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 p**** (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.
Reference: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopi ... 0#p2510550
Postcards:
Re: Postcards:
The thing that works for me is to think of language in terms of an evolutionary adaption: one that evolved in parallel with our evolution as a conscious species. In this way, we can look at some of the basic functions it has played in our history and consider the role they may be playing in our higher cognitive activities. And keep in mind the point I have reached, that described by H L Menken: “How would I know what I think if I didn’t write?” I’m basically winging it here and figuring it out as I go along. So if I seem to be wandering aimlessly….Well? Take, for instance, Lorraine’s point (https://www.facebook.com/groups/philoso ... ment_reply:
“I don't think logic is a belief that there are some facts in nature and those facts are certain. (I think that's called reality)
Logic is a process of reasoning.
It doesn't need true facts.
Logic can be used in fictional scenarios and hypotheses.”
It seems to me that we can think of the discipline of Logic (a form of language in itself (in terms of Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. It’s not so much a law about how we should think, but rather an exploration of the basic forms that have evolved in order for us to adapt to given environment. And we can think of these as basic organizations built into the physiological structure of the brain. Take, for instance, the syllogism or the basic syntactic argument: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. How can we not process information in that manner? Or look at the basic subject/predicate complex “A is B”. A large part of the statements we can make about the world are built on these simple building blocks. And we can see these structures at work in pretty much every language in the world.
Still, different languages are adapting to different environments, which explains the different forms of reasoning that define them. Our languages adapt to our needs. This is why, for instance, a more primal tribe might use phrases more Germanic than Germanic (“That food” “That dangerous snake”, etc. (while more advanced societies use a combination of Germanic terms (so we can understand each other (and latinate ones (so we can get at more complex phenomena. Now this is not to say that the Germanic is less evolved. It, rather, is a matter of adapting to an increasingly complex and subtle environment by combining simple terms. Take, for instance: “Zeitgeist” which means Time Spirit or “Weltanschauung” which means life world -simple combinations that, via the connotations that attach to them, go a long way towards thinking and talking about the world.
To approach this in a different way, we could look at the evolutionary process at work in Lacan’s distinction between the symbolic order (the semiotic systems through which we live together (and the real (that which overflows the semiotic systems we have to describe it (through which we evolve by drawing more and more of the real into the symbolic order via language. In this sense, we can make more sense of Lorraine’s point:
“Logic is a process of reasoning.
It doesn't need true facts.
Logic can be used in fictional scenarios and hypotheses.”
While the language of logic may describe some of the building blocks of how we reason or adapt to the world, it fails to produce when it comes to dealing with the complexities and subtleties of our world. We have and must evolve beyond the technology. This, however, may not be the case for more primitive tribes. They have the language and technology appropriate to their environment. They have the reasoning power they need to deal with it.
“I don't think logic is a belief that there are some facts in nature and those facts are certain. (I think that's called reality)
Logic is a process of reasoning.
It doesn't need true facts.
Logic can be used in fictional scenarios and hypotheses.”
It seems to me that we can think of the discipline of Logic (a form of language in itself (in terms of Chomsky’s Universal Grammar. It’s not so much a law about how we should think, but rather an exploration of the basic forms that have evolved in order for us to adapt to given environment. And we can think of these as basic organizations built into the physiological structure of the brain. Take, for instance, the syllogism or the basic syntactic argument: A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. How can we not process information in that manner? Or look at the basic subject/predicate complex “A is B”. A large part of the statements we can make about the world are built on these simple building blocks. And we can see these structures at work in pretty much every language in the world.
Still, different languages are adapting to different environments, which explains the different forms of reasoning that define them. Our languages adapt to our needs. This is why, for instance, a more primal tribe might use phrases more Germanic than Germanic (“That food” “That dangerous snake”, etc. (while more advanced societies use a combination of Germanic terms (so we can understand each other (and latinate ones (so we can get at more complex phenomena. Now this is not to say that the Germanic is less evolved. It, rather, is a matter of adapting to an increasingly complex and subtle environment by combining simple terms. Take, for instance: “Zeitgeist” which means Time Spirit or “Weltanschauung” which means life world -simple combinations that, via the connotations that attach to them, go a long way towards thinking and talking about the world.
