I am, Humean, learning to do what you tried to teach me:
keep my focus on my process,
and not let the hecklers disturb it.
love ya, man:
you silent god,
watching,
saying nothing,
and keeping everything right where it should be.
“A philosophical system is therefore a plane on which a collection of philosophical concepts can coherently coexist: a plane of consistency, or plane of immanence.”
“Deleuze presents this account in What is Philosophy? by noting that the plane of immanence is “a section of chaos” (WP 42); that which is outside of our conceptual schemata, and which escapes all rational consistency.”
“Talking about Ideas, Deleuze claims that each Idea is like a conic section (DR 187). If we take a three-dimensional cone and cut it along a two-dimensional plane, then depending on the angle of the plane to the cone, we will obtain a different curve. If we take a section that is parallel to the cone, we will have a circle. Cutting the cone at a more skewed angle will give us an ellipse, then a parabola, and finally a hyperbola. Each of these planes is whole, in that it contains a whole curve, but yet it is not complete, as it is only a section of the cone. Likewise, the singular points of each curve (where the curve meets infinity , where the gradient of the curve = 0) differ, but nonetheless all derive from the structure of the cone itself. Different philosophical systems are in the same manner objective presentations of the world that nonetheless are incommensurate with one another, each presenting a another, each presenting a perspective on chaos while leaving open the possibility of other perspectives. There is, for Deleuze, no possibility of a system that would reconcile all of these different planes in a grand Hegelian synthesis.” -(2012-09-27). The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze (Cambridge Companions to Philosophy) (p. 7). Cambridge University Press. Kindle Edition.
Here we get Deleuze’s (w/ and w/out Guattarri (relevance to the post-structuralist and post-modern movement. It comes down to a simple and perfectly accessible point:
There is something about reality that always transcends the language we use to describe it.
And if you think about it in terms of the arts, this movement seems almost inevitable. If you go back to Shakespeare and his classical influences, you see the idealization of language and context (his focus on the on the elite (in order to achieve an effect. Of course, at the time, the way people actually spoke was likely nowhere near as ideal as the language of Shakespeare’s plays –which is what probably what made them so appealing. Then Henrik Ibsen came along and took it down from the royal elite and brought it down to the level of the bourgeoisie middle class. And while this seemed like a step forward, it still had the feeling of the idealized as compared to the reality that people were actually experiencing. This is what eventually led to Tennessee Williams and his description of the life of the poor, but that still resorted to an idealized poetic language.
(And put in mind here that in the midst of all this we had Robert Frost who, despite his own neo-classicism, attempted to move poetry from the ideal resonance of Shakespeare’s day to the resonance of the plain spoken(
And we have seen as much in the last couple of generations. Compare, for instance, 2 movies made about D-day: The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan. In The Longest Day (aside from a clear lack of the technology of Saving Private Ryan (there was a problem with the dialogue: namely it’s dependency on speechmaking. In other words, the problem with it was not just the technology they had at the time; it was also an issue of a developing sensibility. And you see that problem of sensibility in the stilted dialogue of pretty much every movie before…. well now.
But there is still work to be done. If you look at Saving Private Ryan, you will note a kind of adolescent fascination in Spielberg in that he seemed perfectly comfortable when his actors were in battle or engaged in masculine banter. But the whole thing seemed to stall when it came to the more personal moments: the monologues such as when Giovanni Ribisi was talking about his mother or Matt Damon was talking about his last memory of his brothers.
The point is that our whole cultural history has been a story of how we have dealt with the desire to make the language we use to describe reality a little more like reality itself.
Of course, this is a doomed project. In this sense, we can see why the non-classicist approach emerged such as that of the surrealists, avante garde, and the abstract expressionists in art, and the post-structuralists and post-modernists in theory. The idea was that if language can never truly reflect reality, why not play with it so that it can at least approach it.
And it is in this context that I would argue the import of Deleuze (w/ and w/out Guattarri (at a personal/creative level and Rorty as a social extension (via dialogue (and Zizek in terms of his technique: a kind of intellectual bricolage. The 3 of them, to me, through their materialism, accelerate the evolutionary process of brain plasticity which has been the physical basis of our evolution as a culture.
“Dude, what’s up? I’m not a fascist.
At least I think not. if you’ll grant me some of your time, I think I can humanize y [her?] philosophy.”
First of all, I’m not going to claim to be an expert on Rand. I attempted one book of hers (a collection of essays by her and her supporters (such as Greenspan (back in the 90’s which I abandoned out of laziness and indifference, then attempted The Virtues of Selfishness around 2004, but got so nauseous by about the 4th essay I had to put her down. While I agreed with her assertion that you have to be weary of accusations of “selfishness” in that they are generally resorted to by people who selfishly demand that you do (or focus your point A to point B (on what they selfishly want you to, it just got so smug and obtuse that I couldn’t take it anymore. One of the main problems was the half-assed libertarianism (her supposed anti-libertarianism (that talked a lot about freedom when it came to your role as a producer/consumer (what you can contribute to the Grand Narrative of Capitalism (while dismissing, with an air of distaste, any behavior that acted outside of that role: such as drug use. In other words, there seemed to be no other life choice that could justify a point A to point B outside of that which stayed within the perimeters of the tyranny of the functional and our role as producer/consumers. And this strikes me as a rather shallow and manipulative use of the term “freedom” –much like those of tyrants (such as Adi Amin (who tend to emerge in 3rd world countries.
Of course, the other experience I had with her was the movie version of Atlas Shrugged which I describe in an essay:
And while I can’t argue that the movie represents her ideas exactly, I can’t help but feel it’s a little more representative than her apologists are willing to admit: mainly because I have felt the influence of her (via the very arguments made in the movie (all over the arguments I hear all the time through other pro-Capitalists. Take, for instance, the notion that government interference in the private sphere must, by its very nature, be authoritarian in nature: the dark tales Capitalists tell their children at bedtime to frighten them away from the idea of any government policy aimed at a just society. Nor can I believe that people who had such a fawning admiration for her ideas as to finally (after an attempt that started in the 70’s (put Atlas Shrugged on film in the mid 2000’s would actually take the liberty of adding such an insidious and fascistic term as “looters”.
Or are you going to argue that none of this was actually in the book?
“Ayn Rand has two faces; her philosophy ad her personality. Her fictional heroes reflect her personality, which isn’t noble but harsh and resentful, But her essays reflect her philosophy, and so do the questions presents in the stories. Not the answers!! Not the dramatic conclusions. These are narrative, not principle.”
