to say, however, that mainstream understandings of human nature are necessarily correct beyond describing what currently is. That is, there is potential for change, I would argue, that is generally not reflected in mainstream theorizing. Critical theories seek to undermine this way of thinking. They operate on the understanding of human nature that Leigh argued for – that the biological is shaped by a variety of changing and fluid circumstances.”
I would first start with the last point made here:
“Critical theories seek to undermine this way of thinking. They operate on the understanding on human nature that Leigh argued for – that the biological is shaped by a variety of changing and fluid circumstances.”
One of the main advances in my personal process (based on critical theory as well as such post modernist and post-structuralist thinkers as Gilles Deleuze and even Rorty (is that I have begun to see things in terms of evolution. This has resulted from finding myself softening to the convenient materialism that both thinkers defer to even though I remain a property dualist.
For me, it is a matter of looking at how the brain has evolved: through a series of random mutations that, in terms of adapting to a given environment, insured the survival of certain dispositions through the filter of natural selection. And we should note here that the isms that survive are an expression of that process. I would also point out that our experience of self is a result of this back and forth between the evolving brain and an always changing environment. And this, I think, goes to your point that there can be no fixed understanding of human nature.
And in that sense (that is if I understand you right (I can understand your sympathetic take on Rand to the extent that she abandoned traditional notions of human nature (much as existentialism did (which would give her the appeal of the radical purely for the sake of the radical: for instance: her appeal to selfishness. The problem for me is that she made a break from traditional notions of human nature only to establish, yet again, another dogma about human nature and established a fixed criteria by which one must think in order to be considered rational: one centered around laissez faire producer/consumer Capitalism.
My argument is that she represents an evolutionary stage that we must get beyond in order to evolve. Rand, to me, represents the competitive model in which our higher cognitive functions are put in the service of our baser impulses. And it is important to note here that the competitive model is what has gotten us to this point thus far. Hence: Capitalism’s (as well as the Republicans (appeal to it. But going back to our model of evolution being a matter of the right mutation for a given environment, I believe we have come to an important evolutionary milestone in which we can stick with the competitive model and risk our extinction through man-made climate change or the depletion of our natural resources, or our enslavement through Global Capitalism, or we can adapt to our present environment by turning to the cooperative model in which our baser impulses (our self interest (works WITH our higher cognitive functions: recognizes that its interest lies in looking out for the interest of the other: whether human or not: our environment for instance.
Anyway, as always, I found too much to say about too little and ran out my window before I could get to the rest of your post. But I will store it and try to get to more of it. I just hope this hasn't been my own tangent and actually had something to do with what you were actually saying. I apologize if it didn't.
I would first start with the last point made here:
“Critical theories seek to undermine this way of thinking. They operate on the understanding on human nature that Leigh argued for – that the biological is shaped by a variety of changing and fluid circumstances.”
One of the main advances in my personal process (based on critical theory as well as such post modernist and post-structuralist thinkers as Gilles Deleuze and even Rorty (is that I have begun to see things in terms of evolution. This has resulted from finding myself softening to the convenient materialism that both thinkers defer to even though I remain a property dualist.
For me, it is a matter of looking at how the brain has evolved: through a series of random mutations that, in terms of adapting to a given environment, insured the survival of certain dispositions through the filter of natural selection. And we should note here that the isms that survive are an expression of that process. I would also point out that our experience of self is a result of this back and forth between the evolving brain and an always changing environment. And this, I think, goes to your point that there can be no fixed understanding of human nature.
And in that sense (that is if I understand you right (I can understand your sympathetic take on Rand to the extent that she abandoned traditional notions of human nature (much as existentialism did (which would give her the appeal of the radical purely for the sake of the radical: for instance: her appeal to selfishness. The problem for me is that she made a break from traditional notions of human nature only to establish, yet again, another dogma about human nature and established a fixed criteria by which one must think in order to be considered rational: one centered around laissez faire producer/consumer Capitalism.
My argument is that she represents an evolutionary stage that we must get beyond in order to evolve. Rand, to me, represents the competitive model in which our higher cognitive functions are put in the service of our baser impulses. And it is important to note here that the competitive model is what has gotten us to this point thus far. Hence: Capitalism’s (as well as the Republicans (appeal to it. But going back to our model of evolution being a matter of the right mutation for a given environment, I believe we have come to an important evolutionary milestone in which we can stick with the competitive model and risk our extinction through man-made climate change or the depletion of our natural resources, or our enslavement through Global Capitalism, or we can adapt to our present environment by turning to the cooperative model in which our baser impulses (our self interest (works WITH our higher cognitive functions: recognizes that its interest lies in looking out for the interest of the other: whether human or not: our environment for instance.
