![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on my mind
Dec. 13th, 2010 09:23 pmOn the whole, as in each detailed part, theoretical study consists everywhere equally of unerring devotion to the actual and of constantly renewed value judgements.
--Max Horkheimer
--Max Horkheimer
random question-
Jul. 31st, 2010 07:17 pmWhat's your take on this classic ethical dilemma:
If you could travel through time and meet Hitler as a child, what would you do? Try to change him? Kill him? Do nothing for fear of creating an even worse outcome? Do nothing for fear of ~destroying the time stream?
I watched Valkyrie the other day, which makes the question somewhat less than random, but yeah.
If you could travel through time and meet Hitler as a child, what would you do? Try to change him? Kill him? Do nothing for fear of creating an even worse outcome? Do nothing for fear of ~destroying the time stream?
I watched Valkyrie the other day, which makes the question somewhat less than random, but yeah.
things I'm thinking about
May. 4th, 2010 08:53 pm1. Atheists and charity. My working thesis is that the reason atheists donate less to charity on average than do church-going believers, is that they aren't part of charitable communities. Churches and temples regularly engage in fundraising and charitable works. Where does the atheist go for the same kind of in-built charitable community? We have to find or build that community, whereas believers are very often born into one, or can joining a large and thriving charitable community.
That atheists care less about their fellow humans is a proposition I'm going to reject outright. I give you: Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and even our borderline evangelist anti-theists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
2. National security, democracy, and good government. I'm of the opinion that substantive democracy requires a limited definition of national security. Fewer 'vital national interests', so governments have fewer excuses for foreign adventures. As much transparency as possible, so that the blanket of national security can't be used to hide things that must not be hidden, such as military, intelligence and governmental misconduct. A clear separation between national security and governmental integrity, ie. what hurts the party in power, does not necessarily hurt the country; or, the Prime Minister is not Canada.
The Afghan detainee scandal makes it clear: you can't have good government when the party in power is throwing around the excuse of national security. 'National security' is akin to 'terrorism' in its clarity, and in it's ability to inspire knee-jerk patriotism and panic. When a governing party starts to frame things with the rubric of national security, when they try to block the efforts of HM's Loyal Opposition, with that old boogie man, you know you're in trouble. Let's all be thankful we have such an awesome Speaker. Hail!
Anyway, I'm by no means a pacifist, but I'm deeply suspicious of security-creep. Because ultimately, national security is an excuse to go to war, to engage in all kinds of governmental tomfoolery and misconduct, it absolutely must not be allowed to expand without the input of the people. It's too important to leave up to the politicians!
3. Kids these days, and their lack of understanding of the workings of the internet. It's kind of a meme right now that Facebook will soon surpass Google, as an entry point to the internet. Facebook is already well on its way to kicking Google's ass in the 'exploiting your users for advertising dollars' department. Will Facebook soon become the world's homepage?
Firstly, I'm kind of doubtful that Facebook is going to be around for the long haul. Maybe it's reached a kind of critical mass of membership, and for that reason alone will be able to keep on trucking through the arrival of the next big thing. Maybe not. But I don't think that Facebook offers enough, is useful enough to stay in the top spot forever.
Facebook is a portal. It shapes your internet experience. Google, on the other hand, is a search tool that let's you go wherever you like. There aren't any alerts warning you that you're about to leave Google (oh noes!). There aren't the constant reminders that Jane likes Tokyo Hotel, and David would like to be friends. When Facebook is your portal to the internet, you're not really on the internet in a meaningful way. You're in the magical land of Facebookia, where everything is pre-formatted, works the same way, and connects back to your profile. If Facebook is your portal to the internet, and has always been your portal to the internet, then... do you actually know how to use the goddamn internet? Do you know what the hell it is? Do you know how to keep you and your information safe?
My experience with young teenagers says: sometimes yes, but oftentimes no. I spend a lot of time advising my ducklings on matters of internet-y import, and that just seems counterintuitive, doesn't in? They're supposed to be the internet generation!