To approach this in a different way, we could look at the evolutionary process at work in Lacan’s distinction between the symbolic order (the semiotic systems through which we live together (and the real (that which overflows the semiotic systems we have to describe it (through which we evolve by drawing more and more of the real into the symbolic order via language. In this sense, we can make more sense of Lorraine’s point:
“Logic is a process of reasoning.
It doesn't need true facts.
Logic can be used in fictional scenarios and hypotheses.”
While the language of logic may describe some of the building blocks of how we reason or adapt to the world, it fails to produce when it comes to dealing with the complexities and subtleties of our world. We have and must evolve beyond the technology. This, however, may not be the case for more primitive tribes. They have the language and technology appropriate to their environment. They have the reasoning power they need to deal with it.
Re: Postcards:
“ 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: https://www.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?
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: https://www.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?
Re: Postcards:
First of all, a confession: I am utterly scatterbrained. My mind wanders…. a lot. It’s like this Sartrean forward flight that sears as it projects from thought to thought. Consequently, I am always thinking and even manage to grasp on to certain patterns of thought that I repeat and build on –that is while allowing the input of the books I read (mostly philosophy (like a daily meditation (that which I allow to flow through me. I catch some of it while other parts flow through my filters. This is why I write. As H.L. Mencken said:
“How would I know what I think if I didn’t write?”
I use to think, and then write about what I thought. But that has changed because, now, when I’m not writing, I’m taking in the creations of others. But some (actually a lot (of the time I’m taking in information, my mind is wandering. And according to common doxa concerning intellect, I should think of myself as simply scatterbrain rather than intelligent. But I don’t. And I take this position because I know I am greatly changed in my conceptual constructions than I was any given time ago. And the only proof I can offer for that is what I write.
That said, I got some reassurance from a podcast from Studio 360 on the relationship between creativity and boredom: http://www.studio360.org/story/want-to- ... ing-bored/. The main point was that creativity may be being stifled because kids today don’t have to deal with boredom thanks to new technology. And there was research that demonstrated how boredom tended to make people more creative because of a default state of the brain when there is no stimulation.
And it would be hard for me to disagree with this since I became who I am because of a lot of time spent alone in rural environments with no one around and nothing better to do than spend a lot of time daydreaming. Nowadays, since I have discovered intellectual and creative curiosity, I generally say that I haven’t felt boredom in some time. But I realize that is not true. I actually experience it all the time when I’m listening to some audiobook that is doing nothing for me or, more importantly, reading some philosophical text that means absolutely nothing to me. I’m just letting it flow through me while my mind is wandering: in other words, creating.
What I am suggesting here is that reading philosophy (especially of the French kind (and I mean it: damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway! (may be the ultimate kind of creative boredom in that it allows the mind to wander while allowing for input via a kind of osmosis. And we have all experienced that osmosis. This is why a book of philosophy will start to make more sense with further readings: it's as if our filters have developed with each reading.
And since I have a few words left in this window (and in order to justify putting this on the Zen board (I would point out how Alex Pang, in The Distraction Addiction, takes it deeper in how Buddhist Monks see not just our technology as a distraction, but our brain-chatter as well. And there is an important connection.
“How would I know what I think if I didn’t write?”
I use to think, and then write about what I thought. But that has changed because, now, when I’m not writing, I’m taking in the creations of others. But some (actually a lot (of the time I’m taking in information, my mind is wandering. And according to common doxa concerning intellect, I should think of myself as simply scatterbrain rather than intelligent. But I don’t. And I take this position because I know I am greatly changed in my conceptual constructions than I was any given time ago. And the only proof I can offer for that is what I write.
That said, I got some reassurance from a podcast from Studio 360 on the relationship between creativity and boredom: http://www.studio360.org/story/want-to- ... ing-bored/. The main point was that creativity may be being stifled because kids today don’t have to deal with boredom thanks to new technology. And there was research that demonstrated how boredom tended to make people more creative because of a default state of the brain when there is no stimulation.
And it would be hard for me to disagree with this since I became who I am because of a lot of time spent alone in rural environments with no one around and nothing better to do than spend a lot of time daydreaming. Nowadays, since I have discovered intellectual and creative curiosity, I generally say that I haven’t felt boredom in some time. But I realize that is not true. I actually experience it all the time when I’m listening to some audiobook that is doing nothing for me or, more importantly, reading some philosophical text that means absolutely nothing to me. I’m just letting it flow through me while my mind is wandering: in other words, creating.