This I will have to take your word on. Once again, I cannot claim to be the expert here. That said, I find myself in agreement with the following:
“Who writes really well Aynian perspective fictionally, is James Clavell
SHOGUN is the best book I ever read. I know that’s comical. I never saw the movie or anything, that is all bullshit, it is a fat thick narrative of the most intricate structure with a lead that is beyond whatever you think. Tai Pan is also very good. I learned a lot but truly a lot about Japanese culture from Shogun, which inclues quite a bit of Jesuitism. Amazing stuff. Did you know that the term of gratitude “Arigato” stems from the portuguese “Obrigado”? I did not know that before. The Japanese apparently did not have a world for thanks. Isn’t that a heasdache for a goddamn philologist to conceive; the world is so much beyond even our wildest philosophies. It is remarkable to look at Asian cultures, how far their depths reach into unfathomable valuing. I prefer toe Chinese mindset over the Japansese but I love the Japanese graces. Do you enjoy the Orient? Ar eyou a tea-drinker? lol. No really. I love tea, and I have such high standards that I rarely drink it.“
This seems clear to me given Rand’s well known propensity towards the heroic and mythological as I saw in the movie series of Atlas Shrugged and was stated in the graphic guide Ayn Rand for Beginners: one of my sources I forgot to mention(
But before I go on, I should explain a few things about the latter. I had turned to it as a summary Cliff Notes to Rand as a whole while I was working on my essay. And I was hoping for a balanced perspective on her. What I got was more of a fawning tribute that felt more aimed at converting teenagers than anything. It wasn’t, for my purposes, the best book in the series. But it is still useful to me to the extent that I can assume that the writer, given their positive take on Rand, can give me a reasonably accurate take on her ideas as compared to someone just being critical.
(It would explain such lines in the movie version of Atlas Shrugged such as that of Francisco d’Anconia:
“When money seizes to be the tool of men by which men deal with other men, then men become the tools of other men.”
We can easily see the Shakespearian element at work here (that is along with the way d’Anconia skulked about in the shadows like some modern day Iago. And we can see as much in the heroic stand made by Hank Reardon when in court for violating some outlandish law made by petty bureaucrats that has no real reference to anything we actually experience in reality:
“I do not recognize the good of others as justification of my existence.”
Now I will give you credit for checking me with your first point:
““Ayn Rand has two faces; her philosophy ad her personality. Her fictional heroes reflect her personality, which isn’t noble but harsh and resentful, But her essays reflect her philosophy, and so do the questions presents in the stories. Not the answers!! Not the dramatic conclusions. These are narrative, not principle.”
It was an impressive move that I cannot dispute. Still, we have to deal with the second point:
“Who writes really well Aynian perspective fictionally, is James Clavell
SHOGUN is the best book I ever read. I know that’s comical. I never saw the movie or anything, that is all bullshit, it is a fat thick narrative of the most intricate structure with a lead that is beyond whatever you think. Tai Pan is also very good. I learned a lot but truly a lot about Japanese culture from Shogun, which includes quite a bit of Jesuitism. Amazing stuff. Did you know that the term of gratitude “Arigato” stems from the Portuguese “Obrigado”? I did not know that before. The Japanese apparently did not have a world for thanks. Isn’t that a headache for a goddamn philologist to conceive; the world is so much beyond even our wildest philosophies. It is remarkable to look at Asian cultures, how far their depths reach into unfathomable valuing. I prefer to Chinese mindset over the Japansese but I love the Japanese graces. Do you enjoy the Orient? Are you a tea-drinker? lol. No really. I love tea, and I have such high standards that I rarely drink it. “
We have to recognize the role that fancy is playing in this as compared to an actual engagement with the reality that most people are dealing with. Rand didn’t just prefer the heroic; she felt an outright disdain for literature that described the underdog dealing with realities beyond their control. She, for instance, would have hated Thurber’s short story, The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, in which the main character starts out as a weak, hen-pecked man who compensated through fantasy and ended as a weak, hen-pecked man who compensated through fantasy, but would have loved the recent movie version, with Ben Stiller, in which Mitty actually achieves the heroic.
And it is this fanciful element that I am mainly having problems with. And while I would be as seduced by Shogun as you were (actually was since I watched the movie version back in the 70’s (much as I’m still seduced by it given my perfect willingness to watch mindless action/adventure movies (I still have to come back to the reality of things and recognize that there are things that people cannot overcome through shear will. The deeper you look into reality, the more you recognize how written-in to it that actually is. Rand may have a disdain for stories about underdogs dealing with forces beyond their control. But those stories must ring as true (if not more so (as the idealized heroics of the classicist sensibility -and for good reason. As Paul Krugman wrote (and I do not quote this to be mean, but to give my sense of it:
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
And once again: you have cleverly checked me on this. Still, I can’t help but follow my ally in Krugman in recognizing the element of fancy and mythology (via Rand and Nietzsche (that is used to justify an unconditional embrace of producer/consumer Capitalism. The truth is that producer/consumer Capitalism (contrary to the notion that it simply requires hard work (requires losers (the underdog working against forces beyond their control (in that success in it is always dependent on doing something that others don’t do. It is also dependent on a willingness to surrender one’s self to the perimeters of the market: to conform as compared to Capitalism’s claim to an exclusive and intimate relationship to Freedom.
(That said: I would also point out the fancy involved in KTS, what I like to call: The Neo-Neitzscheian Gospel of the fearlessly fanciful: the basement overmen who would sit in environmentally controlled spaces, their faces glaring in the dim glow of their computer screens while they type and, in between, raise their fists: tight, trembling, and ready for action. Imagine, Perseus, brother, the fancy it must take to sit in front of a computer and think yourself able to survive the kind of post apocalyptic, Mad Maxian world they seem to long for.
"I don’t agree with Rand’s intellectual vacuity and conceptual simple-mindedness, she basically uses a shallow image of philosophy and thought as a means to political realization and war- but I like that instinct of warfare in her, and she is indeed “on the right track” when it comes to value and the self. On the issue of love she both hits and misses it; yes love is as she says, but it is also what she says it is not, or is more than she is able to credit. In the best light she can be accused of throwing the baby out with the bath water- in reality I think she simply met the limit of her potential for some reason, perhaps consequently of a relationship or personal or money crisis, possibly also due to some hidden shame, and decided to arrest her intellect at a certain position that, in particular given her soviet experiences, was useful and self-validating for her.
She was a warrior and a novelist, and so had little need for understanding “for its own sake”. All in all she is good to read from a certain perspective although her flaws and gaps can be tedious and distracting. Anyway it would have been fun to engage her in conversation, especially if you could get her drinking. I seriously think she lacked anything like what we have here, a true philosophical communion, and also probably became involved with fame and other famous people too soon. From all I’ve seen fame is the fastest route to ruin.
