Public Journal:

Half-formed posts, inchoate philosophies, and the germs of deep thought.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Jul 11, 2015 4:41 pm

Orbie wrote:Just off the cuff, where did You live in La In the eighties, we may have crossed paths............Maybe we even met, who knows, where did you hang out, etc. this is a surprise


I lived in LA from 80 to 84 -actually in suburbs of the San Gabriel Valley: Industry to be more precise. Pretty much hung out all over the place. Went to Papillions a lot. Was actually born there and moved to the midwest at 7. Mom used to take us on rides on the weekends throughout LA and Hollywood in the 60's. No doubt, that had a tremendous impact on me.

Looking at your posts. Will try to get to them tomorrow.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Jul 12, 2015 7:01 pm

First and as always, Orbie, your feedback is appreciated –even if I can’t always understand it or respond. That said, I hope my translations are not going totally off point.

“Marcel Duchamp filled an aesthetic role and the new age of philosophers filled the role of philosophy. Aesthetics usually works at a more fundamental level than philosophy, so the question cannot be asked, whether one can fill the shoes of another. That is my only comment on the above, before wandering into the implications you have noted.” –Orbie [or my translation of his response to my post:

“Duchamp had two strategic objectives. First, to destroy the hegemony exerted by an establishment which claimed the right to decide what was, and what was not, to be deemed a work of art. Second, to puncture the pretentious claims of those who called themselves artists and in doing so assumed that they possessed extraordinary skills and unique gifts of discrimination and taste.” –from Alistair McFarlane’s article, Brief Lives: Marcel Duchamp in Philosophy Now (issue 108)

“One has to wonder if philosophy isn’t in need of a Marcel Duchamp. Or did thinkers like Deleuze and Derrida fulfill that role?”

Granted Orbie, aesthetics and the arts are about what happens at a more instinctual level. This is why, for instance, that Deleuze can reasonably make the argument that aesthetics are not just about the appreciation of beauty, but also the way in which consciousness engages and comes to know the reality it is confronted with –hence the doctrine of the faculties he goes into in Difference and Repetition. Therefore, I would argue that the interests of the arts and philosophy are a little more intimately entwined than you seem to be arguing. But then I am mainly working from the post-Nietzscheian perspective that pushed philosophy closer to the literary side of the no-man’s land between science and literature in which it resides. This also why Deleuze, in his A to Z interview, spoke of the import of “engagement” (going to a movie, reading a poem, even watching a TV series (to the philosophical process. It is this kind of loose attitude towards what constitutes proper philosophical inquiry that defines modernism to postmodernism’s (which includes structuralism and post-structuralism (break from the Platonic hierarchy that wanted to ban poets from the Republic. And it is also this appeal (at least I believe (to the aesthetic/instinctive that lies behind the postmodern propensity towards etherspeak: the oblique poetics of free indirect discourse.

“In Nude Descending the Staircase, we get a sense of disintegration. He is not, it seems, describing a changing situation, is not dogmatically disintegrating the meaning of form, as American superficiality seems to. I wonder to what degree the correlation is appropriate, though, and whether American capital is oppressive to such a degree to make the decline of European culture unavoidable. That sense of it feels certain, but as in all relationships, the weighing of alternatives is balanced in Europe, between those of the East, in political as well as economic terms, and the West.”

I would first ask you to consider the influence of futurism on Nude Descending Staircase: the enthusiasm we experienced in the face of advancing technology. And given the effects we experience today of that accelerating technological advance, we might consider the disintegration of Duchamp‘s painting as prophetic: the experience of speed smear. And this returns me to the point made by Peter Baehr in the intro to The Portable Hannah Arendt:

"Under non-despotic forms of government, laws function to stabilize human relationships, lending the latter a degree of predictability, not to mention security. But under totalitarian regimes, the laws invoked are meant not to anchor interaction in something solid, but rather to throw it helter-skelter into the rapids of unceasing turbulence….

"What had made ideology so attractive in the modern world, Arendt argued, was less any particular content than the fact that it had appeared in societies ravaged by "loneliness." To people uprooted and superfluous for whom “the fundamental unreliability if man” and “the curious inconsistency of the human world” were too much to bear, ideology offered a home and cause , “a last support in a world where nobody is reliable and nothing can be relied upon.” The price of that support was incalculably high: a rupture with reality and the submission to that “‘ice-cold reasoning’ and the ‘mighty tentacle’ of dialectics which ‘seizes [the believer] in a vice’“

As I have been working towards understanding, the whole Republican platform is just another example of Capitalism creating a demand for its products, of creating a problem (the disintegration described in Nude Descending Staircase (then selling a solution to it: the ideology of Capitalism. It is an ideology that seems to be rolling us over, darkening the American spirit and stealing its soul, and rolling your way, brother…. as you seem to be describing.

And despite the fact that every other advanced nation is more evolved than America in that they can actually talk about Marx without hearing psycho shrieks, that ideology is going to keep rolling us over until it gets everything it wants: a beast with an ever expanding appetite. You say:

“I wonder to what degree the correlation is appropriate, though, and whether American capital is oppressive to such a degree to make the decline of European culture unavoidable. “

I live among its disciples: its true believers: those that don’t have the advantage of seeing Marx as just another philosopher with an alternative to Capitalism. They are a wall at which reason fails and all that is left is force. But there is no force left against Capitalism. It owns everything. The best we can do is blend in and hope that the true believers either change their minds or die off.

And in terms of the question you are asking yourself, I would point out that America has a military might that is equivalent to the rest of the world, one financed and supported by Capitalism. So yeah: you are fucked. We all are. All we can do is articulate on our downfall.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Fri Jul 24, 2015 7:50 pm

“It [Capitalism] wins when Greeks are told that their only path out of economic crisis is to open up their beautiful seas to high-risk oil and gas drilling. It wins when Canadians are told our only hope of not ending up like Greece is to allow our boreal forests to be flayed so we can access the semisolid bitumen from the Alberta tar sands. It wins when a park in Istanbul is slotted for demolition to make way for yet another shopping mall. It wins when parents in Beijing are told that sending their wheezing kids to school in pollution masks decorated to look like cute cartoon characters is an acceptable price for economic progress. It wins every time we accept that we have only bad choices available to us: austerity or extraction, poisoning or poverty….

“Cutthroat competition between nations has deadlocked U.N. climate negotiations for decades: rich countries dig in their heels and declare that they won’t cut emissions and risk losing their vaulted position in the global hierarchy; poorer countries declare that they won’t give up their right to pollute as much as rich countries did on their way to wealth, even if that means deepening a disaster that hurts the poor most of all.” -Klein, Naomi (2014-09-16). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (p. 23). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

We can see here the diabolical manner in which Capitalism has assimilated the prisoner’s dilemma –especially as concerns global Capitalism. It’s become a situation in which no one can make a move against it since Capitalism always has the option of moving somewhere else. We can see this (as Klein points out (in the way our free trade deals have allowed corporations to elude carbon control measures by moving their operations to regulation-free environments –and this is likely due to threats to politicians of shutting down operations in their respective countries and thereby destroying their economies. Of course, we could just burn or renegotiate those agreements. But then all the corporations would do is turn to the one or two countries that promised to do otherwise.

It has come to a point where either everyone (every country (has to create policies against the excesses of Capitalism together, or end up being suicidal in implementing such policies. This becomes especially acute in the United States in which each individual state has a lot of room to determine their own tax rates. This is why, for instance, while everyone knows that the only solution to our financial problems (in every country (is a progressive tax rate, no one social body can do it alone because it would only lead to corporations pulling up stakes and turning to environments that were more conducive to their demands. The same goes for such protectionist measures as tariffs. I mean it: every progressive policy I can think of (when I follow it through (only ends up in Capitalism striking back.

So it’s easy to see why so many of us would take the defeatist attitude of if you can’t beat it, work with it. On the uptick though, we finally have the clarity of recognizing that it is no longer a matter of an “emerging” oligarchy/aristocracy or an “inverse totalitarianism”. We just are under one while being too distracted by the Orwellian vision to see it. We work under the assumption that since this looks nothing like 1984, we must be safe. Yet we stand by and watch as global entities, that are beholden to no one state, dismantle our Democracies. We stand by and watch as America (propped up by a military power that is equal to the rest of the world (spreads its poison.