Of course, it could just be my Facebook hate-on talking, but-- The longer a technology is around, and the more commonplace it becomes, the more users take it for granted, and the less they know about it, and how to fix it. Take cars, for example. Most people can drive. Few people know what a fanbelt looks like, much less its significance. The thing about all-encompassing portals like Facebook, is that they don't let you fiddle around, see the source code, build things yourself, or just talk about how things are built. Have we reached the drive-only internet generation?
Kids these days, get off my lawn! *grouse grouse*
That atheists care less about their fellow humans is a proposition I'm going to reject outright. I give you: Bill and Melinda Gates, Warren Buffet, and even our borderline evangelist anti-theists, Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
2. National security, democracy, and good government. I'm of the opinion that substantive democracy requires a limited definition of national security. Fewer 'vital national interests', so governments have fewer excuses for foreign adventures. As much transparency as possible, so that the blanket of national security can't be used to hide things that must not be hidden, such as military, intelligence and governmental misconduct. A clear separation between national security and governmental integrity, ie. what hurts the party in power, does not necessarily hurt the country; or, the Prime Minister is not Canada.
The Afghan detainee scandal makes it clear: you can't have good government when the party in power is throwing around the excuse of national security. 'National security' is akin to 'terrorism' in its clarity, and in it's ability to inspire knee-jerk patriotism and panic. When a governing party starts to frame things with the rubric of national security, when they try to block the efforts of HM's Loyal Opposition, with that old boogie man, you know you're in trouble. Let's all be thankful we have such an awesome Speaker. Hail!
Anyway, I'm by no means a pacifist, but I'm deeply suspicious of security-creep. Because ultimately, national security is an excuse to go to war, to engage in all kinds of governmental tomfoolery and misconduct, it absolutely must not be allowed to expand without the input of the people. It's too important to leave up to the politicians!
3. Kids these days, and their lack of understanding of the workings of the internet. It's kind of a meme right now that Facebook will soon surpass Google, as an entry point to the internet. Facebook is already well on its way to kicking Google's ass in the 'exploiting your users for advertising dollars' department. Will Facebook soon become the world's homepage?
Firstly, I'm kind of doubtful that Facebook is going to be around for the long haul. Maybe it's reached a kind of critical mass of membership, and for that reason alone will be able to keep on trucking through the arrival of the next big thing. Maybe not. But I don't think that Facebook offers enough, is useful enough to stay in the top spot forever.
Facebook is a portal. It shapes your internet experience. Google, on the other hand, is a search tool that let's you go wherever you like. There aren't any alerts warning you that you're about to leave Google (oh noes!). There aren't the constant reminders that Jane likes Tokyo Hotel, and David would like to be friends. When Facebook is your portal to the internet, you're not really on the internet in a meaningful way. You're in the magical land of Facebookia, where everything is pre-formatted, works the same way, and connects back to your profile. If Facebook is your portal to the internet, and has always been your portal to the internet, then... do you actually know how to use the goddamn internet? Do you know what the hell it is? Do you know how to keep you and your information safe?
My experience with young teenagers says: sometimes yes, but oftentimes no. I spend a lot of time advising my ducklings on matters of internet-y import, and that just seems counterintuitive, doesn't in? They're supposed to be the internet generation!
Of course, it could just be my Facebook hate-on talking, but-- The longer a technology is around, and the more commonplace it becomes, the more users take it for granted, and the less they know about it, and how to fix it. Take cars, for example. Most people can drive. Few people know what a fanbelt looks like, much less its significance. The thing about all-encompassing portals like Facebook, is that they don't let you fiddle around, see the source code, build things yourself, or just talk about how things are built. Have we reached the drive-only internet generation?
Kids these days, get off my lawn! *grouse grouse*
politically correct
May. 1st, 2010 12:51 pmToday I want to talk about one of my pet peeves: equating anti-oppression efforts with political correctness.