Regardless of her ideas The Fountainhead is a good novel, although the rest of her fiction not so much. Her philosophy is only able to captivate certain youthful minds, though; that doesn’t mean we cannot appreciate the ways in which that thought of hers does cultivate here and there something beyond gross error, of course.
And she was quite a bit more honest and “human” than so many of the “intellectuals” of hers and our own time, despite - perhaps because of - the glaringness, the humanness of her errors."
Actually, this makes some really good points -that is going by the criteria of a balanced perspective. Touche!!! I’m sorry I didn’t catch it earlier in that gives me a better sense of “the other side” by warranting trust. In this case, and the previous one, I’m not getting the feel of being beat over the head with it as I did with the movie version of Atlas Shrugged. That said, I want to make a few final points on the subject of Rand so that, hopefully, I can get back to my focus on Deleuze tomorrow.
Ultimately, my issue with Rand is a practical one. I might even say that it is a pragmatic one in that it goes to Rorty’s truly pragmatic motto:
Take care of Freedom, and the truth will take care of itself.
At some point or other, we have to step out of theory and address real world concerns with real world solutions. And right now, our real world concern is with the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global producer/consumer Capitalism that is eroding our democracies and threatens our existence through the depletion of our natural resources and our possible extinction through man-made climate change. And granted: Rand may partially deal with this through her disdain for monopolies. But this seems based on a nostalgic (a kind of fancy (longing for the Capitalism of Adam Smith: that based on shopkeepers, artisans, craftsmen, and family farms –that which may well have fulfilled the very same needs as Marx’s Communism.
But that is not where we’re at thanks to a growing population and the mass production required to take care of its needs. In that sense, Rand may well be (since she could not have anticipated the emergence of what Robert Reich refers to as SuperCapitalism (in the same boat as Smith and Marx in that all three could not have foreseen future developments and all three were working from bad assumptions about how human nature would play into it: that being that if humans found the happiness they assumed they would, they would fall into place. But then we assumed as much with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in that we thought that cramming democracy down their throats would cause it to spontaneously take off in the Middle East.
So much for grand narratives.
And therein lays my issue with Rand in that she saw (because of the reactionary response to her experiences in Russia (Capitalism as a Grand Narrative and government as the only problem. This makes it a pragmatic issue for me in that the biggest threat to our freedom is the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of producer/consumer Capitalism –whether it was the Capitalism Rand was pimping or not. I believe that the only way to deal with this is through an expansion of the public economy (through public transport, city planning that houses people close to their place of employ, offering necessary goods without a consideration of profit or CEO bonuses (the public option in healthcare would have been a good start on that (and in general the government offering of goods and services without the added expense (the added exchange value as compared to the actual buying power created by it (of profit seeking behaviors (that would work alongside the workings of the market.
It just seems to me that true freedom must act outside of our role as producer/consumers. And that must, by definition, include government intervention in the economy. And Rand (whether through her own arguments or those of her advocates (has shown herself to be a major obstacle (via her grand narrative (to that goal.
First of all, some good writing as always. Secondly, Thanks for giving me my around 500 words project for today. And lastly, I am having a really shitty day (much of which I attribute to Capitalism and the money grubbing goons that run it. So if I come off as a little nasty (not knowing what will follow every word I type (I apologize ahead of time. I mainly want to start with this point:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing. Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this. “
At this point I would like to deal specifically with your second point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings.”
Now isn’t that the exact same thing that Capitalism does? I mean we need look no further than the natural cheer squad of Capitalism: the economists. What else would they cheer for (even the ones I like: Krugman or Reich (but Capitalism given the dynamic system it is and their need to prove themselves to be engaging in science. In a market economy there are all these complex interactions by a multiplicity of players (who are assumed to be rational (that which, as you put it, gives privilege to the symbol and sign over the well being of the “individual entity” (while in a command economy, the leader sees that people don’t have enough bread and orders that more bread be made –not much for economists to do there. This is why we can easily see more liberal economists going Keynesian (the mixed economy (while recognizing that any argument for a fully command economy would be career suicide. This is because in order for an economist to be justified as a scientist, they must be able to claim to find predictability in an unstable system. And this means that Capitalism must resort to the VERY same abstractions and generalizations that you accuse Marx and Zizek of.
And I’m a little confused by what you mean (by what criteria you are working from (when you refer to them as a little bit crazy. Are you referring to the same criteria by which our healthcare systems determine those who don’t fit into or come near the ideal producer/consumer as mentally unfit?
And what kind of bothers me about this is that you and your ally, as apologists for Rand, are basing your arguments on what I don’t understand about Rand. Fair enough. But then you offer me the very same understanding I have of her framed in a different way. Let me articulate. You started your point with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
Basically a positive review of Capitalism which you then followed with a negative point:
“Try treating that symbol and sign without treating the actual individual entities of which and in terms of such it is a sign and symbol and you end up like Marx and like all of the confused modern thinkers like Zizek, ascribing more reality and philosophical importance to classification terms than to actual human beings. Zizek is a little bit crazy, so was Marx- there is a reason for this.”
I could almost hear a nervous and condescending chuckle after –like I’m being played or something. But let me ask you something: how different is this than my original understanding of Rand’s message: that the only system under which we can achieve our higher selves (of self valuing (is Capitalism?
But allow me to turn your prized concept to Marx and recognize the self valuing at the core of his project as well as that of Zizek and social democrats like myself. Allow me to describe Marx, yet again, in a novel and historically accurate way: he was a man who found what he loved to do (his self valuing: what justified his point A to point B (who wanted others to experience what he had and saw Capitalism (the petty and mundane bullshit it can pile on you everyday (as an obstacle to, as you call it: self valuing. And he loved it enough (his self valuing (to sacrifice all normal creature comforts and live in poverty while watching his children die.
Trust me: neither Rand nor Capitalism nor whatever radical solution you’re pimping has a monopoly on self valuing.
Reference: humanarchy.net/forum/viewtop … 1867#p1867
“Good to see a VO [Value Ontology] analysis. Of course you are right. But this is not denied; but the question of how self-valuings behave is deeper, ore more ‘wicked’, tricky and ‘Nietzschean’ (devilish) than the question as Marx addressed it. “Capital” is too much an externalization of the problem,. The very problem is self-valuing, the fact that it has sharp edges.”
First of all, Perseus, your soothing tone comes to me at a good time in that it has soften the edges (and the possible intellectual outcomes (of what feels like a crisis period in my personal life. Truly, brother, I’m seeing angels and white-lights.