Take, for instance, Obama’s recent opening up of relationships with Cuba: an important and noble move on his part as far as I’m concerned. But in a recent episode of To the Best of our Knowledge “Inside Cuba” (http://www.ttbook.org/book/radio?page=8 (an issue came up that concerns me as well as the Cubans. As one interviewee brought up, they did not want to suddenly see McDonalds popping up all over the place. But their bigger concern was losing their access to healthcare for the sake of a more American style of healthcare policy.

And my advice to the Cubans is to be afraid. I mean BE VERY AFRAID!!!!! I can easily see advisors coming down there like horny young men trying to get a piece of tail and promising them everything. Of course it will start with something small that will work well for the Cubans. But it will only be a matter of time before they end up with a shit system like America’s that pays 3 times more per Capita than the Canadians while getting statistically lesser results and allows 45,000 people to die each year from lack of access.

It will be interesting to see what happens. And I really hope the Cubans reject it.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Jul 25, 2015 7:40 pm

“This book is about those radical changes on the social side, as well as on the political, economic, and cultural sides. What concerns me is less the mechanics of the transition— the shift from brown to green energy, from sole-rider cars to mass transit, from sprawling exurbs to dense and walkable cities— than the power and ideological roadblocks that have so far prevented any of these long understood solutions from taking hold on anything close to the scale required.” -Klein, Naomi (2014-09-16). This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. The Climate (pp. 24-25). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

This addresses one of main points I failed to get to in yesterday’s post: that it’s not just a matter of changing our political or economic system, it’s a matter of changing sensibility, of addressing issues that simply cannot be legislated except through Orwellian methods that have been shown time and time again to fail. And this is what philosophy (as well as art (is best equipped to do.

But I’m not just talking about philosophy here. I’m mainly thinking of philosophy of the continental kind, that which leans towards a more poetic approach such as that of Rorty’s, or of Deleuze’s or Derrida. Certainly, the more analytic/scientific approaches of such thinkers as Dennett, Searle, Pinker, or Dawkin’s have a role to play. But their primary focus is on changes in the body of knowledge the reader gets from them. The literary/continental approach, on the other hands, drives mainly towards changing the sensibility of the reader: of offering a different perspective from which the reader can derive their own way of engaging the world (their reality (that is influenced by the writer.

For instance, if we read a continental writer like Baudrillard too literally, we might recognize that, at some point or other, the entity he describes, the Simulacrum, does not exist in any tangible sense. Still, if we engage in the suspension of disbelief required for the enjoyment of literature, we change in terms of sensibility which leads to a change in understanding. We begin to recognize the way corporate owned media makes this all seem like something it is not. We begin to see how the world we see in TV ads (or even movies and TV series (the shadows on the cave wall in which everyone lives in this age of joy based on consumer/producer Capitalism (that is despite their resonance and seduction (is not our world. In other words: our sensibility is changed and we begin to feel the very alienation that Marx described in a very postmodern way.

And I would note here, Deleuze and Guattarri’s dismay in What is Philosophy about how marketers are out to steal the role of creating concepts. But for the marketers, it is more about controlling sensibility as compared to influencing it.

To give you a more concrete example of what I am on about, consider the American mythology concerning home ownership. It is this very mythology that has led to urban and suburban sprawl that has led to the mythology of car ownership (as compared to public transport (that, in turn, has contributed greatly to manmade climate change; that is when what we should be doing is concentrating our space of habitation and employment (thereby leaving more room for trees which convert CO² into oxygen. We have to ask ourselves if owning a home or a car is really that important when (given the maintenance they require (we could be focusing our energy on finding our higher selves: something we could as easily do in an apartment within walking distance of our place of employ? We have to ask ourselves if it is really worth it.

And given that what we are mainly up against here is a mythology, wouldn’t the best route for us be fighting fire with fire: of pitting our mythologies (our resonance and seduction (against the mythologies of producer/consumer Capitalism: their (the marketers (resonance and seduction?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:19 pm

“ Desiree, I feel your pain. I myself am philosophically and policy-wise, more aligned with Bernie Sanders and the Social Democrats. Unfortunately, until we change the way we vote so that we could, for instance, vote for an independent and not throw the election to the platform we despise (in my case the republican (progressives have to see the Democrats as the lesser of 2 evils. And with deep regret, I see Hillary as our our best option. And as far as Obamacare: we voted the man in because we thought he was the one that would stand up against producer/consumer Capitalism. But for all the republican shrieks concerning socialism, Obamacare fell far short of giving us what we thought he would. It was basically a fold to corporate interests. Still, the man did what he could with what he had. He, at least, did something.” –Me

“"Best option" is being misused.

Most viable option under the context of a badly flawed representative democracy model and a two party system whuch further perverts it, might be more accurate.

Still a bad reason to prop up such a flawed model instead of pointing out that it is a farce.” –Phil Cumiskey

First of all, nobody here is propping up a flawed model. Everyone knows it is flawed. And you might note here how I pointed out how we need to change the way we vote: i.e. we need some kind of runoff system.

Secondly, and more importantly, I don’t think resorting to the same kind of solipsistic paranoid conspiracy models that the right does is really helping our situation: these notions of ambitious politicians sitting around and twiddling their fingers and croaking to themselves:

“First I’m going to tell everyone what they want to hear; then, when I get in, I’m going to do what I please even if means fucking them over. Hey! Hey! Hey! Hey-y-y-!-!-!”

Our present model of Democracy may be flawed. But your model is equally flawed: a rather superficial understanding of what is actually going on, a cartoon portrait of diabolical figures seeking power for power’s sake. In other words: fancy with a complete lack of imagination as Coleridge would diagnose it.

We’re pissed. I get that. But we can’t let that pervert our understanding of why it is fucked. At some point we have to consider the possibility that politicians and corporate CEOs (as well as lawyers (are people just like us who went into what they did because they thought they could help, but found themselves succumbing to systematic imperatives. Once again, I was not a big fan of Obamacare as compared to the public option I wanted. But the man was working with a senate that was neither filibuster-proof nor immune to the influence of corporate financing. Still, he did something. And there is nothing I have seen in him that leads me to doubt his desire to help.

And as Naomi Klein pointed out in her book about climate change, there have been instances in which good policy has been laid on the table and failed due to a lack of public pressure. So maybe the problem doesn’t just lie with politicians and corporate CEOs, but also with our social and political laziness: this notion that we can just vote our problems away.

Yes, our system is flawed. But a couple of hours with FOX news will tell you how much fashionable cynicism can prop up a flawed system.

“We have become a tip society: one in which the rich escapes responsibility by leaving it up to the individual to decide what dying enterprise they want to keep alive (via donations (w/ barely enough resources for themselves. It has turned us into a country of Beggars and thugs.”

A good example of this is a radio show, Philosophy Talk, that I have grown fond of while watching it slip, increasingly, into doom. At the start, it was all free. Then Stanford University decided (probably because of decreasing state funding along with increasing corporate funding (to cut it. But then it made the compromise of offering to match every private donation with equal funding. This ignited a flurry of begging on the part of the program for donations. Now, all of a sudden, apparently even that funding from Stanford is being cut which has resulted in an increase of begging on the part of the program which pretty much means (given that most of the people into it are of limited resources (it’s doomed.

The interesting thing to note here is that the hosts are both analytic philosophers. And I can’t help but feel that the rise of the analytic method has something to do with the increasing influence of corporate funding in the universities. In other words, despite the analytic assumption that they would somehow be immune to the influence of corporate funding (being more like a science and all (they’re going down with everything else that is of no interest to corporate interests: that which doesn’t serve the tyranny of the functional.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Aug 16, 2015 7:13 pm

Anyway:

I love what I’m doing. I’m just not sure it loves me back.
*
Was listening to a To the Best of Our Knowledge episode about David Foster Wallace (http://www.ttbook.org/book/remembering- ... er-wallace (which was really quite moving. And I suppose what made it so moving is that the main reason for doing it was a movie coming out, End of the Tour, with Jason Segal as Wallace and Jesse Eisenberg as his interviewer, David Lipsky. I first set aside that I really like Eisenberg’s work then point out that the main source of my response to it was listening to Wallace in an interview and recognizing what a good choice Segal was to play him: that same soft voice as well as a compassionate and humorous personality. Everything Wallace said sounded like something Segal could possibly say. It is definitely a movie I am committed to checking out as well as Wallace’s books.
*
The primary trait of the so-called “independent thinker” is their tendency to talk about being one rather than just being one. But when we look at our cultural history, we find that those whom we have deemed to be independent thinkers (those who have changed the way we think (are those who have the humility to admit that they are (or were (who they are because of those great thinkers they have absorbed. It’s pretty much like the term “genius”: one best left to historians.