Feminism, anti-racism, LGBTQ activism and all anti-oppression efforts are part of a fundamentally rights seeking, justice seeking movement. They are socially revolutionary, not reformist. There is a radical core to them that can't live and let live. Can a feminist shrug off misogyny as someone "looking at things differently"? Can an anti-racist shrug off racism? (Haters gonna hate). Of course not.
Anti-oppression efforts are not politically correct; most of the time they're politically wrong. Politics is fundamentally about expediency, it's a deal-making game. It's how we negotiate competing demands, needs, ideologies and somehow make a society work. Anti-oppression efforts are a call for justice. Anti-oppression is not about "getting something for yours". It's about identifying a lack, an injustice in the fabric of society: an unrepresented, oppressed group that must make a place for itself, make it's voice heard, however it can. Anti-oppression efforts are radical politics.
Political correctness is a measure of how "good on the issues" a politician (or ordinary citizen) is on the hot topics of the day. Are you with the prevailing consensus on labour unions? Then you're politically correct. It's got nothing to do with progressiveness, or anti-oppression. Both of those are too far afield to ever be politically correct because the epicenter of public opinion is the only 'right' place to be. It's about fashion. It is no longer fashionable to be racist, sexist or ableist. And so you are no longer racist, sexist or ableist, because it is the 'right' thing to do.
Anti-oppression efforts manifest in more and less radical ways. General strikes, civil disobedience, employment equity legislation: these are all tactics adopted by anti-oppression movements. Whether striking or bargaining, the core message does not change: There is a wrong and we're damn well going to right it. The core message of the fashionable radical is LIKE ME LIKE ME LIKE ME, and for that reason, is damn easy to spot.
You know those "I judge you" secrets on F!S? If you equate anti-oppression efforts with political correctness, I judge you.
Feminism, anti-racism, LGBTQ activism and all anti-oppression efforts are part of a fundamentally rights seeking, justice seeking movement. They are socially revolutionary, not reformist. There is a radical core to them that can't live and let live. Can a feminist shrug off misogyny as someone "looking at things differently"? Can an anti-racist shrug off racism? (Haters gonna hate). Of course not.
Anti-oppression efforts are not politically correct; most of the time they're politically wrong. Politics is fundamentally about expediency, it's a deal-making game. It's how we negotiate competing demands, needs, ideologies and somehow make a society work. Anti-oppression efforts are a call for justice. Anti-oppression is not about "getting something for yours". It's about identifying a lack, an injustice in the fabric of society: an unrepresented, oppressed group that must make a place for itself, make it's voice heard, however it can. Anti-oppression efforts are radical politics.
Political correctness is a measure of how "good on the issues" a politician (or ordinary citizen) is on the hot topics of the day. Are you with the prevailing consensus on labour unions? Then you're politically correct. It's got nothing to do with progressiveness, or anti-oppression. Both of those are too far afield to ever be politically correct because the epicenter of public opinion is the only 'right' place to be. It's about fashion. It is no longer fashionable to be racist, sexist or ableist. And so you are no longer racist, sexist or ableist, because it is the 'right' thing to do.
Anti-oppression efforts manifest in more and less radical ways. General strikes, civil disobedience, employment equity legislation: these are all tactics adopted by anti-oppression movements. Whether striking or bargaining, the core message does not change: There is a wrong and we're damn well going to right it. The core message of the fashionable radical is LIKE ME LIKE ME LIKE ME, and for that reason, is damn easy to spot.
You know those "I judge you" secrets on F!S? If you equate anti-oppression efforts with political correctness, I judge you.
should I read...
Dec. 12th, 2009 02:15 amYeah. Still awake. Insomnia is kicking my ass lately. So let's talk books. Should I read:
The American Crisis, The Rights of Man, etc. (Paine) or Hatred of Democracy (Ranciere)?
Political theory relaxes me. SHUT UP, I KNOW I'M A NERD.
The American Crisis, The Rights of Man, etc. (Paine) or Hatred of Democracy (Ranciere)?
Political theory relaxes me. SHUT UP, I KNOW I'M A NERD.