That said, the issue of self valuing (or what can also be loosely associated with self-interest (is a lot deeper than the old progressive tactic of pointing towards the status quo’s self interest. As you and Iona seem to be assuming: we are all (in fact it is evolutionarily programmed into us (self interested. I have long abandoned any romantic notion of my progressive and anti-Capitalist efforts as being purely altruistic. I am not a martyr. I am simply someone who sees it in his interest to work towards a system that looks out for the interests of others: the cooperative evolutionary model (our baser impulses working in league with our higher cognitive functions (as compared to the competitive (that which, in evolutionary terms, has gotten us to this point thus far: our baser impulses putting our higher cognitive functions in their service.
This is why I find myself in full agreement with Rand’s assertion that accusations of selfishness are often leveled by those who are acting out of their own selfishness.
Furthermore, I would tend to agree with your point:
“Capital” is too much an externalization of the problem,. The very problem is self-valuing, the fact that it has sharp edges.”
It was pretty much the point Iona was getting at with:
“This whole notion of capitalism as a real entity or self-valuing is nonsense: capitalism is the sign and symbol, par excellence, of human (individual) self-valuing.”
At first, Iona’s point seemed like a self contradiction in that it felt like they were saying Capitalism is not self valuing and then arguing that it was. It took me a few to make the distinction between Capitalism as self-valuing (what can be associated with self interest (and Capitalism as “sign and symbol” of self valuing.
And I would point out here that Zizek made a similar point (Iona? (in recognizing that Capitalism is not some concrete thing that we can just eliminate and take care of all our problems. It’s an ideology. And ideologies do nothing while people do –and all the time. As I have recognized for some time: there is nothing new about Capitalism; it comes down to a problem that has existed since the beginning of civilization and human interaction: that there has always been a handful of people who felt they deserve a little more than everyone else, even if it comes at the expense of everyone else.
In a sense, Perseus (and perhaps even Iona, your take on self-valuing (what I would argue to have a family resemblance to self-interest (is starting to feel like Deleuze and Guattari’s rhizomatic complex and the individual acts of desiring production of which it is composed.
Reference:
humanarchy.net/forum/posting … 20#preview
First of all, Perseus, out of all of FC’s multiple personalities, I like you the best. You have this sincere humility about you that makes it fun disagreeing with you –probably because of your willingness to respect those that disagree with you. There have been very few people with which I have had such a privilege. And even Iona, despite their tendency to get frustrated and resort to jabs, is sincere enough about their process to resist going for my throat.
The cool thing about this is that even though I can feel the same Neo-Neitscheian gospel (what Raymond Tallis refers to as Darwinitus and Putman as Macho ethics (that I felt in KTS, this is a big evolutionary step up from Satyr punctuating every argument with “little girl” and Lyssa basically sticking her tits in my face and snarling:
“You can’t have them because you’re too much of a pussy.”
Still, as much as I’m enjoying the playful rough-housing, after this response, I really need to move on to other things: like my present study of Deleuze. Anyway:
“d63 - without wanting to sacrifice the light you perceive - and I am always well disposed to you - I see here the same error I see in Marx. You seem to work from the assumption that the will to power is an exception, existing only in humans of a lower quality. At the same time, you speak from the will to power. I.e. you condemn those who have power and use it in way as that you can not value, and define history as the process of people who you do value taking power away from those that you do not value. “
First of all, no one is denying the role that the will to power (a metaphysical notion that has passed the the pragmatic truth test of working: much as evolution has (is playing in people’s lives. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Marx was perfectly aware of the Will to Power at work in Capitalists. In fact, Marx’s whole argument centered around the power people have over their circumstances.
What we are dealing with here is a fundamental contradiction built into the neo-Neitzscheian/social Darwinist/Randian argument. It comes down to nihilistic pitfall of sociopathic, that which, having no real criteria by which to judge its actions, turns to the one criteria that almost seems to have a kind of praxis about it: that of power. This results in the rather circler argument:
“I have power because I am right. Therefore, I am right because I have power.”
And therein lies the contradiction of assuming that we should submit to greatness because it is the result of the Will to Power of the individual. I mean wouldn’t the same Will to Power (via self-valuing (be at work if those at lower levels pooled their power and put in check the power of that individual? Wouldn’t socialism (or even communism (be as much an expression of The Will to Power as Capitalism?
And once again: how is the higher principle of worshipping greatness any less religious than worshipping the higher principle of a higher power? Why should I prostrate myself before greatness (and the wealth that comes with it (anymore than I should a god?
“The Marxian assumption is that people really are ‘good’ i.e. do not want power, but only want to share themselves with others, and consume only precisely what others can miss.”
Pretty much like the assumption that the benefactors of Capitalism will not use their power to manipulate government to their advantage, don’t you think? Like assuming that they will be so happy with the results of it that they will willingly play by the rules laid out by Smith –even when it works against their interests. Why do you think that Capitalists (quoting Rand like they would the bible (put so much effort into maintaining the distraction and illusion that government is the problem? I mean it’s not the government that runs the media. This is why everyone around you is so doped on the fashionable cynicism of acting like all politicians go into it with malignant intents (which is utter fucking nonsense (while the role that corporate lobbyists and big money is playing in it is getting a free pass. Like many lawyers (and despite the popular jokes about them (a lot of politicians are people, just like the rest of us, who go into it thinking they can beat the system and actually do some good –then find out it’s never that easy. We can’t even be sure if the electoral process is even real anymore or a modern version of Plato’s allegory of the cave: a puppet show put on (via media (to make us think we are participating in the emerging aristocracy/oligarchy of global Capitalism. I mean you really have to wonder about the way media comments on it like it was a sporting event (a kind of controlled randomness that must stay within certain perimeters (in the same upbeat way a weatherman can predict bad weather.
And do we not pay good money for the “experience” of participating in democracy on these boards?
“One if the main problems in “social-psychology” is the molecular-molar , micro-macro problem. While Nietzsche describes a top/ down microcosm (of kings, oligarchies), the molar (or the statistical (by stochastic processes (is structured by mean value (normalization) which defines its actual process. Nietzsche’s Building of Governments and Marxian economic laws, which act above us all [grand narratives] in the form of statistical laws, is where crisis and catastrophes occur -a bit like in Thom’s theory of Catastrophe. The makeup of the individual, describing the subjective experience, is a very complex process (Zarathustra goes alone into the wilderness and in into a cave). Culture and theory knows a lot about the complexities by which humans and society exist. Deleuze & Guattarri is thus cast into a minority status because of this complexity. Mathematics is complex as well; but it is dominated by other “Forces” gravitating towards a kind of mind/language based jargon. Officially, the little things between earth and sky “school wisdom does not dream of” are taken into account. But technically this mostly means: Copied, utilized, and adapted… the problem, not the solution.”
This, Harald, has been an on the spot translation highly susceptible to chance as well as my personal biases and agendas. I apologize if I am getting you wrong.