What I am suggesting here is that reading philosophy (especially of the French kind (and I mean it: damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway! (may be the ultimate kind of creative boredom in that it allows the mind to wander while allowing for input via a kind of osmosis. And we have all experienced that osmosis. This is why a book of philosophy will start to make more sense with further readings: it's as if our filters have developed with each reading.
And since I have a few words left in this window (and in order to justify putting this on the Zen board (I would point out how Alex Pang, in The Distraction Addiction, takes it deeper in how Buddhist Monks see not just our technology as a distraction, but our brain-chatter as well. And there is an important connection.
Re: Postcards:
“I don't want to derail your thread, but I will just add one thing since it is relevant to what has gone before. You (and others interested) might consider checking out the works of Heidegger generally collected under the title Basic Works. In them you will find a Heidegger much more generous in his presentation than in his other works. Also, a little bird told me that if you find out their names and search for them you should be able to find them.
I will add though, to understand Heidegger's focus on poïesis you have to understand his stance on modern technology and the problem he felt arises from a hegemony of instrumental reasoning. Poetry, you might admit, does bring humanity closer to its connection with nature, the world, existence, or what have you, than for example creating machines. — I might say that creating machines is something essentially human, but it doesn't really improve out spiritual connection with Being. Heidegger's position was that thinking of Being brought us closest but poetry has the ability to absorb us and make us feel closer to existence even as an audience if not as performers or creators.
Has our modern world of ubiquitous technology brought us closer to eudaimonia (roughly, 'the good life') or have we perhaps even lost something that older civilizations had by living closer to nature? Is it desirable for humanity to change its trajectory? Is it possible any longer or have we entered an era where we are determined by our technology to pursue conquest at all costs?” –The Artful Pauper….
“I don't want to derail your thread, but I will just add one thing since it is relevant to what has gone before.”
I think that too often we encounter people on these boards who take what they’re doing way too seriously –or may be posing as people who do when all they’re really looking for is an opportunity to heckle: this constant bitching about “serious philosophy” and staying on topic. This comes from a failure to see message boards for their real value: that as a workshop or jam in which we engage in a kind of play in order to find material for our more serious philosophical pursuits. I, personally, see any string I start as a catalyst to a rhizomatic series of associations (experimentation (that must go where it will to produce. And if anyone is responsible for bringing it back to topic, it is the person that started the string.
“You (and others interested) might consider checking out the works of Heidegger generally collected under the title Basic Works. In them you will find a Heidegger much more generous in his presentation than in his other works. Also, a little bird told me that if you find out their names and search for them you should be able to find them.”
This works with my sense of it. Clearly Being and Time is not the best place to start. Along with your suggestion, I have Walter Kaufman’s Existentialism: from Dostoevsky to Sartre which I need to get back to if I can ever get out the mire I find myself in with these other GODDAMN Frenchmen. I mean it: Damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway!!!!
But one way or the other, I do hope to get back to Heidegger –if through nothing else, at least secondary text. I have found things in him I can use, not just what I will describe below, but his concept of Anguish which, as Mary Warnock describes it, is about being tapped into the underlying nothingness of things. Or as I got from a documentary on him (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/heidegge ... thinkable/ : the ungroundedness of things. This closely parallels my concept of the nihilistic perspective –which I would need another rhizome to articulate on.
“I will add though, to understand Heidegger's focus on poïesis you have to understand his stance on modern technology and the problem he felt arises from a hegemony of instrumental reasoning. Poetry, you might admit, does bring humanity closer to its connection with nature, the world, existence, or what have you, than for example creating machines. — I might say that creating machines is something essentially human, but it doesn't really improve out spiritual connection with Being. Heidegger's position was that thinking of Being brought us closest but poetry has the ability to absorb us and make us feel closer to existence even as an audience if not as performers or creators.
Has our modern world of ubiquitous technology brought us closer to eudaimonia (roughly, 'the good life') or have we perhaps even lost something that older civilizations had by living closer to nature? Is it desirable for humanity to change its trajectory? Is it possible any longer or have we entered an era where we are determined by our technology to pursue conquest at all costs?”