All speech is not free
Aug. 12th, 2009 05:27 pmBecause she says it so clearly. From, All Speech Is Not Free: The Ethics of "Affirmative Action" Pedagogy, Megan Boler:
All speech is not free. Power inequities institutionalized through economies, gender roles, social class, and corporate-owned media ensure that all voices do not carry the same weight. Within Western democracies, different voices pay different prices for the words they choose to utter. Some speech will result in the speaker being assaulted or even killed. Other speech is not free in the sense that it is foreclosed: Our social and political culture predetermines certain voices and articulations as unrecognizable, illegitimate, unspeakable.
Similarly, not all expressions of hostility are equal. Some hostile voices are penalized while others are tolerated. Hostility that targets marginalized people on the basis of their assumed inferiority carries more weight than hostility expressed by a marginalized person toward a member of the dominant class. Efforts to legislate against 'hate speech' within public spaces cannot, in principle, recognize the differential weight of hate speech directed at different individuals or groups.
If all speech is not free, then in what sense can one claim that freedom of speech is a working constitutional right? If free speech is not effective in practice, then a historicized ethics is required. Thus, the discomforting paradox of US democracy becomes apparent: While we may desire a principle of equality that applies in exactly the same way to every citizen, in a society where equality is not guaranteed, we required historically sensitive principles that may appear to contradict the ideal of 'equality'. An historical ethics operates toward the ideal of principles such as constitutional rights, but it also recognizes the need to develop ethical principles that take into account that not all persons have equal protection under the law or equal access to resources.
There is an ethical imperative in intellectual work, which Leonardo called 'obsinate rigour'. It means, in practical terms--and especially when one is dealing with political matters, which are always highly charged with emotion--that one has to resist several temptations. They can be condensed into a single formula: never succumb to the terrorism of words. As Freud wrote, one must avoid making concessions to faintheartedness: 'One can never tell where that road may lead one; one gives way first in words, and then little by little in substance too.'
LACLAU FUCK YEAH!
So I kind of want an animated icon that says:
May. 19th, 2009 09:15 pmNietzsche says relax!
God is dead.
LOL.
God is dead.
LOL.
still working on Ernesto Laclau...
May. 19th, 2009 06:14 pmI have two days left to finish this sonofabitch. I'm very nearly cracked. Have a quote from said:
What an image, right? I'm in the midst of his discussion of empty signifiers and their importance to the formation of the 'people'. It's miles better than the Freudian discussion of group formation. Hallelujah. I've also read most of the second half of the book, so it's just a matter of knocking this section off, and putting the two together.
After Ranciere/Laclau comes my cyber politics essay. I have no clear idea of what I want to do, but I'm still leaning towards Gwen Stefani for the required mini film.
Completely unrelated, but-- True Blood is back on June 14! I wish I had time to do a systematic rewatch of the first season. Who's excited?
Democratic demands are, in their mutual relations, like Schopenhauer's porcupines, to which Freud refers: if they are too far apart, they are cold; if they approach each other too closely in order to get warmer, they hurt each other with their quills.
What an image, right? I'm in the midst of his discussion of empty signifiers and their importance to the formation of the 'people'. It's miles better than the Freudian discussion of group formation. Hallelujah. I've also read most of the second half of the book, so it's just a matter of knocking this section off, and putting the two together.
After Ranciere/Laclau comes my cyber politics essay. I have no clear idea of what I want to do, but I'm still leaning towards Gwen Stefani for the required mini film.
Completely unrelated, but-- True Blood is back on June 14! I wish I had time to do a systematic rewatch of the first season. Who's excited?
Two things...
May. 15th, 2009 09:19 pm1. My everyday headphones have died!
I'm left with my theft-proof-buds, running clip-ons and circumaural noise reducers. The first two are pretty terrible, being cheap, cheap buds. The last set actually provides decent sound quality, for all that there's a slight hiss when the NR is on. Because they're circumaural, they're incredibly muffling even without the NR, which means I don't notice the neighbors parties so much. And as a bonus, NR provides a crucial assist in my ongoing quest to ignore the industrial strength air conditioner of the high school out back. But they aren't the best phones for everyday use, being freaking gigantic and attention-getting.