This claim to being an “independent thinker” (an appeal to a socially programmed response to a socially programmed cue (becomes especially odious in the political sphere. I mean it is uncanny how, in America, we watch the same cycles occur in politics –that is while media sits around and comments on it like some kind of sporting event. We get a democrat like Clinton in only to see, in the next senate and congressional election, him faced with a republican dominated hill. And the same happened with Jr. and Obama. We have to wonder if the powers that be (the aristocracy/oligarchy of global Capitalism (are not instituting an Orwellian staged event in which government is proved to be so ineffective that we must turn to corporations for leadership.

Of course the excuse for these regular shifts we are given (via media (is the so-called independent. But in terms of politics, what the fuck does it mean to be an “independent”? You don’t know what policies you support? Are you unclear about the distinction between the democratic and republican platforms? What? If there are such people, they’re little more than pretentious morons playing on socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues to make themselves feel like they’re “above the common fray". Either that or they’re basing their choices on the personality of the politician: their media friendly qualities -which puts them decidedly among the common fray.

Nothing illustrates this better than an interview on Jon Stewart’s Daily Show in which Bill O’Reilly claimed that he hadn’t decided between Obama and McCain. Really? Now how many of you really think O’Reilly voted (or might have voted (for Obama.

The claim to be an “independent thinker” is a pretense: little more.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Wed Sep 02, 2015 9:58 pm

Actually Greg​, I think I’ll follow this rhizome for today:

“I think it would be kind of hard not to take Christianity serious since it lies at the roots of and is all over our present culture. Not to understand it (or take it seriously (would be a serious gap in any attempt to understand the human condition“,said I.

“Or at the very least the Western tradition. Yet it is shocking to me how many do actually dismiss it or account for it as simply expressing the core of 'what is wrong' with the West. But it ain't that simple!
In fact that obscene desire for simplicity not only accounts for the present "politics as circus" we see in our Republican primary, but in the signal misunderstandings of Liberal politics,” said Greg.

“While I do admire people like Bill Maher, Christopher Hitchens, and Dawkin's, I agree their dismissal of Christianity over-simplifies in ways that are no better than the oversimplifications of the right.”

It’s as if what the left is reacting to, in a knee-jerk kind of way, is the knee-jerk interpretations of the right. It fails to understand that what the right is doing with Christianity has less to do with Christianity and more with a rationalization of personal interest. In other words, both the left and the right are basically caught in a conflict based on misinterpretation.

For instance, the left will point to quotes in the bible that explicitly deride homosexuality as a sin as concerns gay marriage. But this, to me, suggests a kind of hypocrisy since it is the left that delegates the bible to literature –which I personally believe is the right way to see it. And it assumes that the only reason that rightwing Christians are so resistant to gay marriage is because of these passages. Hence: their wholesale rejection of Christianity.

But we all know this is nonsense. What the rightwing rejection of gay marriage comes down to is a personal aversion to homosexuality (the sense that it is just weird (and the quotes from the bible are little more than rationalization for what they would have felt without those quotes. And the left assuming that bible is just literature should have pointed them to this dynamic. For instance, should I, having read Crime and Punishment, kill someone just to see what the experience was like, be able to blame it on having read that book? And why wouldn’t we give the same consideration to Christianity?

Ideologies do nothing; people, on the other hand, do.

And we can see the same dynamic at work in a point made in Trey Parkers and Matt Stones series Little Bush in which Bush Sr. explains to Little Bush that it is our God given right to exploit and use up our natural resources until Jesus comes and takes us up in the Rapture. And the left, having determined the bible to be literature, should be able to see this as a one-sided and self serving interpretation of the bible (not some inherent quality of Christianity (as having neglected the part that said we are keepers of the earth. And we can see this understanding at work in Darren Aronofsky’s Noah.

The problem for the atheist left is that we run into a contradiction when we refer to the bible as literature then act like that piece of literature has any kind of absolute hold on the Christian –that is anymore than any other work of literature might have. Doing so, we fail to distinguish between what Christians do and the inherent nature of Christianity.

And in doing so, we fail to recognize what may be the very element we will need to deal with our present circumstance. We, right now, are (via global Capitalism and the climate change it is creating (facing the new Rome: the Beast if there ever could be one. And who would be better equipped to save us but some Christ-like figure? Someone who truly understood the revolutionary nature of Christ?

?: how does the secular left hate religion and claim privilege over the hateful aspects of religion, especially when our biggest worry should be the secular right: the libertarians....
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Sep 12, 2015 8:51 pm

First of all, Lorenzo, I consider the following a jam: a sort of creative bounce off of what I consider a worthy peer. Should I come off as condescending (especially as concerns our differences, please know that it was purely unintentional.

Okay then:

“I don't know if I would call Trump a fascist yet. I'll start considering it when he demands that Mexicans wear tags identifying them as Mexicans.”

And already I find myself treading lightly and glad I added the disclaimer I did above. I would first point out that I tend to work from the position of Deleuze and Guatarri: that we must seek out and undermine the pockets of fascism tend tend to emerge everywhere, including those (and most importantly ( within ourselves. Your point suggests something I believe we all have to work beyond (I know I did: the Orwellian vision of the totalitarian state. This, to me, has served as a kind of distraction from the less regimented forms of fascism that seems to be emerging under Capitalism.

Now granted, many descriptions of fascism (including that of the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (tend to involve about ten different characteristics, some of which suggest your vision of Mexicans wearing tags. But the most important characteristic to me is that which feels that the world could be right if such and such wasn’t in the way. This is why I can see a close connection between the genocide of Nazi Germany and that of Rwanda. Both were about eliminating the undesirables.

(And I would note here the common solipsism involved in the Nazis referring to the Jews as rats while the Hutus referred to the Tutsis as cockroaches. I would also note how both expressions involve a sense of resentment: the Nazi’s resentment of the Jews for the wealth they were accumulating while Germans were living in post WWI economic distress and the privilege the Tutsis were experiencing under the arbitrary distinction made by their Belgium occupiers. )

And this expands the expressions of fascism a great deal and in very subtle ways. We can see it, for instance, in the fact that we casually dismiss the fact that 45,000 people a year die from lack of access to our healthcare system. And we can basically do this because we have the culturally ordained alibi that the only reason those people did so is because they failed as producer/consumers. Once again: a way of eliminating the undesirables. We see as much in the public whipping post of the TV series COPS where we wet ourselves at the spectacle of watching minorities and white trash (the non producer/consumers (get what they deserve.

(Christ!!!! Ford Motor Company..... I am in enemy territory.(

And it is this hateful aspect of fascism that we can see in Trump (that which way too many Americans are getting kranked up over (and his proposal for immigration reform: take all the money they have earned here, deport them, and use that money to build that fence at the southern border. I mean for fuck sakes: most of them are here to support their families (think family values here. It may not be exactly leading them into ovens. But hatefulness, beyond a certain point, is just hatefulness. I’m almost glad Trump has gotten where he has in that he has made the more subtle strains of fascism in America more obvious.

That said, I agree with you when you say:

“To clarify I don't believe we should be throwing this word around as descriptives to people whose political views we disagree with. It reduces this word to a sack of shit we throw at people we disagree with. “

It is a word that tends to be thrown around indiscriminately. I, as a progressive, know this all too well since any policy that might actually help people tends to be associated with it. I mean look at how the right tends to describe the slippery slope of universal healthcare: I’m thinking of Palin’s “death panels” here, that is with the fact that without universal healthcare, 45,000 undesirables die each year.

We could, as has been brought up in terms of Deleuze and Guatarri, make the distinction between fascism proper (that which is described in the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy (and fascism with a small “f”. But I’m not sure how much good that would do us. In fact (and this is where I strongly (yet respectfully (disagree with you (such quibbling could actually distract us from the very real possibility of an emerging fascism in America under global Capitalism.

Christ!!!! Ford Motor Company..... I am in enemy territory.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Tue Oct 27, 2015 5:09 am

"Trotsky said that revolutions only happen when there is no other choice. I take this to mean they are forced upon us. I'm still holding out for a "revolution of the mind" of course! There is the idea that despite the nasty corporate stuff, rising living standards have kept populations happy enough to put up with the status quo. It's called compromise equilibrium." –Chris

First of all, Chris, I apologize for posting what we already know: mainly your quote. But I started out to write a simple response to your point, and it all went crazy on me with all these spontaneous rhizomatic connections. I had to go from just posting a response to writing my rhizome for the day. I would also apologize to the board if I seem to be wondering too far off the topic of pragmatism. I had to post this here since this is where the discourse originated.