Anyway, as always, I found too much to say about too little and ran out my window before I could get to the rest of your post. But I will store it and try to get to more of it. I just hope this hasn't been my own tangent and actually had something to do with what you were actually saying. I apologize if it didn't.
Re: Postcards:
“Actually, Perseus, I started out as a musician. Towards the end of it, I had written about 4 hours of songs.
I think about trying again just to see how everything I have experienced would influence it. Unfortunately, as I go into middle age and deal with the loss of my passions, the physical decay, the pressure of time, and the fear that I'm no longer capable, it's getting harder and harder to convince myself to pick up a guitar and try to write another song.
I would have to bring myself to set aside the urgency of time in order to bring myself to try it again.”
“Forgive my intrusive perspective - but what about wrtiting a song about these issues - getting older, losing passions and time urgency?
I do not believe that you have lost passion fundamentally - you certainly do not come across as a sedated aging fellow, - I find that passions return to us when we engage the circumstaces to which we had lost them. I am old enough to have gone through a period where I thought I was drying up and losing my first layers of strength - but then I found them back. In fact some months before I devised VO I was nearly dead from depletion, getting dizzy walking a staircase. What had happened was that by my heart being fucked with by a careless lover, I had just completely lost perspective. I then found out that perspective virtually equals health.
Ive also come to fundamentally oppose the modern view that music is a young mans game. I think this perspective is what sustains the infantility of our popular culture, and the predominance of this infantility in our general peoples-culture.
Music always is the youths education - but if it is only produce by youths, not very much is going to get communicated that is not already understood. And that has been its role in the 20th century; to sustain, to support. Now it is time to teach, to Raise.”
Nothing to forgive. You’ve actually given me an opportunity to meander about my thoughts on process, middle age, and the angst of knowing there is always something else you could always be doing. A lot of your points really hit home for me.
But as I said, on top of the fear that I might try something like music and fail, there is the pressure of knowing I only (if I am lucky (have 20 to 25 more productive years. And suddenly (given what I now know is involved in a process (and the reading wishlist I have as concerns philosophy –on top of the fact that an engagement with any philosophical text never has a clear end: which makes it a little like writing a great poem which is never finished but abandoned in despair (20 to 25 doesn’t seem like enough. On top of that, my experience with my recent focus on philosophy has been one of feeling like I’m pushing deeper than I ever have: a kind of poetry that comes from a deeper engagement with reality. But then a process is always one of feeling like you’ve gone a little further than you ever have before and of looking back on what you’ve done as an expression of a less developed sensibility. Isn’t it?
(Perhaps there can be no satisfaction as a great thinker of my day and age tells me. Perhaps there is no hope of me lying on my deathbed and feeling like I completed everything I needed to….
(So while I find myself compelled to continue as I am, I equally find myself in a bit of a crisis and suffering from some severe existential angst. Up until recently (that is my late 40’s (I thought one of the cool thing about being where I was, and well past the point of thinking I might “make it”, was that it freed me up to bounce around different disciplines (philosophy, art, music, poetry, fiction, etc. (and see what hybrids form: the overlaps –which always worked for me before. But now I feel like I’m stuck in a rut because I have found something that for a long time seemed to have worked for me but has lately accumulated a lot of reservations. On one hand, it allows me to do what I have never done before: engage in input (in the form of my daily readings and meditation (and output (in the form of my daily postcards (at the same time. At the same time (like any routine I have come up with before to get something done (it shuts out other concerns (which it must do to be an effective routine (that, neglected, can overwhelm whatever it is you might be doing at any given time.
On top of that, as much as I love what I’m doing here, I’m starting to question what I’m doing here. Every postcard I write is an ecstatic experience in that I approach a blank space and suddenly find myself capable of filling it with words. The problem is that when I wake up for work at night, I find myself with feelings of unease and self disgust:
“What did I say?”
“Why did I say it?”
“How could I be so full of myself and pretentious?”
Sometimes I feel like I’m burning out (much as I did back in the 90’s and spent three years cranking out art because I was attached to an art gallery while also being under a lot of pressure from the petty and mundane matters.
So you may well be right: maybe I should try to pick up the acoustic and try to write a song again –as frightening as the possible outcome seems to me right now. Or maybe I should try art again. And in order to do that (as my previous experience with fiction has shown me at a time when I was also reading philosophy: you kind of have to forget that you have ever read philosophy and let the residual effects bleed their way in. Simply trying to translate philosophy into an art form always feels heavy-handed.
But in order to do that, I have got to get past the addiction I am dealing with on the boards: the instant gratification of instant publication. I sometimes miss the “good old days” when all there was was me, whatever medium I was working in, and a boombox with a shitload of CDs. At the same time, it’s hard to go back to the isolation I lived with at the time.