Need a new set of everyday headphones. I kind of want Sennheiser's HD650 but they're so out of my price range right now. So the hunt begins.
2. Why is it that so few contemporary philosphers/political thinkers know how to write?
Even if I excuse some of the awkwardness as being a deliberate rhetorical strategy, there's still so much WTFbadness going on. A) Brevity is the soul of wit, bitches! Stop disclaiming, explaining and obfuscating, and make your goddamn point. B) No. No, you don't need two chapters to explain your rhetorical strategy. I can see your rhetorical strategy just fine.
Ok wait, three things.
3. I need a dirty cover of Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker, and I need it like burning. Why are so many of the covers so pedestrian? Anyone have a rec for me?
The Animals' version is fun: ( Read more... )
But Hooker's is so much hotter: ( Read more... )
But my favourite version is still this one. Hnn.
I'm left with my theft-proof-buds, running clip-ons and circumaural noise reducers. The first two are pretty terrible, being cheap, cheap buds. The last set actually provides decent sound quality, for all that there's a slight hiss when the NR is on. Because they're circumaural, they're incredibly muffling even without the NR, which means I don't notice the neighbors parties so much. And as a bonus, NR provides a crucial assist in my ongoing quest to ignore the industrial strength air conditioner of the high school out back. But they aren't the best phones for everyday use, being freaking gigantic and attention-getting.
Need a new set of everyday headphones. I kind of want Sennheiser's HD650 but they're so out of my price range right now. So the hunt begins.
2. Why is it that so few contemporary philosphers/political thinkers know how to write?
Even if I excuse some of the awkwardness as being a deliberate rhetorical strategy, there's still so much WTFbadness going on. A) Brevity is the soul of wit, bitches! Stop disclaiming, explaining and obfuscating, and make your goddamn point. B) No. No, you don't need two chapters to explain your rhetorical strategy. I can see your rhetorical strategy just fine.
Ok wait, three things.
3. I need a dirty cover of Boom Boom by John Lee Hooker, and I need it like burning. Why are so many of the covers so pedestrian? Anyone have a rec for me?
The Animals' version is fun: ( Read more... )
But Hooker's is so much hotter: ( Read more... )
But my favourite version is still this one. Hnn.
this icon is strangely appropriate
May. 10th, 2009 01:05 amI'm reading Ernesto Laclau's "On Populist Reason" and he's deep into a discussion of Freud's "Crowd Psychology." Hence the icon. HOLY GOOD GOD I'M THIS CLOSE TO SNAPPING. I have a libidinal bond with Freud, that bond being HATE. HOLY SHIT. The hell was I thinking in developing this project? It's too late to go back now. D: Must push through to the non-Freud parts. Urgh. 10 pages.
(no subject)
Apr. 29th, 2009 01:52 amStatus of brain: utterly fried
Status of presentation: coming along
Have a quote from the book I'm working with:
Where natural order is actually 'natural order', or the naturalized order of social organization/domination.
ETA: What kind of dictionary doesn't recognize 'telos'? God dammit GoogleDocs.
Status of presentation: coming along
Have a quote from the book I'm working with:
"There is order in society because some people command and others obey, but in order to obey an order at least two things are required: you must understand the order and you must understand that you must obey it. And do that, you must already be the equal of the person who is ordering you. It is this equality that gnaws away at any natural order."
Where natural order is actually 'natural order', or the naturalized order of social organization/domination.
ETA: What kind of dictionary doesn't recognize 'telos'? God dammit GoogleDocs.
(no subject)
Mar. 25th, 2009 09:54 pmI think I might do a vid about technology and violence to Gwen Stefani's Sweet Escape. Juxtapose images of technocratic violence with mashup culture, protests, economic disruptions, compulsive consumption (if you build it, they will buy it), and lots of split milk. Could totally work.