As I get it, you are basically arguing that theory basically participates in a kind of simulacrum that is implicit in the failures and exploitation of producer/consumer Capitalism. In this sense, while theory presumes to be working for the good of humanity, it is simply facilitating Capitalist values by seeming to know something that most people don’t.
To put it another way, we have to distinguish between theory and the more practical matter of everyday reality. As I have recently come to realize, we have to recognize that theory, for the most part, is mainly done for the sake of theory. It’s a form of play that may (through a kind trickledown effect (or may not have an effect on the lives of everyday people.
Consider, for instance, Deleuze and Guattarri’s assertion in What is Philosophy?, that philosophy is mainly a form of conceptual play with the main goal of creating yet more concepts. Now if you think about it, there is a kind of Bourgeoisie complacency in such an activity. It is simply done for the sake of doing it. Hence: the issue that many more political thinkers had with Deleuze. And this is not to say that there is no value in it since what is produced in the experimentation can still trickle down and have very practical effects on the everyday discourse.
Still, we have to make the distinction between theory and the practical in that theory, because of the imperative to sell itself, is always drawn to the radical purely for the sake of the radical. Its sense of value is always drawn to the novel. That’s what sells it. This, in turn, can result in a kind of theoretical overkill and overreach in which the theorist can make statements that seem to make sense to those who are trying to achieve the same intellectual level the theorist is at, but is ultimately superfluous to the more practical matter of everyday life. For instance: why would I need every worker in the world to read Das Kapital to know they’re being exploited? I haven’t even read it myself.
We see this same theoretical overkill and over-reach in the romantic pining of the basement overman: the Neo-Nietzschean gospel of the fearlessly fanciful ( who would sit in a environmentally controlled space, their faces blazing in the dim glow of their computer screen, typing odes to the good old days when men were men and their hope for a Mad Max-like post- apocalypse that will take us back where we need to be, and, in the pauses, raise their fist: tight, trembling, and ready for action.
In this, we see theory gone wrong as wrong can be. I mean I get it: such fancy can drive people to do more than what they normally would. Even Ayn Rand had value to that extent. Still, that does nothing to change the fact (and may the soul of Professor Strunk rest in its grave (that every day, I see people suffering because our politicians are too busy kissing the ass of their country club buddies to do anything for us. And it doesn’t take a lot of theory to see that. In fact, theory can only distract from it.
Humean: love ya, man!
“I appreciate the transit points idea, and find it easy to map into my cosmology.
Please complete your parentheses and allow the thread to have a point.
you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard…
I really like postcards, even with tiny writing, they go with a cup of coffee…”
“Yeah, I’m getting over all the complex words and name dropping thingy.”
Did you 2 come into this to actually participate in a discourse? Or did you come into it because the only thing that defines your process is an opportunity to make snide comments.
I mean: thank you, Mr. Capote! Did your little imaginary entourage laugh at these statements?
I would especially like to deal with the latter point:
“Yeah, I’m getting over all the complex words and name dropping thingy.”
As cool and witty as you must think you are, you clearly have never actually read philosophy. I mean the name dropping and complex words you think you are deriding me for are all over it. But, rather than do the actual work that philosophy involves, you chose to resort to popular buzzwords. I especially like the phrase “name dropping thingy” which makes you look like a hot chick who is so in to herself that she thinks she can expand the reinforcement of her beauty into issues that she knows absolutely nothing about. Still, she is cute, and everyone wants in her pants. So she must be right. Right?
The point, idiot (idiots, is that there is a big difference between being a player (which you obviously consider yourselves to be (and actually knowing what the fuck it is you are talking about.
I use to get offended by shit like this. But now I can (having experienced 100’s like you (at this point in my process (see you as little more than an inevitable consequence of a process that is working as well as I could possibly hope. And you 2 are a confirmation of that in that you read like a couple of losers in a contest who compensate by nitpicking.
And I don’t get it guys. I mean: why? What did I do to you that drove you to seek some of kind of revenge? Why was it so important to you to undermine my process when it had no real effect on your life whatsoever?
I mean why do you have to affirm the worth of your existence by undermining the worth of the other’s existence?
I mean it: I really am curious: why do people like you base their point A to point B on tearing down what others are doing?
Because you can’t really do anything productive yourself? I mean how inferior your process must be to mine!
"I appreciate the transit points idea, and find it easy to map into my cosmology. Please complete your parentheses and allow the thread to have a point.
you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard…
I really like postcards, even with tiny writing, they go with a cup of coffee…"
I apologize for the one way parentheses, but they’re how (given the spontaneous nature of what we do on the boards (I capture the deferred nature of thinking (the meaning derived from the unspoken sub-currents of any given statement (and what would normally be expressed in footnotes (within the body and flow of the text.
It’s not something I would be as bold about in the act of writing a more finished piece. If I did: I would really have to polish it (and I’m talking hard work and clever consideration of how punctuation works (to the point of feeling more like poetry than prose. I would have to tighten it to the point (in a way similar to Henry James’ long and complex sentences: that kind of enfolding within enfolding (that no one could be confused about what refers to what.
For me, it’s a kind of Derrida-ian deconstruction of language that considers the sound-like sense of punctuation. And I don’t do it out some heavy-handed affectation towards being different or radical purely for the sake of the radical (or out of some obnoxious desire to offend people or expect them to “accept me for who I am” (or, above all, to assert that what I have to say is so important that others are obligated to decode me; I do it because it is a manner I have become comfortable enough with to, in the small window I have on the boards, spontaneously express (to jam w/ ( what I am experiencing from the after-flow (the inertia (of my footwork: whatever study I happen to be engaging in at the time.
To give you a sense of what I’m talking about: I have actually turned to a tactic suggested in your point:
“you are allowed more than one point and more than one thread and more than one postcard…”
One thing I like to do (in the context of the boards (is create posts that refer to (and quote (previous posts of mine. This allows for a rhizomatic approach that allows for various centers expanding into other centers in an intellectual complex that, ultimately, has no center: only experiences and results: kind of like the way fireworks unfold.
Once again, I do not do it to offend or to engage in the radical purely for the sake of the radical. I do it for the same reason I bounce off of you: the jam: the board being a board (a place to experiment (not to get famous (I do it to see what the inertia (the momentum (can do.
It’s how I jam w/ myself. And the beauty of it (to me at least (reminds me of why I put myself through all this.
“ Is there any intrinsic logic to your parentheses-usage?”
First of all: glad you asked Niklas. Not only did you give me a focus for today’s postcard, but you also gave me an opportunity to articulate (for myself as well as others (on an idiosyncrasy that is not just a choice but a habit (that which has evolved in me as a comfortable way to communicate (on my use of the one way parenthesis: something I’m quite sure confuses (and even frustrates (a lot of people on these boards.