But yeah, the subtle forms of oppression that Capitalism utilizes seem to be its most powerful weapons. It is not uncommon to hear an argument that amounts to: sure things suck; but it could worse: we could live in a third world country. What this argument basically breaks down to is:

Since things could always be worse, why even ask how we could make them better?

Sound very rational to you? Yet, as you suggest, this is exactly what has kept us beholden to Capitalism. It's a little like being with a beautiful woman who will give you just enough to keep you hanging around while never allowing you to feel secure about anything. The thing is it is this dynamic that defines abusive relationships. And this is the epiphany (the rhizomatic connection to an old riff (that which can only result from the roll of the dice or chancing to put it in Deleuze’s terms (that has forced me (against my will even (to turn this into a rhizome.

If we look at abusive relationships and the question of why individuals keep going back to them, we find that it is always a matter of a honeymoon in which the individual experiences pleasure beyond anything they have before, then a gradual degradation in to cycles of abuse and pleasure –that is with the cycles of pleasure growing smaller and smaller while the cycles of abuse grow longer and more intense. It is never a matter of constant abuse. That would only end the abuser’s reign too quick. Rather it is a matter of pushing the other to their breaking point then giving them just enough pleasure to keep them coming back. This cycle is well known in cases of domestic abuse.

But we can see the same dynamic at work in drug or alcohol abuse. The individual starts off with experiences that are like being on top of the world. But as those experiences become less frequent and the negative experiences become more pronounced, the good experiences in between begin to feel, in comparison, good enough to keep coming back. Of course, this is a physiological as well as mental phenomenon, therefore, more obvious. But we can take the dynamic deeper into what seems to be purely a mental one: the gambling addict. In this case, it is all about the run: that experience of being able to do no wrong, that of being a top player with all the attention and benefits that come from it. It's why gamblers, when they are winning, will often buy the house a round or tip high. This is what drives gamblers to keep gambling even when their luck is shit. What you will notice about them is that is not so much a matter of coming out ahead in the long run. They rarely ever do. It is strictly about the run and that hope that they will hit the big one.

And in that sense, we can see the same dynamic at work with Capitalism. You have to remember that we did have a honeymoon period with it as it drove up the standard of living that culminated in the post WW2 economy that, ironically, was based on Keynesian economic theory. Unfortunately, the biggest addicts among us, the rich, co-opted the atrocities of the misguided uses of Marxism and communism and the cold war that resulted to establish a cultural environment in which they always got theirs first. And all they have left us with is the methadone of possibility. And this is what Capitalism sells best. I mean: who wants to be a millionaire? What exactly is reality TV selling but the possibility that your mundane life could be worth millions?

So you have every reason to hold out for a “revolution of the mind” –the very only thing that can save any addict. As any A.A. or twelve step member will tell you: until you do, nothing you do will do any good.

On the uptick though, we have to look at the significance of Bernie Sanders getting where he has. Although I have doubts about the practicality of his getting the nomination (that is though I am philosophically aligned with him as a social democrat and the belief that the only solution is an expansion of the public economy (I still take comfort from the fact that he has gotten this far while openly stating that he is a socialist. What this means to me is that the cold war tactic of saying the word “socialism” no longer necessarily follows with psycho-shrieks. America is finally growing up as for some time now, we have been the last western industrialized nation where that could happen. And this, I believe, is important to other western industrialized since it is America who has shoved our form of cut-throat Capitalism down everyone else’s throats. As I see it, until America (militarily the most powerful nation the world (gets its shit together: grows out of the adolescent phase it is in, we’re all fucked.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 08, 2015 7:49 pm

In my recent run with the Modern Scholar lectures on Evolutionary Psychology, there was a point made that I think might have some subtle applications to some contemporary issues and the anthropology of the boards as well. It pointed out that in our primate days, the consequences of a false positive would have been far less consequential than a false negative. For instance, if you were walking in the jungle and thought you saw a snake or a lion and there wasn’t one, nothing would be lost. On the other hand, if you saw nothing and there was a lion or snake waiting in the bush, you would likely end up dead. So what we’re talking about here is an evolutionary adaption that has managed to get us to this point thus far.

Now one of the modern phenomena that this is generally attributed to is phobias. And I think we can see the roots of many neuroses in it. But can’t we also see it evolve into the expect-the-worse attitude that tends to haunt modern society and the general negativity: that fashionable cynicism? For instance, I realize that not all of you are Walking Dead fans enough to want to watch The Talking Dead that follows. But for those that do, I ask you to pay close attention when they do their surveys about what is going on in the series. When they offer the 3 possibilities, I ask you to seek out the most cynical answer and see which one wins out every time. In fact, it would be interesting for social scientists to do a study on it. But I can’t help but feel it would mainly confirm my instincts on this –instincts based on what I have seen.

The scary thing to me is we have come to a point where this evolutionary legacy, while having gotten us to this point thus far, may end up destroying us as a species thanks to conservatives that want to conserve that legacy. This can be seen in a study by Dodd and Hibbings at the University of Nebraska Lincoln –go Huskers!!! They exposed both liberals and conservatives to a montage of images and randomly inserted violent ones. What they found out is that conservatives tended to react (through physiological measurements (more intensely to the violent ones than liberals. The conclusion extracted from this is that conservatism is a matter of wiring that tends to react more strongly to perceived threats. And we can easily see this at work in what they base their policies on: the perceived incursions on the well being of white heterosexual males by gays, Mexicans, environmentalists, and socialists.

And can’t we apply this to the anthropology of the boards as well? The fashionable cynicism that way too many people appeal to on here? The way they use it to beat down any attempt to do something positive and are often reinforced by others? And we should note here how they tend to prop it up through the group, how they can never seem to work alone. Could this be because they have passed their evolutionary usefulness and have to appeal to obsolete evolutionary legacies? That is as compared to the beyond our immediate self interest reasoning that we have evolved into?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby Orbie » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:10 pm

A vey curt but effective explanation here, merits some discourse, I feel. That evolutionary struggles have been vastly demoted toward sentiments of re-presenting them toward those who have been
assigned to equivocate the 'the use of....' With the roles
befitting such use to......'. As consciousness of self-induced responsibility fade, to such hierarchy of uses, it would seem in avoidable, that the aforementioned
trends become almost a sequence of instinctual sets
of behavior. In the political arena, this , naturally , would void even a passing concern, except to those inclined to look beneath the rhetoric.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Public Journal:

Postby Orbie » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:20 pm

Besides, there is a hidden agenda, that permeates most moderate platforms, as hinging on useful adaptations of pragmatic notions, mixed with the underlying stratified conservative views, so as to be able to shift responsibility; as to resort to those, in times of failed programs. The tendency is always to have a ready set plan , consisting of refined and proven methods, of dealing with non foreseen consequences. So more often then not, the margins are fuzzy., offering for less required clarity and accountability, making the shifting of responsibility , less and less obvious. This IS the trend. We have become far too cynical, not to have seen this coming, and accepting, as politics as usual.
[size=50][/size]Allone's Obe issance



In answer to your prayer
sincere, the centre of
your circle here,
i stand ; and , without
taking thought,-
i know nothing. But i can

Full well your need-as
you be men
This: Re-Creation. With a
bow,
Then, your obedient

servant now.
One gift is all i find in me,
And that is faithful
memory
Orbie
partly cloudy, with a few showers
 
Posts: 7596
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2012 6:34 pm
Location: Night of infinite faith

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:33 am

Sorry about that, Orbie. I just realized I hadn't subscribed to this. I had no way of knowing you were posting here. I'm on vacation right now. But I will get back to ya, brother!!!!
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 3:33 am

“While it would be wrong to dismiss the role of memory in identity, as described in Sally Latham’s ‘Shaping the Self’ (issue 110), I would also point to the role played by the perceiving thing: the fact that we are always a particular point in space and time (that is subjective time so as not to incur the wrath of Tallis) with an experience of continuity. Consider some thought experiments built around the movie The Sixth Day with Arnold Schwarzenegger. In it, a corporation has developed the technology to clone individuals and implant their memories into them. Their henchmen are killed then, thanks to capital and technology, basically resurrected.


Now, first of all, we could, for the sake of scientific accuracy, consider the implanting of memories redundant since, if the brain was cloned at the time of death, those memories would be encoded in its exact replica. However, we can assume that the redundancy is mainly a narrative device meant to suggest that not only are the memories being injected, but the person's identity as well.