(no subject)
Jun. 13th, 2008 01:24 pmAs I slog forward on my summer project, in the background, I'm listening to Erik Davis give a talk on nature, imagination, spirituality and technocracy.
Nature and Imagination: Introduction, The Imaginal, Creative Imagination, Ayahuasca Dreams, Death and Science, Imaginal Earth, Creative Technocracy.
I'm also listening to this vid on the history of the Amen Break, a particular sample which forms the basis of a hell of a lot of hip hop, raga dub, techno etc etc. Gets into the beginnings of sampling culture, the politics and economics of copyright.
"Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture (Judge Kozinski)."
And Girl Talk: Illegal Art at its Finest:
"Gregg Gillis aka Girl Talk is best known for his wild live shows, super hot beats and, most controversially, that his music is entirely derived from other popular artists. Under current copyright law, Girl Talk's blatant use of samples is considered stealing. Gregg considers it fair use and positive promotion for other artists. As debates over copyright are fueled by the ever growing remix, mashup and digital sampling culture we now live in, we have to ask ourselves- Is it ok to have so many restrictions, with the threat of legal action, on what is fair game for making art?"
Live at the Epicenter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) should give you a feel for his work.
***
What I'm wrestling with today:
“Modern science’s way of representing pursues and entraps nature as a calculable coherence of forces. Modern physics is not experimental physics because it applies apparatus to the questioning of nature. Rather the reverse is true. Because physics, indeed already as pure theory, sets nature up to exhibit itself as a coherence of forces calculable in advance, it therefore orders its experiments precisely for the purpose of asking whether and how nature reports itself when set up in this way (Hedigger, The Question Concerning Technology).”
“We do not ask for the influence or effect of technology on the human individuals. For they are themselves an integral part and factor of technology, not only as the men who invent or attend to machinery but also as the social groups which direct its application and utilization (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, Marcuse)."
ETA:
“But man does not experience this loss of his freedom as the work of some hostile and foreign force; he relinquishes his liberty to the dictum of reason itself. The point is that today, the apparatus to which the individual is to adjust and adopt himself is so rational that individual protest and liberation appear not only as hopeless but as utterly irrational (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, Marcuse).”
Nature and Imagination: Introduction, The Imaginal, Creative Imagination, Ayahuasca Dreams, Death and Science, Imaginal Earth, Creative Technocracy.
I'm also listening to this vid on the history of the Amen Break, a particular sample which forms the basis of a hell of a lot of hip hop, raga dub, techno etc etc. Gets into the beginnings of sampling culture, the politics and economics of copyright.
"Overprotecting intellectual property is as harmful as underprotecting it. Creativity is impossible without a rich public domain. Nothing today, likely nothing since we tamed fire, is genuinely new: Culture, like science and technology, grows by accretion, each new creator building on the works of those who came before. Overprotection stifles the very creative forces it's supposed to nurture (Judge Kozinski)."
And Girl Talk: Illegal Art at its Finest:
"Gregg Gillis aka Girl Talk is best known for his wild live shows, super hot beats and, most controversially, that his music is entirely derived from other popular artists. Under current copyright law, Girl Talk's blatant use of samples is considered stealing. Gregg considers it fair use and positive promotion for other artists. As debates over copyright are fueled by the ever growing remix, mashup and digital sampling culture we now live in, we have to ask ourselves- Is it ok to have so many restrictions, with the threat of legal action, on what is fair game for making art?"
Live at the Epicenter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) should give you a feel for his work.
***
What I'm wrestling with today:
“Modern science’s way of representing pursues and entraps nature as a calculable coherence of forces. Modern physics is not experimental physics because it applies apparatus to the questioning of nature. Rather the reverse is true. Because physics, indeed already as pure theory, sets nature up to exhibit itself as a coherence of forces calculable in advance, it therefore orders its experiments precisely for the purpose of asking whether and how nature reports itself when set up in this way (Hedigger, The Question Concerning Technology).”