First of all, I would note that the term “logic” has a dual functionality. On one hand, it is an attempt to explain how the brain and mind knows something in almost mathematical terms. At the same time, it can act as a kind of overcoding in that it can serve as what Frost referred concerning the poem: a momentary stay against confusion. Logic, like science, must work by isolating systems in the metonymic hope that it will tell us something about reality as a whole. In this sense, logic (as well as science or art or philosophy (is up against the same limit as language or any semiological construct: it must, by nature, always fall short of the reality it is attempting to describe. Or as Deleuze and Guattarri point out in A Thousand Plateaus:
“A book does not reflect the world. It forms a rhizome with it.”
In other words, language (or any other system of signs we have formed (can never be a perfect mirror of reality as much as a machine interacting with the various machines reality presents it with.
And my d.constructive use of the one-way parenthesis (as well as the colon (works within the parameters described above while exploiting a sensitivity to the FEEL (the inner sound (of punctuation.
(I’m a big fan of the ellipsis as well “….” which gives me the feel of trailing off into nothingness(
The one way parenthesis is primarily my way of capturing the movement of the mind (my mind at least: ADD perhaps? (in that while it, in terms of the overcoding, would seem to be moving in a linear way, it is always working in the face of a multiplicity (a bombardment if you will (and struggling to capture that overflow within the limits of the of tools we have to deal with it. Derrida managed to capture this in terms of differrance in which the meaning we absorb from a thing is always deferred in that its meaning is always dependent on other meanings absorbed from other things. And this is the way we experience thought (and even experience itself (while all we can do is express it within the linear medium of language.
Yet we try. We can see as much in philosophy’s use of the footnote which designates the text as being more than a 1 dimensional linear process, but rather more like a 3 dimensional sculpture that can be approached from multiple directions: that is given that what the philosopher is expressing is always bigger than the words you might be reading at any given time.
My use of the 1 way parenthesis is my way of folding those deferred meanings into the linear process of the text. As difficult as it must seem to others, I’m only trying to make it more convenient.
The very real effect is that the increasing influence of Republican ideology in America may well lead to an experiment with Fascism.
Dear Editor: In Raymond Tallis’ article “Ideas and Scholarship in Philosophy” (issue 104) I was reminded of what it is I admire about the good professor. On one hand, there are these Neo-Classicist impulses at work in him (that is given his scientific background) as can be seen in his disdain for more continental approaches to philosophy: Lacan, Derrida, etc. At the same time he shares a common disdain for intellectual arrogance and elitism with this particular fan of the continental approach. This can be seen in his concepts Neuromania and Darwinitus, both of which I have encountered too often on message boards in the form of Troll-like Behaviors –which makes him almost heroic given his own academic achievement. And this particular article reflects that balance. That said, I want make a few points on the issue addressed that will hopefully be complimentary to his.
My experience has been that we tend to work in the overlaps of philosophy. The process is one of starting with general issues (the nature of mind, Free Will, the meaning of life, etc.) that tend to bounce around blue collar circles primarily because they have been bouncing between the great thinkers of our culture since the beginning of civilization, then working our way to the details. This has a couple of implications as concerns Tallis’ article.
For one, the secondary text that seeks to interpret the process of culture has basically played a role in that process. It still adds to the discourse. As Deleuze and Guattarri point out in What is Philosophy, it is about the creation of and free-play with concepts that will hopefully lead to the creation of, yet, more concepts. We may be, at a more superficial level, be reading a philosopher who is trying to explain what another philosopher has said. Still, what that philosopher is ultimately doing is creating concepts based on the concepts the philosopher they are interpreting has created. In other words, secondary text can play a major role in the process of an individual’s process. Philosophy Now does as much for its readers all the time.
At the same time (and as Tallis suggests) if one finds themselves getting serious about it, they’ll find themselves, by necessity, wanting to get past the interpretations of secondary text and play them (along with the individual’s interpretation of the secondary text) against the actual text. And that, in my experience, is a point of no return. One may wish to return to the “good old days” when they could breeze through it in the same way they might a Steven King novel. But at that point, there is no turning back. There is nothing but the original text itself.
I would agree, Raan and Steven, that there is a Zen element at the heart of my particular philosophical process: including my focus on Deleuze (w/and without Guattarri (and Rorty: which might seem strange given Rorty’s kind of conventional academic feel. I might be able to include Zizek in that. But, at this point, I see myself having to do a lot of gerrymandering to pull it off.
(And, BTW, a-holes, I had come on here w/ the intent of making a point from the book I’m reading on political philosophy. But you hijacked my postcard for today. You Bastards!!! But then I should have known better than to first come on to facebook with people I’m enjoying jamming with and I guess we all gotta follow our flow…. right? Anyway:
While I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you might encounter on these boards, I do see, close to heart of my process (which from a rhizomatic perspective only seems like a heart because it is the particular rhizome I am focused on right now (is the Zen Nihilism of what I usually refer to as the nihilistic perspective: that which is tapped into the underlying nothingness of it all (the ungroundedness (and can never be looked at directly, but can only glance the corner of the eye: hence, the term “the nihilistic perspective”. And it has always haunted philosophy going back to Socrates’ claim that he knew nothing (as well as Zeno’s paradoxes (and acted as a strange attractor that has gravitated philosophy to the point we are now: the postmodern condition of a complete loss of faith in all grand narratives (all isms (or absolute truths.
And the best way to start to explain the nihilistic perspective: the Zen Nihilism(as I understand it, is through my criticism of the skeptic’s paradox as a final dismissal of skepticism (an expression of the nihilistic perspective (or the nihilistic perspective:
If you approached the skeptic and the nihilistic perspective and argued:
“You can’t say there are no absolutes since to do so would be to try to establish an absolute.”
:the skeptic would do what they normally do: scrutinize: until they came to the realization that there is a big difference between saying we live in a world in which there are no absolutes and actually living in one. Then they would go right on being skeptics. The nihilistic perspective, on the other hand, would just glare at you impatiently and snort:
“Right! Nothing is engraved in stone. Not even that nothing is engraved in stone. So what’s your fucking point?”
In other words, the nihilistic perspective embraces its own lack of a foundation by embracing its ability to self nihilate. This can be seen in Alan Watt’s Taoist point that truly letting go is a matter of letting go of the idea of letting go itself. And while I am not the most spiritual or Zen-like person you’ll meet on these boards, I think this puts some shine on Deleuze’s philosophical process and even Rorty’s (even if he might not recognize it because he is dispositionally opposed to having that kind of edge.
Still?