I have always considered it a blessing to have a disposition to push my mind into areas most other people don’t get to go. But it is a curse in that you don’t even hope to do that and have the comfort of being like normal people. Once again, in the words of a great thinker of my salad days:
“I can’t get no satisfaction….. But I try… And I try.”
I think about trying again just to see how everything I have experienced would influence it. Unfortunately, as I go into middle age and deal with the loss of my passions, the physical decay, the pressure of time, and the fear that I'm no longer capable, it's getting harder and harder to convince myself to pick up a guitar and try to write another song.
I would have to bring myself to set aside the urgency of time in order to bring myself to try it again.”
“Forgive my intrusive perspective - but what about wrtiting a song about these issues - getting older, losing passions and time urgency?
I do not believe that you have lost passion fundamentally - you certainly do not come across as a sedated aging fellow, - I find that passions return to us when we engage the circumstaces to which we had lost them. I am old enough to have gone through a period where I thought I was drying up and losing my first layers of strength - but then I found them back. In fact some months before I devised VO I was nearly dead from depletion, getting dizzy walking a staircase. What had happened was that by my heart being fucked with by a careless lover, I had just completely lost perspective. I then found out that perspective virtually equals health.
Ive also come to fundamentally oppose the modern view that music is a young mans game. I think this perspective is what sustains the infantility of our popular culture, and the predominance of this infantility in our general peoples-culture.
Music always is the youths education - but if it is only produce by youths, not very much is going to get communicated that is not already understood. And that has been its role in the 20th century; to sustain, to support. Now it is time to teach, to Raise.”
Nothing to forgive. You’ve actually given me an opportunity to meander about my thoughts on process, middle age, and the angst of knowing there is always something else you could always be doing. A lot of your points really hit home for me.
But as I said, on top of the fear that I might try something like music and fail, there is the pressure of knowing I only (if I am lucky (have 20 to 25 more productive years. And suddenly (given what I now know is involved in a process (and the reading wishlist I have as concerns philosophy –on top of the fact that an engagement with any philosophical text never has a clear end: which makes it a little like writing a great poem which is never finished but abandoned in despair (20 to 25 doesn’t seem like enough. On top of that, my experience with my recent focus on philosophy has been one of feeling like I’m pushing deeper than I ever have: a kind of poetry that comes from a deeper engagement with reality. But then a process is always one of feeling like you’ve gone a little further than you ever have before and of looking back on what you’ve done as an expression of a less developed sensibility. Isn’t it?
(Perhaps there can be no satisfaction as a great thinker of my day and age tells me. Perhaps there is no hope of me lying on my deathbed and feeling like I completed everything I needed to….
(So while I find myself compelled to continue as I am, I equally find myself in a bit of a crisis and suffering from some severe existential angst. Up until recently (that is my late 40’s (I thought one of the cool thing about being where I was, and well past the point of thinking I might “make it”, was that it freed me up to bounce around different disciplines (philosophy, art, music, poetry, fiction, etc. (and see what hybrids form: the overlaps –which always worked for me before. But now I feel like I’m stuck in a rut because I have found something that for a long time seemed to have worked for me but has lately accumulated a lot of reservations. On one hand, it allows me to do what I have never done before: engage in input (in the form of my daily readings and meditation (and output (in the form of my daily postcards (at the same time. At the same time (like any routine I have come up with before to get something done (it shuts out other concerns (which it must do to be an effective routine (that, neglected, can overwhelm whatever it is you might be doing at any given time.
On top of that, as much as I love what I’m doing here, I’m starting to question what I’m doing here. Every postcard I write is an ecstatic experience in that I approach a blank space and suddenly find myself capable of filling it with words. The problem is that when I wake up for work at night, I find myself with feelings of unease and self disgust:
“What did I say?”
“Why did I say it?”
“How could I be so full of myself and pretentious?”
Sometimes I feel like I’m burning out (much as I did back in the 90’s and spent three years cranking out art because I was attached to an art gallery while also being under a lot of pressure from the petty and mundane matters.
So you may well be right: maybe I should try to pick up the acoustic and try to write a song again –as frightening as the possible outcome seems to me right now. Or maybe I should try art again. And in order to do that (as my previous experience with fiction has shown me at a time when I was also reading philosophy: you kind of have to forget that you have ever read philosophy and let the residual effects bleed their way in. Simply trying to translate philosophy into an art form always feels heavy-handed.
But in order to do that, I have got to get past the addiction I am dealing with on the boards: the instant gratification of instant publication. I sometimes miss the “good old days” when all there was was me, whatever medium I was working in, and a boombox with a shitload of CDs. At the same time, it’s hard to go back to the isolation I lived with at the time.