Secondly, we have to ask is if this would necessarily constitute the resurrection of the individual that died. The problem for me is that being killed and brought back as a perfect replication of myself would still involve a major disruption in the continuity of my particular point in space and time. My replication may be just like me and have my memories. But would it be the ‘me’ that died? Of course, a rash materialist (Tallis' neuromaniac or Dennett's barefoot behaviorist) might boast: "But of course! Same body; same brain; same you." And we might wonder if they, that is if the technology did exist, would be willing to put their money where their mouth is. Then, being civilized people who don't kill for the sake of knowledge, we might settle for the less drastic measure of another scenario: one in which the replication was created while the original was still alive. Once again: same body, same mental makeup and memories. But in this case, we could confidently say the original identity is not continued through the replication. Nor would the disruption be analogous to the discontinuations we might experience in sleep or under anesthesia since, in those cases, identity is anchored in its return to the same body. “

“If my memory was totally wiped and i woke up in hospital with no recollection of my past, im pretty certain that my identity remains intact. So here we need to clarify what we mean by our 'identity'. The first entry in my dictionary distinguishes it as our 'personality'.”

“It reminds me of the Ship of Theseus, that has over the years every part replaced with a new part, is it the same ship, etc. Also Lincoln's Axe, has had both handle and axe-head replaced, is it still the same axe or what.”

“This is especially interesting to me now because as I finish my Modern Scholar lectures on Evolutionary Psychology, I find an alternative version of the perceiving thing as a mental module that hovers above all the various drives and impulses [while describing it as acting within] and creates a narrative in order to make sense of the activities of various mental modules. It just seems to me that there is a kind of operationalism at work here that assumes the scientific perspective that I think we really need to deal with here.”

In other words, what the science of evolutionary psychology is arguing is that our sense of identity is merely one kind of mental activity (one mental module (among others. However, I would argue that this comes from the same scientific arrogance that dismisses free-will (that is when we should be talking about a participating self since “free-will” was lost with Cartesian Dualism (through the circular reasoning that was demonstrated throughout the last 2 lectures: that which assumes that everything must work within scientific perimeters in order to be considered legitimate.

(More on this later.)

Our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to establish that our identity (that which creates an ordered narrative for our multiple drives and impulses (is not just one mechanism in the brain, but rather a result of the fact that we have a brain which is attached to a body that constitutes a particular point in space and subjective time.

In other words, as many of you have argued, we cannot think of the self (identity (as just one kind of mental module among others. We should, rather, think of it as the foundation of all modules described by evolutionary psychology.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 15, 2015 4:46 am

Orbie: tell me something: have you ever been diagnosed as schizophrenic? Or do you deliberately choose to explain yourself in a schizophrenic way?
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Nov 21, 2015 7:34 pm

"Nice enough personal essay, D Edward, but what do you want to start a discussion about? This is a discussion group, after all." -Ian Smith

Fair enough, Ian. But to me it is more about bouncing off of each other and the process (or routine (I follow everyday: my Einstein's wardrobe that eliminates having to expend resources on deciding what I'm going to do everyday which, in turn, allows me to expend them on that process. When I (working night shift (get off, I read about 20 pages of whatever book I am focused on then, when I go to the "library" and get my usual mini-pitcher and shot (half rumple minz/half Jager, I go back to an earlier point in the book and go more slowly with no concern with getting from the beginning of a section to the end and look for quotes I can respond to.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sun Nov 22, 2015 8:11 pm

It’s a good thing a distraction (the digression it entices you into (is just one trajectory among others (think: Frost’s Path Not Taken (because you guys are distracting me from points I should be making on my present reading of Rorty’s Objectivity, Reletavism, and Truth. I can only hope that the fact (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave (that we are on the pragmatic board feels like salt on the wound.

Are you feeling the cut, guys? Anyway:

“There are some serious alternate paradigms on the problem of self - for instance Panpsychism, which is probably closer to Deleuze's ideas I imagine D Edward Tarkington” –Chris

“Am i missing something here? Panpsychism sounds like complete bogus.” –Jan

While Chalmers and Panpsychism has been forever on my to-do list, I’m not sure I would not totally dismiss it –that is without having the info I would like to have. As a guest on a Philosophy Now podcast on the mind (https://philosophynow.org/podcasts/Free ... _the_Brain) enlightened me with: we can’t dismiss the possibility that particles, at the atomic level, are capable of carrying data. And we have to put in mind here that what we experience as consciousness is rooted in the grunts and silences in the meat of the brain: the cumulative effect of various cells in the brain that are either active or not.

As to whether Deleuze subscribes to panpsychism, Chris, that would require an expertise on Deleuze I’m not sure anyone can achieve. As I understand him, he subscribes to the same kind of qualified materialism (think: machinic and social production(as Rorty for the sake of a social agenda based on discourse unimpeded by transcendent criteria (territorializations such as objectivity or “the scientific method”: power discourses (that, via the momentum created by the exchanges of energy, can facilitate our evolution as a species. It’s basically Hegel without the fixed endgame.

At the same time, Chris, I can’t totally dismiss your point since Deleuze does seem to work from an rhizomatic interchange at an atomic level. It’s something we’ll have to explore.

“As Descartes said "I think therefore...", we must necessarily take self for granted, that we exist, and to avoid solipsism accept others exist, too. With self comes all the things we do, such as having ideas and forming logical cause and effect relationships.” –David

I’m not exactly sure where David stands here, but I have to go with the school that has abandoned Cartesian dualism. For instance, I believe we need to concede to the materialists and neuroscientists and stop talking about Free Will. What we should be talking about, rather, is participation: that which I believe lies in Chaotics and that subtle point at which the determined transforms into the random and the random transforms into the determined. Here we can see the possibility of a participating (sort of (self in the interface of consciousness that occurs between the brain and the environment it has to adapt to in order to protect the body and its genetic legacy. Doing so, we can downplay the Causa Sui argument offered by hardcore materialists by pointing out that it is based on an outdated linear understanding of causality as compared to the feedback loop we are talking about here. I mean why would a participating self necessarily need to be an uncaused cause?

In Dave’s defense, he does go on to say:

“I agree self cannot experience self. Self is what does the experiencing. Just as the idea of self love is a farce.”

What I see here is a point made by Dennett in Consciousness Explained against the notion of the Cartesian Theater: the multiple drafts theory in which the brain brings in data and passes it around different modules until, through an additive and revision process, the mind arrives at a final understanding. And it seems legit to me. However, it doesn’t eliminate the idea of the Cartesian Theater as much as make the actors the spectators as well: a theater troupe performing purely for its own satisfaction.

So why couldn’t we experience “self love”, Dave? And it has been suggested that narcissism is a quality embedded in our very make-up.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Dec 26, 2015 9:25 pm

Managed to let my Zizek study be sabotaged by a heckler (a FreeMarketFundmentalist ( and on that count, I guess I should just trust my process. On the uptick, though, it allows me to document some thoughts I’ve been having outside of my routine: my process.
*
I can’t speak for everyone on these boards. But sometimes, when I’m doing what I’m doing, I feel like what I describe as the psychotic response to the nihilistic perspective:

Like I’m just walking down the street engaged in this personal conversation and everyone is just stepping aside to let me pass safely by.

What scares me, though, is the possibility that real schizophrenics, that do that, love their process as much as I do.
*
I’ve come to realize how Deleuzian I am in recognizing how unimportant questions are to me. I really don’t care whether consciousness or free will exists. I don’t care if the universe is determined, random, or something in between. I’m not asking those questions. In fact, I’m not asking any questions. While (for the fun of it (I will defend a non-determined universe and the possibility of a participating self, if it were unquestionably established that the universe was determined and consciousness and free will (even the participating self (were illusions produced by the brain, I wouldn’t miss a step. I have no real stake in it.

For me, it is about taking in the concepts of established philosophers and seeing what I can do with them. It, to me, is a form of Play: conceptual play for the sake of creating concepts.