“Why do I find Susan Haack’s critique of Rorty and his views so…weak? It seems that every accusation (~‘Rorty wishes to see philosophy and reason end’~) that she makes, Rorty welcomes in a way? Personally I find little to no force in her work in this area. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree? Curious to what people think about her around these parts…”
“Never read her.”
First of all, gentlemen, as always: thanks for giving me my postcard for today.
That said, Steven, I haven’t read her either. And there may be a reason for that. From the accusation that Adrian articulates:
“'Rorty wishes to see philosophy and reason end.”
:I get the feeling of a common drone who happened to read a few books and thought they had the resources necessary to be intellectual about something they were too lazy to really look into: kind of an Ann Coulter for the half-assed intellectual. But all it actually amounts to is someone who is so wrapped up in the doxa of the status quo as to offer little more than reactionary responses based on superficial interpretations of something that is popularly known to threaten the status quo. And they are generally the result of people who are more concerned about the power they have (the status (than any authentic attempt at intellectual inquiry. For instance, I think we can safely assume that Haack’s notion of “reason” or “philosophy” is based on anything that supports her interests via the status quo. And the unfortunate fact is that it does appeal to people who have a constitutional need to feel solid ground beneath their feet: that which is usually directed to common doxa and the status quo.
And as far as I’m concerned, there are some rather impressive variations of Haack (people I hope to read more of (such as Dennett, Searle, and Pinker (or Hawking who arrogantly asserted that science would be the end of philosophy (who stay safely within the perimeters of Capitalist (status quo (values: people who share Haack’s distaste for such continental thinkers as Derrida, Deleuze, etc., etc., and even Rorty who threaten a hierarchical approach to understanding. Hence her harping on and and indiscriminate use of the words “reason” and “philosophy”.
And the reason we may not have heard of her, Steven, is that she may mainly work as a free-rider on the authority of such thinkers as Dennett, Searle, and Pinker and, in a knee-jerk manner (much as her masters did: dismissed Rorty through hyperbole and bottom-up slippery slope assumptions. Whereas we, as the intellectually curious, have a mandate to work beyond ourselves, she simply found what worked for her and exploited it. She basically surrendered herself to the analytic propensity towards conformity driven by the increasing influence of corporate funding in universities. She sees philosophy as little more than lip-service to science which can (unlike philosophy (produce an i-phone.
(And I would note here the fact that Rorty eventually had to abandon the philosophy department (because of pressure from his fellow philosophers (and find refuge in the humanity department: that which made his thought seem like an artwork or work of fiction as compared to an assertion about the way things are.
(But philosophy, like art, is about pursuing the non-functional while pursuing a deeper understanding of reality. It works in that no-man’s land between science and literature. This is what makes it important. And it is what makes it far more than the state philosophy that Haack seems to be embracing.
Previously on Postcards:
“That said, this particular postcard was inspired by a couple of articles in the recent issue of The Harvard Review of Philosophy (dry stuff, but giving me something to use all the same: Samuel Scheffler’s The Idea of Global Justice: a Progress Report which goes into Rawls and Thom Brooks A New Problem with the Capabilities Approach which goes into Martha Nussbaum’s Capability concept.”
“The theory he [Rawls] develops comprises two principles, the first of which assigns basic equal rights and liberties to all citizens, and the second of which governs the distribution of economic goods within the society. The second principle holds, roughly, the economic inequalities are permissible only insofar as they serve to maximize the position of the worst-off social group.”
“First of all, this is my first encounter with this particular issue of the Harvard Review, so it would be immodest (if not downright arrogant and deceptive (of me to claim that I’m working from any position of expertise as concerns the articles I’m quoting.”
“Hence the Utilitarian motto: the greatest happiness for the greatest number. “
“I realized then that perhaps the better route would have been to look away from the heights and towards the bottom and recognize that the true and more comprehensive path to a just society is the minimization of misery and suffering: by which I mean the complete elimination of unnecessary misery and suffering.”
“That said, in the next postcard (the next episode (I want to fumble (w/ a capitol F (with Brook’s article and Nussbaum’s Capability concept which also goes towards my bottom/up utilitarianism.”
Unlike my points with Rawls, I find myself having to fumble (given that this is the first time I have encountered it (with Nussbaum’s Capability concept in that the following will be based purely on my initial instincts. As I understand it, Capability is primarily about the potential for an individual to find satisfaction in 10 possible categories: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses, imagination, thought, emotions, affiliation, other species, play, and control over one’s political and material environment. And it is important to note here that the diametrical opposite of Capabilities is Functionings.
For instance: the building and stocking (w/ content: books (of libraries would fulfill the Capability criteria by assuring that everyone can have access to books and other learning materials (which would cover the categories of imagination and thought (through public funding. And were we to accept the Capability criteria, such a policy would be immune to the Functionings criteria of the bean-counting conservative who would argue there is no point in building libraries and stocking them with taxpayer money since no one would use them anyway. Put in mind here that the main point of Capability theory is freedom of choice. So the argument that no one would use the library fails (which is based on an unlikely prediction, anyway (since all that really matters is that the individual has the option available to them in order to fulfill the relevant categories of capability.
And I would offer as another, more personal example, the expansion of public transport which would make automobiles what they should be: a luxurious option as compared to the necessity they have become in many cities in America. And once again, the argument against this by the Functionings criteria of the bean counting conservatives who think the market is the only answer we need is (and I have heard it made: why build it if no one will use it? But once again, the only function (the only result (of import to Capability Theory is that it offers the option: the potential of fulfilling the relevant category.
Anyway, stay tuned for scenes from the next episode in which I make the connection (in a complimentary way (between Capability Theory and my own invention: Efficiency: that which is maximized by minimizing the differential between the energy and resources we put into an act and the energy and resources we get out of it.
Previously in Postcards:
“As Deleuze and Guattari point out in What is Philosophy: philosophy abhors debate. Walks away from it if it can. As they point out: it has better things to do.
This is because philosophy is more like poetry than popular doxa gives it credit for. It is a personal vision (a process (that doesn’t care if it is wrong or right (except to itself ( and can’t afford the distraction of listening to its critics.”
“Philosophers who debate tend to talk past one another. Deleuze makes this point in What is Philosophy, when he discusses why they must run away when someone wants to debate. Debating over a point is not productive (as anyone who has ever been in a debate will attest). Debates are more about affirming your own position, than productively engaging with someone else’s.”
“Debate is not a disease.”
“But what Deleuze is saying there is that philosophers always talk past one another, and that they never meet.”
This, gentlemen, is one of those instances where theory meets with reality –especially for us in that we’re talking about something we encounter a great deal on these boards: the distinction between debate and discourse.