I have always considered it a blessing to have a disposition to push my mind into areas most other people don’t get to go. But it is a curse in that you don’t even hope to do that and have the comfort of being like normal people. Once again, in the words of a great thinker of my salad days:
“I can’t get no satisfaction….. But I try… And I try.”
Re: Postcards:
I would agree, Raan and Steven, that there is a Zen element at the heart of my particular philosophical process: including my focus on Deleuze (w/and without Guattarri (and Rorty: which might seem strange given Rorty’s kind of conventional academic feel. I might be able to include Zizek in that. But, at this point, I see myself having to do a lot of gerrymandering to pull it off.
(And, BTW, a-holes, I had come on here w/ the intent of making a point from the book I’m reading on political philosophy. But you hijacked my postcard for today. You Bastards!!!! But then I should have known better than to first come on to facebook with people I’m enjoying jamming with and I guess we all gotta follow our flow…. right? Anyway:
While I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you might encounter on these boards, I do see, close to heart of my process (which from a rhizomatic perspective only seems like a heart because it is the particular rhizome I am focused on right now (is the Zen Nihilism of what I usually refer to as the nihilistic perspective: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of it all (the ungroundedness (and can never be looked at directly, but can only glance the corner of the eye: hence, the term “the nihilistic perspective”. And it has always haunted philosophy going back to Socrates’ claim that he knew nothing (as well as Zeno’s paradoxes (and acted as a strange attractor that has gravitated philosophy to the point we are now: the postmodern condition of a complete loss of faith in all grand narratives (all isms (or absolute truths.
And the best way to start to explain the nihilistic perspective: the Zen Nihilism(as I understand it, is through my criticism of the skeptic’s paradox as a final dismissal of skepticism (an expression of the nihilistic perspective (or the nihilistic perspective:
If you approached the skeptic and the nihilistic perspective and argued:
“You can’t say there are no absolutes since to do so would be to try to establish an absolute.”
:the skeptic would do what they normally do: scrutinize: until they came to the realization that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. Then they would go right on being skeptics. The nihilistic perspective, on the other hand, would just glare at you impatiently and snort:
“Right! Nothing is engraved in stone. Not even that nothing is engraved in stone. So what’s your fucking point?”
In other words, the nihilistic perspective embraces its own lack of a foundation by embracing its ability to self nihilate. This can be seen in Alan Watt’s Taoist point that truly letting go is a matter of letting go of the idea of letting go itself. And while I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you’ll meet on these boards, I think this puts some shine on Deleuze’s philosophical process and even Rorty’s (even if he might not recognize it because he is dispositionally opposed to having that kind of edge.
Still?
(And, BTW, a-holes, I had come on here w/ the intent of making a point from the book I’m reading on political philosophy. But you hijacked my postcard for today. You Bastards!!!! But then I should have known better than to first come on to facebook with people I’m enjoying jamming with and I guess we all gotta follow our flow…. right? Anyway:
While I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you might encounter on these boards, I do see, close to heart of my process (which from a rhizomatic perspective only seems like a heart because it is the particular rhizome I am focused on right now (is the Zen Nihilism of what I usually refer to as the nihilistic perspective: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of it all (the ungroundedness (and can never be looked at directly, but can only glance the corner of the eye: hence, the term “the nihilistic perspective”. And it has always haunted philosophy going back to Socrates’ claim that he knew nothing (as well as Zeno’s paradoxes (and acted as a strange attractor that has gravitated philosophy to the point we are now: the postmodern condition of a complete loss of faith in all grand narratives (all isms (or absolute truths.
And the best way to start to explain the nihilistic perspective: the Zen Nihilism(as I understand it, is through my criticism of the skeptic’s paradox as a final dismissal of skepticism (an expression of the nihilistic perspective (or the nihilistic perspective:
If you approached the skeptic and the nihilistic perspective and argued:
“You can’t say there are no absolutes since to do so would be to try to establish an absolute.”
:the skeptic would do what they normally do: scrutinize: until they came to the realization that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. Then they would go right on being skeptics. The nihilistic perspective, on the other hand, would just glare at you impatiently and snort:
“Right! Nothing is engraved in stone. Not even that nothing is engraved in stone. So what’s your fucking point?”
In other words, the nihilistic perspective embraces its own lack of a foundation by embracing its ability to self nihilate. This can be seen in Alan Watt’s Taoist point that truly letting go is a matter of letting go of the idea of letting go itself. And while I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you’ll meet on these boards, I think this puts some shine on Deleuze’s philosophical process and even Rorty’s (even if he might not recognize it because he is dispositionally opposed to having that kind of edge.
Still?