As Keats said: poetry is the pick-axe by which we penetrate the frozen sea of knowledge. Art is a direct confrontation with being that passes into the evanescence of abstraction into nothingness. Philosophy, on the other hand, works in abstraction and struggles away from the evanescence and the pull of nothingness back to that confrontation with Being and existence.
And Heidegger’s anti-technological stance is a little hard to deny given that we face our own self destruction through our arrogance and man-made climate change. And while our current approach (modern technology (hasn’t so much given us the “good life”, it has given us the comfortable life very similar to junkies with a full stash of heroin or the narrators in Tennyson’s Land of the Lotus Eaters.
Capitalism and technology has turned us into the Land of the Lotus Eaters. Heidegger has relevance, despite his flaws.
I will add though, to understand Heidegger's focus on poïesis you have to understand his stance on modern technology and the problem he felt arises from a hegemony of instrumental reasoning. Poetry, you might admit, does bring humanity closer to its connection with nature, the world, existence, or what have you, than for example creating machines. — I might say that creating machines is something essentially human, but it doesn't really improve out spiritual connection with Being. Heidegger's position was that thinking of Being brought us closest but poetry has the ability to absorb us and make us feel closer to existence even as an audience if not as performers or creators.
Has our modern world of ubiquitous technology brought us closer to eudaimonia (roughly, 'the good life') or have we perhaps even lost something that older civilizations had by living closer to nature? Is it desirable for humanity to change its trajectory? Is it possible any longer or have we entered an era where we are determined by our technology to pursue conquest at all costs?” –The Artful Pauper….
“I don't want to derail your thread, but I will just add one thing since it is relevant to what has gone before.”
I think that too often we encounter people on these boards who take what they’re doing way too seriously –or may be posing as people who do when all they’re really looking for is an opportunity to heckle: this constant bitching about “serious philosophy” and staying on topic. This comes from a failure to see message boards for their real value: that as a workshop or jam in which we engage in a kind of play in order to find material for our more serious philosophical pursuits. I, personally, see any string I start as a catalyst to a rhizomatic series of associations (experimentation (that must go where it will to produce. And if anyone is responsible for bringing it back to topic, it is the person that started the string.
“You (and others interested) might consider checking out the works of Heidegger generally collected under the title Basic Works. In them you will find a Heidegger much more generous in his presentation than in his other works. Also, a little bird told me that if you find out their names and search for them you should be able to find them.”
This works with my sense of it. Clearly Being and Time is not the best place to start. Along with your suggestion, I have Walter Kaufman’s Existentialism: from Dostoevsky to Sartre which I need to get back to if I can ever get out the mire I find myself in with these other GODDAMN Frenchmen. I mean it: Damn the French and their weird obscure philosophies anyway!!!!
But one way or the other, I do hope to get back to Heidegger –if through nothing else, at least secondary text. I have found things in him I can use, not just what I will describe below, but his concept of Anguish which, as Mary Warnock describes it, is about being tapped into the underlying nothingness of things. Or as I got from a documentary on him (http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/heidegge ... thinkable/ : the ungroundedness of things. This closely parallels my concept of the nihilistic perspective –which I would need another rhizome to articulate on.
“I will add though, to understand Heidegger's focus on poïesis you have to understand his stance on modern technology and the problem he felt arises from a hegemony of instrumental reasoning. Poetry, you might admit, does bring humanity closer to its connection with nature, the world, existence, or what have you, than for example creating machines. — I might say that creating machines is something essentially human, but it doesn't really improve out spiritual connection with Being. Heidegger's position was that thinking of Being brought us closest but poetry has the ability to absorb us and make us feel closer to existence even as an audience if not as performers or creators.
Has our modern world of ubiquitous technology brought us closer to eudaimonia (roughly, 'the good life') or have we perhaps even lost something that older civilizations had by living closer to nature? Is it desirable for humanity to change its trajectory? Is it possible any longer or have we entered an era where we are determined by our technology to pursue conquest at all costs?”
As Keats said: poetry is the pick-axe by which we penetrate the frozen sea of knowledge. Art is a direct confrontation with being that passes into the evanescence of abstraction into nothingness. Philosophy, on the other hand, works in abstraction and struggles away from the evanescence and the pull of nothingness back to that confrontation with Being and existence.