I do, of course, have a stake in Capitalism in that it is having some very real effects on my life and the life of others: for instance, the fact (and may the wrath of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that Capitalism could result in the extinction of my species. And for that cause, I will turn to any language game I have to to save it, to insure the well being of my grand…. my beautiful granddaughters.
*
Let me explain:

I tend to work from a revision of Will Durant’s 5 concerns of philosophy:
Metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, and politics

But philosophy has grown more complex since Durant’s time. My (yes mine, and mine alone (process has elaborated on Durant’s model:

Metaphysics/Ontology (Ontology being metaphysics with its feet on the ground, logic/epistemology/phenomenology, ethics/aesthetics (since both are about value statements, and, finally, the psychological/social/political. The problem with this model is that it sticks with the old arborescent model in which metaphysics/ontology is at the foundation and, working through the others, the psychological/social/political is the superficial result. This, in turn, assumes that we live at a superficial level that is given value based on the extent to which it satisfies the criteria offered by the metaphysical/ontological depth.

I would offer a different model in which the symbol > or < suggests the influence one discipline is having on the other:

Metaphysics/Ontology>Logic/Epistemology/Phenomenology>Ethics/Aesthetics>the Psychological/Social/Political

Metaphysics/Ontology,<Logic/Epistemology/Phenomenology<Ethics/Aesthetics<The Psychological/Social/Political

It’s a back and forth. There is no core.

There are those who will reject this model because they want to establish their metaphysical core as the only criteria by which we should live. Think: Capitalism: the invisible hand of the market. And maybe they’re right. Maybe I’m wrong. But everything my process has shown me suggests that I have every reason for following the process that I do:

I feel justified.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 5:51 am

In a recent New Yorker article, ‘The Threshold of Violence’ (http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/ ... f-violence), Malcolm Gladwell makes the argument that the recent increase in mass shootings in America can be seen as a kind of slow motion mob mentality. The mob mentality, as is well known and reasonably described, is a matter of different people with different thresholds at which they break from normal social protocol. It’s a matter of acceleration: a group of people gather together to protest some unifying issue, people of a lower threshold start acting violently, the status quo (or its representatives (react with more force until the next lowest threshold responds thereby creating a feedback loop of escalation until everyone is caught up in it.

(And I have seen this dynamic at work in less consequential ways. Back when I was working as a custodian in a local university, one of my trainers explained to me that the cleaner you leave a classroom, the cleaner it will be when you come back to it the next morning. And it proved to be true. And I can only assume that it was a matter of the different thresholds at which people will resist being pigs before they give in to the mob and make their own contribution.)

The thing was I was, at first, skeptical of Gladwell’s assertion in that I found it hard to connect the unified nature and focus of a protest turned riot (as well as a group of students who choose to trash a classroom) to the diverse and individualistic nature and seeming absurdity of shooting sprees, of how, for instance, one can connect an autistic teenager shooting grade school children with two religious fanatics killing people in San Bernardino.

Then the anti-Capitalist in me slapped me on the forehead and realized there is a common cause: the increasing pressure being put on people in a world in which a few are feasting at the table while the rest of us fight for the crumbs. Note, for instance, a point made by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine: that Canada, at the time, had more guns per capita than America while having a far lower murder rate. And I think we can attribute this to Canada’s stronger safety net (the feeling of security it offers (as compared to America’s everyman-for-themselves hubris. There is a reason it is mainly happening in America. And it will likely increase in other western industrialized nations as austerity measures take hold.

In this sense, we can agree with while revising the old NRA motto:

Guns don’t kill people; desperate people with guns do.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby phyllo » Wed Jan 06, 2016 3:39 am

Note, for instance, a point made by Michael Moore in Bowling for Columbine: that Canada, at the time, had more guns per capita than America while having a far lower murder rate.And I think we can attribute this to Canada’s stronger safety net (the feeling of security it offers (as compared to America’s everyman-for-themselves hubris.
It's because it is very difficult to own a handgun in Canada. There are background checks, mandatory safety courses and strict rules for transporting handguns. There is no concealed carry allowed anywhere.
The guns that are 'relatively' accessible are long guns - rifles and shotguns - used for hunting. Most people are not murdered by long guns.
Definition of a restricted firearm

According to the Criminal Code, a restricted firearm is:

a handgun that is not a prohibited firearm,
a firearm that
is not a prohibited firearm,
has a barrel less than 470 mm in length, and
is capable of discharging centre-fire ammunition in a semi-automatic manner,
a firearm that is designed or adapted to be fired when reduced to a length of less than 660 mm by folding, telescoping or otherwise, or
a firearm of any other kind that is prescribed to be a restricted firearm

Summary of key requirements

Individuals require:

a firearms licence that is valid for restricted firearms in order to possess or acquire a restricted firearm and to obtain ammunition.
a registration certificate issued under the Firearms Act for all restricted firearms in their possession.
an Authorization to Transport, issued by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of their provincial or territorial jurisdiction, in order to transport a restricted firearm from one location to another.

Individuals must store, display and transport their restricted firearms according to the applicable regulations.
Firearms licence

Individuals must be at least 18 to get a licence authorizing them to have restricted firearms. Individuals younger than 18 years of age can use restricted firearms only if they are under the direct and immediate supervision of a licensed adult.

Individuals who do not yet have a firearms licence, or who wish to change their licence privileges to include restricted firearms, must apply for a Possession and Acquisition Licence (PAL - form RCMP 5592).

Individuals must participate in the Canadian Restricted Firearms Safety Course and pass the tests to be eligible for a PAL with restricted privileges.

A PAL for restricted firearms costs $80 and is renewable every five years. For more information on the current licence fee structure, consult the Canadian Firearms Program (CFP) website.
Permitted purposes for a restricted firearm

There are a few purposes for which individuals can be licensed to acquire or possess a restricted firearm, the most common being target practice or target shooting competitions, or as part of a collection.

In limited circumstances, restricted firearms are also allowed for use in connection with one's lawful profession or occupation, or to protect life.

Exception: Individuals who have a firearm that is registered to them as a relic under the former legislation may continue to possess it for that purpose. However, they cannot pass that designation on to the next owner. The next owner can acquire the firearm only for one of the purposes referred to above.

As set out in the Firearms Act, a relic firearm is one that is of value as a curiosity or rarity, or that is valued as a memento, remembrance or souvenir.
Criteria for each purpose

Depending on which purpose is claimed, there are specific criteria that must be met, as follows:
Target Shooting Practice and Competition

To be authorized to have restricted firearms for target shooting purposes, an individual must provide proof that he or she practices or competes at an approved shooting club or range. For more information about approved shooting clubs and ranges, contact the appropriate provincial or territorial CFO by calling 1-800-731-4000.
Collectors of Restricted Firearms

To be authorized to have restricted firearms as part of a collection, an individual must:

Know the historical, technical or scientific features of such firearms in their collection
Consent to occasional inspections of the place where their collection is stored
Comply with regulations dealing with safe storage, record-keeping and other matters related to restricted firearms

Employment Purposes and Protection of Life

In limited circumstances, an individual may be authorized to possess or acquire a restricted firearm for employment purposes or for protection of life.
Registration

An individual is required to have a registration certificate for each of their restricted firearms. There is no fee to register or transfer a firearm.
Previously Registered Firearms

All registration certificates issued under the former legislation expired on December 31, 2002. Restricted firearms registered in the former system had to be re-registered under the Firearms Act to update the information. Individuals who have not yet re-registered their restricted firearms must do so as soon as possible or dispose of them lawfully. Individuals can apply to re-register them online through the CFP Web site here, or by submitting a paper application (form RCMP 5624). There is no fee.
Newly Acquired Firearms

All restricted firearms that are acquired from a Canadian source must be registered to an individual before he or she takes possession. This will occur as part of the transfer process and must take place any time a restricted or prohibited firearm changes ownership.

In most cases, the entire process can be completed by calling the CFP and selecting the "transfer" option from the menu of services. Alternatively, form RCMP 5492 can be used. This is a two-part form that must be completed by both the person acquiring the firearm and the current owner.

Individuals who acquire a firearm in another country and wish to import it to Canada should refer to the fact sheet on importing a firearm.
Verification

A restricted firearm being registered for the first time in Canada – for example, a new import – must be verified by an approved verifier. Restricted firearms that have previously been registered in Canada are already deemed to be verified. They do not need to be verified again unless the Registrar requests another verification to confirm their description or classification. Call the CFP for help to have a firearm verified.
Authorizations to transport

Individuals require an Authorization to Transport (ATT) from a provincial or territorial CFO in order to transport a restricted firearm from one location to another. There is no fee for an ATT.