To give an example from a recent experience of mine (the one that inspired the OP: I was posting a series of postcards regarding the utilitarian approach to ethics (which I saw as taking a rather bourgeoisie top-down approach to a clearly benign agenda (and the bottom up approaches (which I had gotten from the Harvard Review of Philosophy (of Rawls and Nussbaum. I was immediately assailed by someone who started their post with (and I am paraphrasing here:
“The notion that utilitarianism was Bourgeoisie is bunk.”
Now I would note here the use of the term “bunk” which, like such terms as “nonsense” and others I can’t recall right now, are terms that are the cornerstone of the debate (even if it isn’t exactly a disease (and have no place in a discourse. And while this person’s post might have carried some legitimate points concerning Utilitarianism, it wouldn’t have mattered to me since they had pretty lost me at the use of the term “bunk” which suggested to me that this person was more interested in a pissing contest than they were a discourse or even what Jasper’s referred to as: communication in the spirit of loving debate.
And, as I’ve experienced a thousand times before, when I told this individual to basically go fuck themselves, I was countered with the same strategy that seems popular among TlBs (Troll-like Behaviors: that of appealing to popular doxa: the appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues about what constitutes intellectual inquiry (that which D & G undermine in What is Philosophy (and the assumption that my rejection of their enticement to engage in a pissing contest was a clear indication of a lack of faith in my own process. The notion was that in order for me to truly fulfill the potential of my process, I was somehow obligated to engage in what was clearly a futile attempt to convince this individual of my point of view (a debate (and put up with their snide little remarks in the process.
(Unfortunately, I’m not that subtle and suggested (after apologizing for calling them a prick (that they worry about their process and let others worry about theirs. This got me kicked off the board(
Later that night at work, I engaged in my usual self d.construction of wondering if I wasn’t a bit of a hypocrite in that, I myself, in the postcard for that day, had attacked the libertarians with:
“For instance, a libertarian will argue that they would prefer to be born into a world in which they will be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor -that is out of some sentimental nostalgia for the good-old days of Adam Smith’s Capitalism where everyone engages in their talent and the free exchange of their labor (which, BTW, no longer exists and is every bit as saccharine and sappy as the Christian longing for the days of the Walton’s. Goodnight John-boy.”
I mean it seemed as mean spirited as my assailant’s approach. And I’m quite sure they would have used it had they of caught it: once again: the TlB appeal to socially programmed responses to socially programmed cues (much as we see in the constant references to my use of the one-way parenthesis while also responding to the content of what I’m saying. It didn’t take long for me to see through the weakness of such an argument in that there was a big difference between what I was doing and what my assailant was doing.
I was doing pretty much what every writer does: attacking a position they despise. It had nothing to do with the individuals that hold that position. And it involved a certain third person perspective detachment. And I will continue to express my contempt for the Libertarians in any clever and witty way it takes to rally the troops. I have no problem which preaching to the choir since trying to change the mind of the other-side is ultimately futile. Why waste the time? But what I will not do is go on a Libertarian board and heckle them, not because I’m afraid they’ll prove me wrong, but because it would be a wasteful use of my energy and resources and thereby a disruption (that which cuts off the flow of energy (in my process.
And that is the very big difference between what I did and what my assailant was doing which pretty much amounted to heckling. Everyone has a right to their perspective. But this comes with the understanding that everyone equally has a right to not have the perspective of the other crammed down their throat. For instance, Fox News has every right to engage in the nonsense they do. But I equally have the right to not watch it if it offends me. However, my assailant walked into my space with the explicit agenda of dominating my process. They made it personal. And that is, as far I’m concerned, fascistic in nature.
Anyway, stayed tuned for scenes from the next episode of Postcards in which I will hopefully (that is if undistracted by you guys: love ya, man! (elaborate on points made here and finish up with my points concerning Nussbaum’s Capability Theory and its common ground with Efficiency.
“ D Edward Tarkington, I have trouble following your writings because you use open parenthesis ( but never close any of them.
So your writing goes from one point with an aside remark and never returns to the first point but continues on the aside and then makes another aside remark and continues on the aside and never returns to the first aside and so on.
It’s like you never get to the point you first started out to make.
It’s very difficult to follow and hard work to figure out what your point is.” –Lorraine Bray: facebook.com/groups/philoso … ent_follow
“Then you’re getting the point of it, Lorraine Bray.”
“So your point is to ramble on pointlessly?
OK, I’ll leave you to it.”
Actually, I prefer to think of it as wandering aimlessly to see what happens. There is always a point. And I always try to get back to that point via a chance process of digression. My one way parentheses are merely a means of playing with the way we actually think –which is never the methodical building of an argument such as we see in the writing of John Searle. And my guess is that had I of just replaced the parentheses with commas, I would have stolen an opportunity from you to point it out while leaving you no less confused about what I was saying. And it’s not like conventional approaches fair much better –especially in philosophy. It has not been uncommon for me to encounter sentences (especially compound ones (that took me several readings before I got the logic of them.
“But, any language comes as an after thought to the brain reasoning.
Any logical thought process in the brain is not done with logic language symbols.”
I think one of the main problems we’re having here is that we’re dealing with 2 different understandings of what constitutes a language. What you’re working from is the classical technological notion as that which we can speak or write. What I’m working from is a more postmodern/semiotic sense of a system of signs that convey information. This is why the postmodern sensibility can comfortably define a text as anything that can be interpreted –the hermeneutic approach. Take, for instance, medicine which is a matter of reading a system of signs (symptoms (which the doctor must read and interpret in order to reach a diagnosis and, hopefully, a cure. And I do as much as a maintenance tech with a building or campus that is a complex of systems that expresses themselves through a system of signs. The very computer you are reading this on does as much. It converts a basic binary on/off semiotic system into programming (which is kind hard to deny is a language (into the words you are reading right now. And as neuroscience is showing, the brain with its system of cells pretty much works the same way.
So you would be right if we all shared your human centered understanding of language. But how different is what we do when we speak or write than the chirping of birds during mating season, the on/off digital language of a computer that produces everything we experience through computers, or the grunts and silences of the physiological brain?
I agree with you: all the discipline of Logic does is isolate the natural means by which the human brain (via the mind (adapts to its environment. But the two are too closely intertwined to act like there is that big of a difference: to act like the language of the brain is any less of a language than the language we translate it into. You have to ask yourself: at what point in the spectrum between the binary grunts and silences in the brain of any living thing, the chirps of birds in mating season, and what we do here do we demarcate between non-language and language?
Sorry to interrupt Your train of thought. But I just came across an article whose title source escapes me, but, it is an analysis of a critique of Hegel by McCumber, and the title is ‘Deleuze, Diversity and Chance’. there is a connection of this analysis to
Your post just above. Itjust caught my eye and thenI saw where You left off above Have no way to transmit the article now, but will look into the source,
if you are interested. Later bro