And Heidegger’s anti-technological stance is a little hard to deny given that we face our own self destruction through our arrogance and man-made climate change. And while our current approach (modern technology (hasn’t so much given us the “good life”, it has given us the comfortable life very similar to junkies with a full stash of heroin or the narrators in Tennyson’s Land of the Lotus Eaters.
Capitalism and technology has turned us into the Land of the Lotus Eaters. Heidegger has relevance, despite his flaws.
Re: Postcards:
“Life is a performance and we are but players on its stage....if I read the right article, I believe I have, I would agree first that yoni is humble. At the same time, I believe all people in some kind of authority or "expert" should be humble. The day you think you know everything about anything you fail. I say this, because if you think you have nothing else to learn, you become stagnant....caught up in your own rigid ideals.” –Ken
Yes, Yonathon’s humility is impressive. What is really telling to me is how lacking in humility many of the trolls can be that I have encountered on these boards who claim to have the authority that Yoni has proof of. I had always suspected, when confronted with such, that this was the case and that I had every reason to question their authority based on their lack of humility: their desire to turn it all into a pissing contest. I had always suspected them to be wannabes compensating for their lack through aggression. Yoni kind of added a little foundation to my assumption.
(And I should note here that I am mainly talking in terms of the past since the boards have done an effective job of eliminating the problem. While I have watched trolls turn the Yahoo and MySpace boards into wastelands, I’m not seeing so much of that these days. Roger???)
Unfortunately, he seems to have given up on me either out of lack of time (he had, after all, just published one of his first articles which likely wetted his taste for more (or frustration as I am older and a little more set in my ways. I’m open to new ideas, but can be a little stubborn in holding my own. Either way, I was flattered and appreciated his taking out the time out to go with me as far as he did and I look forward to further articles from him.
“I also agree that the use of "you" is often perceived as an affront directed at the individual the text is about, when often then not, "you" is used as a broader term meaning not the speaker or writer. In an ideal world, all would be understood in language and translation, unfortunately this is not true.”
The thing here, Ken, is that I was comparing experiences on the boards in which the second person perspective can lead to schoolyard brawls to the third person perspective of people writing books and articles in which they can keep it a little cooler and articulate through third person detachment. It’s not a guarantee against mean spiritedness (as Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness obviously demonstrates (I tried to read it, but got so nauseous by about the third essay, I had to put it down (but it gives the addressor a little more space to think before they assert.
But I agree: the second person perspective is a mixed package in being so personal. Saying “love ya, man!” is a lot more powerful, performance-wise, than “I love that person”. However, in situations of disagreement, it can get personal: “Fuck you: you fucking p****!!!!” But once again: the third person perspective is not a guarantee:
“Fuck that fucking p****!!!!!!!”
Sometimes, anger can overwhelm the distance that the 3rd person perspective allows us. All it can be is a cushion.
“I personally believe that is why philosophers and also scientists (for what is philosophy, but the science of thought) use eloquent or what my less educated friends call "big words". There is less misinterpretation if you use a word that means, usually, the same thing no matter how it is read. Less eloquent vocabulary will get confused because they rely on more than just the word itself (ie, when speaking, you have body language, tone, and so on). This makes me think of the first "hard" book I ever read. It was called Foucault's Pendulum. I believe it was translated from Italian. I was maybe 17 and I had to read the book with a dictionary. Then I asked myself and then the person that recommended it why the words were so hard to grasp. I was told about it being translated. The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation. No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation...even if it's just translating the thought process you have into words.”
First of all, I could just Google this, but have to test myself: is Foucault’s Pendulum Umberto Eco’s?
That asked, I agree with you: the reason philosophers turn to such Latin-ate terms (the “big words” as you call them (is for precision and concision. The problem is that these terms never stay stable in time. They evolve like any word does and pick up different associations along the way for more than one person. Therefore, as I believe Yoni was getting at, via Derrida, these terms for any individual always ride on an infinite network of association: diffe̕rrance. And I would respectfully counter your point:
“The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation.”
With a point I made to Yoni:
“I'm thinking here of Lacan's point that language is like an attorney that represents us to the attorney (the language (of the other. Even though, as I would still argue, language is an agreement, it is not an homogeneous one. It is rather heterogeneous in the way a language can arrive at slight variations of agreements in the various circumstances it can find itself being practiced in (ex. Ebonics. And this can go down to the individual themselves in their own individual context. This is how two individuals can actually be in agreement yet can still find themselves in a debate –sometimes to the point of hostility.”