To be eligible for an ATT, individuals must hold a firearms licence authorizing them to possess restricted firearms.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/restr-eng.htm
"Only the educated are free" - Epictetus
"Music is a higher revelation than all wisdom and philosophy" -Beethoven
"Everyday life is the way" -Wumen
"Do not permit the events of your daily life to bind you, but never withdraw yourself from them" - Wumen
phyllo
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 10010
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2010 1:41 am
Location: Far away from the BS

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:49 pm

Whenever my present immersion involves the most recent issue of Philosophy Now arriving in the mail, I tend to find an article I want to focus on (a study point (and fumble around with it until it hopefully produces a around 400 word letter to the editor –that is since letters to the editor are about the only opportunity time and my process afford me to engage in the tinker, tweak, and tighten process of a more finished piece. And I generally choose it based on the extent it elicits my empathy while leaving me room for departure: that which I can use because of the common ground I share with them while still being able to assert and further my own process.

And the lucky winner (or unfortunate victim (this time is John Marmysz and the article ‘In Defense of Humorous Nihilism’. I would start with my main issue (his description of nihilism:

“God is dead. Nothing matters. All is meaningless. Nothing is true. These are the sorts of laments often associated with nihilism, a philosophical perspective premised on the belief that the world is incurably imperfect, flawed, defective. According to the nihilist, the way that the world actually exists is not the way it ought to be. We hope for Truth, but we never seem to grasp it in its entirety. We desire Beauty, but find only blemished examples of it in the concrete world. We want things to have value, but nothing seems ultimately all that important. We want the world to be perfect, but it always disappoints us with its flawed nature. This might not be so bad if only the nihilist had faith in our potential to somehow improve things. However, nihilists reject this sort of optimism, instead claiming that it is beyond humanity to mend the eternal rift between our real state of existence and the way we ideally desire things to be. For the nihilist, the real and the ideal are in everlasting conflict with one another, and there is nothing that can be done to alter this condition.”

Now I realize this is the popular understanding of Nihilism. And I would also note that this understanding of it is shared by Simone de Beauvoir:

“In her book The Ethics of Ambiguity (1947), the existentialist Simone de Beauvoir characterizes nihilists as frustrated idealists, condemning them as exemplars of ‘bad faith’. That is, instead of grabbing hold of their imperfect situation like good existentialists, she claims nihilists resign themselves to a sort of impotent fatalism in which all worldly undertakings are doomed to failure since they must inevitably fall short of perfection. If perfection is the criterion of success, then nothing that we accomplish in the real world could ever measure up. The greatest of human achievements are still disappointments, and all worldly activity amounts to a vain struggle toward impossible goals.”

And I bring this up so as to point out how hasty it would be to dismiss Marmysz’s understanding of it. To make things worse, those who embrace nihilism tend to compound this understanding of nihilism (or what I call the nihilistic perspective (through what I consider a rather shallow understanding of the implications of nihilism: that which the Oxford Dictionary describes as being tapped into the underlying nothingness of reality, the fact that we are when we could not be as we are as compared to the 6.5 million other people we could be. Ultimately, what it comes down is authentically trying to understand the implications of that underlying nothingness, that implied in Leibniz's question:

"Why all this rather than nothing?"

And let’s be clear on this: it's not something that can be approached so directly as the so-called nihilists act as if it can. For instance, one of the implications that come from the nihilistic perspective is that all arguments break down to assumptions. And if we really look at those assumptions (really scrutinize them (they ultimately float on thin air. The so-called nihilist takes this as license to act like an a-hole. But nothing could be further from an authentic attempt at understanding the implications of the underlying nothingness than assuming that it has the fixed trajectory of negativity. Once again: all assumptions float on thin air. Nothingness, by definition, can have no fixed trajectory.

To finish with a more concrete example: from the nihilistic perspective, while there is no real solid foundation for embracing a god or a religion, there is equally no solid foundation for (even if it was proven wrong or nonexistent beyond doubt (for not embracing a god or a religion. Likewise, while there is no solid foundation for embracing a given ethical position, there is equally no solid foundation for not embracing that ethical position.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:11 pm

“To finish with a more concrete example: from the nihilistic perspective, while there is no real solid foundation for embracing a god or a religion, there is equally no solid foundation for (even if it was proven wrong or nonexistent beyond doubt (for not embracing a god or a religion. Likewise, while there is no solid foundation for embracing a given ethical position, there is equally no solid foundation for not embracing that ethical position.”

My main point here is that Nihilism (or the nihilistic perspective, like nothing, does nothing; it always has. But it has always been there waiting. Once again:

“To make things worse, those who embrace nihilism tend to compound this understanding of nihilism (or what I call the nihilistic perspective (through what I consider a rather shallow understanding of the implications of nihilism: that which the Oxford Dictionary describes as being tapped into the underlying nothingness of reality, the fact that we are when we could not be as we are as compared to the 6.5 million other people we could be. Ultimately, what it comes down is authentically trying to understand the implications of that underlying nothingness, that implied in Leibniz's question:

"Why all this rather than nothing?"

It goes back to Socrates confession that he knew nothing through the romantic break from the classicist hierarchy as well as Enlightenment’s break from religion to Nietzsche’s (via Hegel (proclamation that God is dead on through existentialism’s experimentation with the underlying nothingness of consciousness to its full expression in postmodernism via (post) structuralism.

And given the history that Marmysz describes:

“This seemingly bleak and depressing philosophy of life has been wrestled with by many of the world’s greatest thinkers, most of whom, like Beauvoir, have endeavored to reject it, and move beyond it. Thus we find philosophers such as the Buddha, Immanuel Kant, Max Stirner, Søren Kierkegaard, Arthur Schopenhauer, Martin Heidegger, and perhaps most explicitly, Friedrich Nietzsche, struggling with the problem of nihilism, proposing their own ‘solutions’, and suggesting ways that might guide us on a path toward the overcoming of our despair.”

:it is easy to see how the more pop-nominal description of nihilism would have taken hold like it did. And we can see the source of it in (neo) classism as Marmysz suggests:

“Traditionally, philosophers have recoiled from incongruity, seeing in it something illogical, irrational. As such, incongruities have normally been thought of begging for resolution, eradication, or at the very least, some sort of clarification.”

What we’re talking about here is a perfectly natural human need to maintain order. Hence, the recoil from incongruity in the face of the general ungroundedness of things which is an expression of the underlying nothingness. It comes out of a failure to really explore the implications of that ungroundedness (that nothingness (reinforced by the fact that the nihilistic perspective can never really be looked straight on, can only glance the corner of the eye because it always stands outside of the symbolic order we find ourselves living in. The problem lies in the classicist tradition described above that the nihilistic perspective has always lain in wait to undermine. And it’s not something you can just say, “Sounds like a good idea”, and embrace and understand. It is, rather, something that comes to you through an ongoing process of (self) deconstruction. In this sense, it’s a lot like Alan Watts’ (and I’m kind of revealing my influences here (concept of “letting go”: that which cannot happen until you let go of the idea of letting go.

But while I am perfectly empathetic with the conventional understanding of the nihilistic perspective (just a misunderstanding to me, what is truly odious to me is the self serving misrepresentation of the so-called nihilists –as was parodied in the movie The Big Lewbowski. They’re the ones that act like nothingness must have some kind of fixed trajectory into negativity. While Marmysz’s move from the pop understanding of nihilism to his conclusion (and even if I have issues (was consistent, theirs fail miserably in their failure to truly explore the implication of the underlying nothingness, ungroundedness, or the incongruity of reality for the sake of self indulgence.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Sat Jan 09, 2016 8:32 pm

Connection and departure: the criteria by which I choose the victim of my focus in any given issue of Philosophy Now (https://philosophynow.org/issues/111/In ... s_Nihilism, the very criteria by which I chose Marmysz’s article -hard name to remember the spelling of BTW. That said, I think it is time to get to the f-ing point:

“It is precisely because of the nihilist’s logically-irreconcilable incongruity between aspirations and the actual state of the world that many philosophers who have encountered it have either fallen into despair or chosen to ‘overcome’ nihilism by changing their fundamental beliefs about reality. But there is a third option, and that is to adopt an attitude of humorous amusement toward the world’s absurd nature.”

While Marmysz seems to be approaching my sense of it, it is as if his attachment to the historical understanding of nihilism excludes him from seeing what I see as the true relationship between incongruity and the nihilistic perspective. And, once again, I consider the so-called nihilists the most egregious offenders at work here in that they are the ones who fail to articulate the implication of the underlying nothingness while being committed to it and make the self contradictory assumption that nothingness must have a necessary trajectory into the negative, that which results in the outsider assumption (Marmysz’s for instance (that nihilism must lead to despair. In this sense, Marmyyz’s appeal to the common understanding of nihilism seems more empathetic and less nocuous in that, language being an agreement, he is simply working from the understanding given him by the given symbolic order he is attached to -that is while the so-called nihilist fails to truly address the implications of the aspect of the symbolic order they have chosen to embrace. I mean why, for instance, must an embrace of the underlying nothing necessarily lead to despair and negativity? That is when such openness can lead to the joy of deciding one’s own values: values that can be destructive or constructive?