“We do not ask for the influence or effect of technology on the human individuals. For they are themselves an integral part and factor of technology, not only as the men who invent or attend to machinery but also as the social groups which direct its application and utilization (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, Marcuse)."
ETA:
“But man does not experience this loss of his freedom as the work of some hostile and foreign force; he relinquishes his liberty to the dictum of reason itself. The point is that today, the apparatus to which the individual is to adjust and adopt himself is so rational that individual protest and liberation appear not only as hopeless but as utterly irrational (Some Social Implications of Modern Technology, Marcuse).”
Zarathustra Superhero
Jun. 12th, 2008 06:46 pmHoly shit! Lawrence Lessig is a member of the eljay advisory board? I love his work. *fangirls* OMG. Here he is on Democracy Now, talking about net neutrality.
***
I'm working on my giant summer project of much doom, skimming through various thinkers for usable quotes, and I've been reminded of my idea of a comic strip about Zarathusta Superhero. His superpowers would include enhanced senses and communication with animals and dead people, but his real power would be Philosophy! (just as Science! is Reed Richards' real power). His sidekick would be a trusty philosorapter named Wise Man. They'd have travel the country side, preaching Enlightenment, dancing, reciting poetry, and kicking ass.
y/y?
***
I'm working on my giant summer project of much doom, skimming through various thinkers for usable quotes, and I've been reminded of my idea of a comic strip about Zarathusta Superhero. His superpowers would include enhanced senses and communication with animals and dead people, but his real power would be Philosophy! (just as Science! is Reed Richards' real power). His sidekick would be a trusty philosorapter named Wise Man. They'd have travel the country side, preaching Enlightenment, dancing, reciting poetry, and kicking ass.
y/y?
things I'm thinking about today...
Jun. 11th, 2008 02:18 pmPaul Virillio:
“Unleashed in the 1920s, the de-neutralization of the media paves the way for what has been called ‘the war of the domestic market,’ a massive ideological campaign addressed directly to the family puzzle that it claims to put together, even to reinvent, as an’ infinite receptacle for consumer goods.’ This campaign will soon become a veritable animal domestication of the American citizens (Speed and Politics, 128).”
“In fact, the government’s deliberately terroristic manipulation of the need for security is the perfect answer to all the new questions now being put to democracies by nuclear strategy... They are trying to recreate Union through a new unanimity of need, just as the mass media phantasmatically created a need for cars, refrigerators.. We will see the creation of a common feeling of insecurity that will lead to a new kind of consumption, the consumption of protection; this latter will progressively come to the fore and become the target of the whole of the merchandising system (Speed and Politics, 139).”
Carl Schmitt:
“The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and it its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded somewhat of a modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity (The Concept of the Political, 54).”
“The equation state=politics becomes erroneous and deceptive at exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other. What had been up to that point affairs of state become thereby social matters, and, vice versa, what had been purely social matters become affairs of state - as must necessarily occur in a democratically organized unit. Heretofore ostensibly neutral domains - religion, culture, education, the economy - then cease to be neutral in the sense that they do not pertain to state and to politics. ... This results in the identity of state and society. In such a state, therefore, everything is at least potentially political, and in referring to the sate it is on longer possible to assert for it a specifically political character (The Concept of the Political, 22).”
Martin Heidigger:
“For man becomes truly free only insofar as he belongs to the realm of destining and so becomes one who listens and hears, and not one who is simply constrained to obey.The essence of freedom is originally not connected with the will or even with the causality of human willing. Freedom governs the open in the sense of the clear and lighted up, i.e.. of the revealed. It is to the happening of revealing, i.e.. of truth, that freedom stands in the closest and most intimate kinship. All revealing belongs within a harboring and a concealing. But that which frees - the mystery - is concealed and and always concealing itself (The Question Concerning Technology, 25).”
“Freedom is that which conceals in a way that opens to light, whose clearing there shimmers that veil that covers what comes to presence of all truth and lets the veil appear as what veils Freedom is the realm of the destining that at any given time starts a revealing upon its way (The Question Concerning Technology, 24).”