But then you more or less suggested this with:
“No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation...even if it's just translating the thought process you have into words.”
But I would implore you not to take this self deconstruction (actually, as I would spell it, d.construction (as a weakness in your process. Take it, rather, as a sign of integrity.
Yes, Yonathon’s humility is impressive. What is really telling to me is how lacking in humility many of the trolls can be that I have encountered on these boards who claim to have the authority that Yoni has proof of. I had always suspected, when confronted with such, that this was the case and that I had every reason to question their authority based on their lack of humility: their desire to turn it all into a pissing contest. I had always suspected them to be wannabes compensating for their lack through aggression. Yoni kind of added a little foundation to my assumption.
(And I should note here that I am mainly talking in terms of the past since the boards have done an effective job of eliminating the problem. While I have watched trolls turn the Yahoo and MySpace boards into wastelands, I’m not seeing so much of that these days. Roger???)
Unfortunately, he seems to have given up on me either out of lack of time (he had, after all, just published one of his first articles which likely wetted his taste for more (or frustration as I am older and a little more set in my ways. I’m open to new ideas, but can be a little stubborn in holding my own. Either way, I was flattered and appreciated his taking out the time out to go with me as far as he did and I look forward to further articles from him.
“I also agree that the use of "you" is often perceived as an affront directed at the individual the text is about, when often then not, "you" is used as a broader term meaning not the speaker or writer. In an ideal world, all would be understood in language and translation, unfortunately this is not true.”
The thing here, Ken, is that I was comparing experiences on the boards in which the second person perspective can lead to schoolyard brawls to the third person perspective of people writing books and articles in which they can keep it a little cooler and articulate through third person detachment. It’s not a guarantee against mean spiritedness (as Rand’s Virtue of Selfishness obviously demonstrates (I tried to read it, but got so nauseous by about the third essay, I had to put it down (but it gives the addressor a little more space to think before they assert.
But I agree: the second person perspective is a mixed package in being so personal. Saying “love ya, man!” is a lot more powerful, performance-wise, than “I love that person”. However, in situations of disagreement, it can get personal: “Fuck you: you fucking p****!!!!” But once again: the third person perspective is not a guarantee:
“Fuck that fucking p****!!!!!!!”
Sometimes, anger can overwhelm the distance that the 3rd person perspective allows us. All it can be is a cushion.
“I personally believe that is why philosophers and also scientists (for what is philosophy, but the science of thought) use eloquent or what my less educated friends call "big words". There is less misinterpretation if you use a word that means, usually, the same thing no matter how it is read. Less eloquent vocabulary will get confused because they rely on more than just the word itself (ie, when speaking, you have body language, tone, and so on). This makes me think of the first "hard" book I ever read. It was called Foucault's Pendulum. I believe it was translated from Italian. I was maybe 17 and I had to read the book with a dictionary. Then I asked myself and then the person that recommended it why the words were so hard to grasp. I was told about it being translated. The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation. No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation...even if it's just translating the thought process you have into words.”
First of all, I could just Google this, but have to test myself: is Foucault’s Pendulum Umberto Eco’s?
That asked, I agree with you: the reason philosophers turn to such Latin-ate terms (the “big words” as you call them (is for precision and concision. The problem is that these terms never stay stable in time. They evolve like any word does and pick up different associations along the way for more than one person. Therefore, as I believe Yoni was getting at, via Derrida, these terms for any individual always ride on an infinite network of association: diffe̕rrance. And I would respectfully counter your point:
“The reason I bring this up is because, again, the use of eloquent vocabulary leaves less room for misinterpretation.”
With a point I made to Yoni:
“I'm thinking here of Lacan's point that language is like an attorney that represents us to the attorney (the language (of the other. Even though, as I would still argue, language is an agreement, it is not an homogeneous one. It is rather heterogeneous in the way a language can arrive at slight variations of agreements in the various circumstances it can find itself being practiced in (ex. Ebonics. And this can go down to the individual themselves in their own individual context. This is how two individuals can actually be in agreement yet can still find themselves in a debate –sometimes to the point of hostility.”
But then you more or less suggested this with:
“No matter what, though, there is always something lost in translation...even if it's just translating the thought process you have into words.”