Where I part from Marmysz is that by embracing the pop understanding of nihilism, he, first of all, denies himself the intellectual productivity of a consideration of the nihilistic perspective as it actually is, that is given the ubiquitous nature of it that he actually approaches:

“Despite the efforts of these great intellects, by some accounts nihilism is a more urgent philosophical syndrome today than it ever has been. It certainly continues to be a challenge not to be taken lightly, and certainly not something most people feel inclined to laugh at.”

By taking the historical route of seeing philosophy as acting against the nihilistic perspective, Marmysz falls short of seeing the intimate relationship between incongruity and the nihilistic perspective. He makes it seem as if nihilistic humor is just some kind of antidote to incongruity when it could very well be an expression of that intimate relationship between the two and the joy that results. I’m just not sure humor needs to be thought of as a “third option”.

Think, for instance, of the movie Trainspotting which I consider to be a nihilistic anthem.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Fri Jan 15, 2016 8:57 pm

As I enter into my first immersion into Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (mind), I’m starting to see the value of going back to the old-schoolers. Up until recently, I had found it hard to read anything written before the 60’s. But my immersions in my personal holy triad: Deleuze, Rorty, and Zizek (as well as the principle of diffe̕rrance: the deferred meaning involved in any philosophical text which is always referring to previous philosophers: have elicited my curiosity.

I have found this value in the fact that, while I have managed, at best, shallow scratches on the titanium surface of the book, I’m finding hope (enticements perhaps (in the overlaps: the common terms that Hegel is using such as “being-in-itself” and “being-for-itself” (thank you, Sartre! (his occupation with the notion of nothingness (once again: thank you, Sartre! (as well as the concept of edification. Hegel wags his finger at Rorty and Deleuze. At the same time, he seems to be on the same page in his understanding of what it is philosophy actually does:

“The Absolute on this view is not to be grasped in conceptual form, but felt, intuited; it is not its conception, but the feeling of it and intuition of it that are to have the say and find expression.” -Hegel, Georg W. F. (2010-06-24). The Phenomenology of Spirit (The Phenomenology of Mind) (Kindle Locations 427-428). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

And he does go on later in the preface to address complaints about the obscurity of philosophical exposition which sound a lot like the explanations given complaints about Deleuze’s use of free indirect discourse: that a true understanding of philosophical concepts require a kind of oblique approach to meaning. (I'm thinking Claire Colebrook's explanation here.)

At the same time, there seems to be a contradiction in that Hegel seems to want philosophy to have the same status as a science which, as far as I know, tends to take a more direct approach to meaning. Perhaps my German jam-mate, Harald, can help me with this. That said, I can see a kind of common sense of it (w/departure (in paragraph 1.:

“In the case of a philosophical work it seems not only superfluous, but, in view of the nature of philosophy, even inappropriate and misleading to begin, as writers usually do in a preface, by explaining the end the author had in mind, the circumstances which gave rise to the work, and the relation in which the writer takes it to stand to other treatises on the same subject, written by his predecessors or his contemporaries. For whatever it might be suitable to state about philosophy in a preface—say, an historical sketch of the main drift and point of view, the general content and results, a string of desultory assertions and assurances about the truth—this cannot be accepted as the form and manner in which to expound philosophical truth.” -Hegel, Georg W. F. (2010-06-24). The Phenomenology of Spirit (The Phenomenology of Mind) (Kindle Locations 360-365). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

He then goes on to say:

“Moreover, because philosophy has its being essentially in the element of that universality which encloses the particular within it, the end or final result seems, in the case of philosophy more than in that of other sciences, to have absolutely expressed the complete fact itself in its very nature; contrasted with that the mere process of bringing it to light would seem, properly speaking, to have no essential significance.”

It just seems to me that philosophy is a matter of moving from the general to the particular. At the same time I would agree with him to the extent that understanding the general (that which resides in the overlaps (and stopping there does not constitute a philosophical process. Still (and excuse my opportunistic attempt to toss my own thoughts into the mix: it seems to me that any relationship (including that with philosophy (is a matter of turning content into form. For instance, the process by which we come to know a good friend, or even a lover, starts with their physical appearance and what they do the very first time we see them. Beyond that, it is a process of unfolding in which everything we come to understand about them participates in (conditions even (how we come to see them. And the same goes for philosophy or any philosophical text we might choose to engage.

Therefore, while I would agree with Hegel that such general understandings are not a true indication of what philosophy can actually do, I would disagree that the wide swashes of a typical preface are “superfluous” in that they are the perfectly natural steppingstone by which one penetrates the individual process.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

Re: Public Journal:

Postby d63 » Wed Jan 20, 2016 9:21 pm

As I scratch at the titanium surface of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (and find myself, as yet, only a sliver less confused than when I started (I can still see the filters I have developed reading more modern philosopher’s at work. I can, for instance, see where Rorty got his distinction between the edifying and systematic:

“What it wants from philosophy is not so much insight as edification.” -Hegel, Georg W. F. (2010-06-24). The Phenomenology of Spirit (The Phenomenology of Mind) (Kindle Location 444). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

And:

“This easy contentment in receiving, or stinginess in giving, does not suit the character of science. The man who only seeks edification, who wants to envelop in mist the manifold diversity of his earthly existence and thought, and craves after the vague enjoyment of this vague and indeterminate Divinity—he may look where he likes to find this: he will easily find for himself the means to procure something he can rave over and puff himself up withal. But philosophy must beware of wishing to be edifying.”

And Hegel makes clear throughout the preface that edification is something to be avoided. Furthermore, even though I cannot pull up the quote, he is very clear about his embrace of systems –that which Nietzsche described as a lack of integrity. At the same time, we can see this as Hegel’s response to the Romanticism of the time:

“When such minds commit themselves to the unrestrained ferment of sheer emotion, they think that, by putting a veil over self-consciousness, and surrendering all understanding, they are thus God’s beloved ones to whom He gives His wisdom in sleep. This is the reason, too, that in point of fact, what they do conceive and bring forth in sleep is dreams.”

And his lean to the scientific side of the spectrum: the no man’s land between Science and Literature:

“To help to bring philosophy nearer to the form of science—that goal where it can lay aside the name of love of knowledge and be actual knowledge—that is what I have set before me.”

Here we see the roots of the analytic/continental divide (as in Hegel’s smug dismissal of the literary approach quoted above (that characterizes the philosophical culture today. We can see here why postmodernist thinkers so vehemently dismiss him (Deleuze considered him too reprehensible to even consider (while thinkers like Zizek (and I’m guessing Habermas (those who have to believe that the truth is out there (engage in apologetics/revisions of Hegel.

At the same time, from what I gather from the audio book beyond the preface, he does seem to put his money where his mouth is. While hardly understanding any of it, all the self being for itself is its self in itself in relation to the self that was before the self (it is truly a phenomenology), I can’t help but feel he has put together a very articulate and complex system that would make perfect sense if one had the time to break it down to its individual components, assimilate each, then put it back together in a coherent whole. And this confirms the atomistic description of the dialectic offered by my audio book about Hegel.

At the same time, as my respected peer and jam-mate Steven Orslini points out, one might go through all that just to find out that it is little more than mystification.
Humble yourself or the world will do it for you -it was either Russell or Whitehead. I can't remember which.

When I was young, I use to think the world was a messed up place so i was pissed off a lot. But now that I'm older, I know it is. So I just don't worry about it. -John Lydon (AKA Johnny Rotten).

Anarchy through Capitalism -on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert.

First we read, then we write. -Emerson.

All poets are damned. But they are not blind. They see with the eyes of angels. -William Carlos Williams: in the introduction to Ginsberg's Howl.

You gotta love that moment when the work is done and all that is left to do is drink your beer and sip your jager and enjoy what you've done. It's why I do and love it.

I refuse to be taken seriously.

Once again: take care of your process and others will take care of theirs. No one needs a guru. Just someone to jam with.

:me
User avatar
d63
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5432
Joined: Sat Apr 02, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Midwest

PreviousNext

Return to The Sandbox



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users