“Unleashed in the 1920s, the de-neutralization of the media paves the way for what has been called ‘the war of the domestic market,’ a massive ideological campaign addressed directly to the family puzzle that it claims to put together, even to reinvent, as an’ infinite receptacle for consumer goods.’ This campaign will soon become a veritable animal domestication of the American citizens (Speed and Politics, 128).”
“In fact, the government’s deliberately terroristic manipulation of the need for security is the perfect answer to all the new questions now being put to democracies by nuclear strategy... They are trying to recreate Union through a new unanimity of need, just as the mass media phantasmatically created a need for cars, refrigerators.. We will see the creation of a common feeling of insecurity that will lead to a new kind of consumption, the consumption of protection; this latter will progressively come to the fore and become the target of the whole of the merchandising system (Speed and Politics, 139).”
Carl Schmitt:
“The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and it its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded somewhat of a modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity (The Concept of the Political, 54).”
“The equation state=politics becomes erroneous and deceptive at exactly the moment when state and society penetrate each other. What had been up to that point affairs of state become thereby social matters, and, vice versa, what had been purely social matters become affairs of state - as must necessarily occur in a democratically organized unit. Heretofore ostensibly neutral domains - religion, culture, education, the economy - then cease to be neutral in the sense that they do not pertain to state and to politics. ... This results in the identity of state and society. In such a state, therefore, everything is at least potentially political, and in referring to the sate it is on longer possible to assert for it a specifically political character (The Concept of the Political, 22).”
Martin Heidigger:
“For man becomes truly free only insofar as he belongs to the realm of destining and so becomes one who listens and hears, and not one who is simply constrained to obey.The essence of freedom is originally not connected with the will or even with the causality of human willing. Freedom governs the open in the sense of the clear and lighted up, i.e.. of the revealed. It is to the happening of revealing, i.e.. of truth, that freedom stands in the closest and most intimate kinship. All revealing belongs within a harboring and a concealing. But that which frees - the mystery - is concealed and and always concealing itself (The Question Concerning Technology, 25).”
“Freedom is that which conceals in a way that opens to light, whose clearing there shimmers that veil that covers what comes to presence of all truth and lets the veil appear as what veils Freedom is the realm of the destining that at any given time starts a revealing upon its way (The Question Concerning Technology, 24).”
will to master/June Night
May. 29th, 2008 04:21 pmI thought there was no coffee. This was sad. Then I found secret coffee and suddenly all was well in world. (COFFEECOFFEECOFFEE) I don't have a problem.
So yeah. What kind of a day is it when Foucault is some nice, light reading? A damn good one, that's what! I'm working on my much-delayed summer project. I got seeeeeriously behind on it, so today I've been catching up. Also, I may have broken my brain. Time will tell. And hey, to pass said time, lets ponder this:
"The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control." - Martin Heidigger (The Question Concerning Technology)
***
June Night, by Sara Teasdale
Oh Earth, you are too dear to-night,
How can I sleep while all around
Floats rainy fragrance and the far
Deep voice of the ocean that talks to the ground?
Oh Earth, you gave me all I have,
I love you, I love you, -- oh what have I
That I can give you in return --
Except my body after I die?
So yeah. What kind of a day is it when Foucault is some nice, light reading? A damn good one, that's what! I'm working on my much-delayed summer project. I got seeeeeriously behind on it, so today I've been catching up. Also, I may have broken my brain. Time will tell. And hey, to pass said time, lets ponder this:
"The will to mastery becomes all the more urgent the more technology threatens to slip from human control." - Martin Heidigger (The Question Concerning Technology)
***
June Night, by Sara Teasdale
Oh Earth, you are too dear to-night,
How can I sleep while all around
Floats rainy fragrance and the far
Deep voice of the ocean that talks to the ground?
Oh Earth, you gave me all I have,
I love you, I love you, -- oh what have I
That I can give you in return --
Except my body after I die?