But I would implore you not to take this self deconstruction (actually, as I would spell it, d.construction (as a weakness in your process. Take it, rather, as a sign of integrity.
Re: Postcards:
"The American dream implies that hard work can bring you the life you want, whatever life that may be. That is all it means... There is nothing about "build it and they will come." There is nothing corrupt or bankrupt in the concept of the American dream. I don't believe in demonizing the west for its economic prosperity nor do I think that capitalism and business are bad things."
First of all, I (and Andy has implied as much(don't see Capitalism or business as purely bad. You imply a false dichotomy, Daniel, when you say things like:
"If you take issue with capitalism I would urge you to consider the alternative which is communism or socialism. Neither of those have worked very well anywhere that I know off."
:a point that Andy effectively dealt with and, consequently, freed me to deal with the hegemony and semiological aspects of the "American Dream".
That said, I would agree that the American Dream (or the mythology of it (certainly has its uses. On the positive side, it is possible that it has participated as an incentive for ambition. But that is up for debate since there is no way of knowing if an embrace of the American Dream is what drives the individual to ambition or if it is a matter of an ambitious individual adapting the American Dream as a motto or alibi. In this case, you have to ask if an embrace of the concept is a guarantee of success.
But the main difference between us is that the USE I am primarily interested in is that of a form of manipulation or smokescreen that masks not only the reality of Capitalism, but the very mechanisms that insure the failure of some while implying the utopian fantasy that if everyone just embraced it and tried a little harder, everything would be hunky dory. Let’s start with the most superficial aspect of it: the reality as compared the fantasy, the erroneous notion that Capitalism pimps is that if there is a will, there is a way. If nothing else, one could start their own business: the American Dream. But as statistics show, that dream quickly turns into a nightmare for the 50+% of startups that fail. So much for the Smithian vision of everyone applying their talents in a free exchange of what they produce. But then, as we have seen lately, what Capitalism sells better than anything, between American Idol and the occasional Lotto winner, is possibility. It’s almost become religious and a matter of faith in nature. Or as I like to joke:
It use to be: pray hard and follow these principles and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now it’s: work hard and follow these principles and you too may enter the kingdom of success.
The problem here, though, is the mechanisms inherent in Capitalism that insure many will not enter the kingdom of success while adding the alibi of making it seem like it must be some kind of moral failure on their part. Think: Calvinism. In other words, in order for anyone to succeed in Capitalism (the “American Dream” (someone has to fail. The rising tide lifting all boats may be a compelling metaphor. But it’s not a very accurate one.
And let me offer as example my personal experience. First of all, I like my job. And as far as pay, I am doing pretty good compared to a lot of other people. And despite my complaints about it and Capitalism, I actually like my bosses enough to not want to lynch them. So forget about the customary tactic of accusing me of whining. The reason I have what I have is because for about 5 years, I redirected my intellectual and creative curiosity from the liberal and fine arts to padding my resume with various certifications. But let’s focus this on the main one that got me the job: my third grade engineer’s license. Now the only reason that license has value is because not everyone had the intellectual resources I did and the willingness to spend the 9 months I did to pass the test. In fact, not everyone has the financial resources I did in order to obtain the resources I needed to do so. In other words, my success was built on the failure and loss of others. To put this in the perspective of the market and supply and demand: let’s say everyone suddenly got inspired and decided to get 3rd grade engineer’s license. That would make my license the equivalent of a high school diploma or, basically, ass-wipe. On top of that, I’m dealing with the reality of watching that particular license grow less and less valuable as most places concentrate their chill water and steam needs to Central Utility plants.
Now, of course, the economy has a lot of other needs than 3rd grade engineers. But that doesn’t eliminate the problem I am describing as much as it defers it enough to allow for the very fantasy of the American Dream you are describing. It still always comes at the expense of the other. To back it with a little statistical reality, not long after the meltdown, there were around 12 to 14 million people in America looking for jobs with about 3 million jobs available for people with college degrees or certifications of some kind. Of course, the need for unskilled labor may have filled in some of that gap. But we are talking about the “American Dream” here. So that doesn’t count. And while I’m sure that differential has closed a little, I’m not sure it's enough to justify your embrace of the American Dream.
The other issue that the American Dream masks is that it is never so much a matter of how much you make; it’s a matter of how much you make as compared to everyone else. If the kid that was serving me a hamburger at Burger King was making as much as me, then the wages I was making wouldn’t mean shit since everything would be so expensive as to render my effort pointless.
Once again: in order for anyone to win in Capitalism, someone has to lose. The American dream only works in a world in which not everyone exploits it. A world in which everyone embraced the American Dream would only result in a lot of highly educated people serving you burgers or cleaning someone's toilet. This is what makes the complaints of the thrifty such nonsense. I had a friend who owned a lot in stock and acted as if everyone followed his example, everyone would have what he had. What he failed to recognize was the paradox of thrift. If everyone were as frugal as him and refused to use credit for anything, the economy would have collapsed a long time ago taking down every stock he had with it. He embraced the American Dream while failing to recognize the dirty secrets that propped it up.
What it implies and the reality of it are 2 completely different things.
First of all, I (and Andy has implied as much(don't see Capitalism or business as purely bad. You imply a false dichotomy, Daniel, when you say things like:
"If you take issue with capitalism I would urge you to consider the alternative which is communism or socialism. Neither of those have worked very well anywhere that I know off."
:a point that Andy effectively dealt with and, consequently, freed me to deal with the hegemony and semiological aspects of the "American Dream".
That said, I would agree that the American Dream (or the mythology of it (certainly has its uses. On the positive side, it is possible that it has participated as an incentive for ambition. But that is up for debate since there is no way of knowing if an embrace of the American Dream is what drives the individual to ambition or if it is a matter of an ambitious individual adapting the American Dream as a motto or alibi. In this case, you have to ask if an embrace of the concept is a guarantee of success.
But the main difference between us is that the USE I am primarily interested in is that of a form of manipulation or smokescreen that masks not only the reality of Capitalism, but the very mechanisms that insure the failure of some while implying the utopian fantasy that if everyone just embraced it and tried a little harder, everything would be hunky dory. Let’s start with the most superficial aspect of it: the reality as compared the fantasy, the erroneous notion that Capitalism pimps is that if there is a will, there is a way. If nothing else, one could start their own business: the American Dream. But as statistics show, that dream quickly turns into a nightmare for the 50+% of startups that fail. So much for the Smithian vision of everyone applying their talents in a free exchange of what they produce. But then, as we have seen lately, what Capitalism sells better than anything, between American Idol and the occasional Lotto winner, is possibility. It’s almost become religious and a matter of faith in nature. Or as I like to joke:
It use to be: pray hard and follow these principles and you too may enter the kingdom of heaven.
Now it’s: work hard and follow these principles and you too may enter the kingdom of success.
The problem here, though, is the mechanisms inherent in Capitalism that insure many will not enter the kingdom of success while adding the alibi of making it seem like it must be some kind of moral failure on their part. Think: Calvinism. In other words, in order for anyone to succeed in Capitalism (the “American Dream” (someone has to fail. The rising tide lifting all boats may be a compelling metaphor. But it’s not a very accurate one.
And let me offer as example my personal experience. First of all, I like my job. And as far as pay, I am doing pretty good compared to a lot of other people. And despite my complaints about it and Capitalism, I actually like my bosses enough to not want to lynch them. So forget about the customary tactic of accusing me of whining. The reason I have what I have is because for about 5 years, I redirected my intellectual and creative curiosity from the liberal and fine arts to padding my resume with various certifications. But let’s focus this on the main one that got me the job: my third grade engineer’s license. Now the only reason that license has value is because not everyone had the intellectual resources I did and the willingness to spend the 9 months I did to pass the test. In fact, not everyone has the financial resources I did in order to obtain the resources I needed to do so. In other words, my success was built on the failure and loss of others. To put this in the perspective of the market and supply and demand: let’s say everyone suddenly got inspired and decided to get 3rd grade engineer’s license. That would make my license the equivalent of a high school diploma or, basically, ass-wipe. On top of that, I’m dealing with the reality of watching that particular license grow less and less valuable as most places concentrate their chill water and steam needs to Central Utility plants.
Now, of course, the economy has a lot of other needs than 3rd grade engineers. But that doesn’t eliminate the problem I am describing as much as it defers it enough to allow for the very fantasy of the American Dream you are describing. It still always comes at the expense of the other. To back it with a little statistical reality, not long after the meltdown, there were around 12 to 14 million people in America looking for jobs with about 3 million jobs available for people with college degrees or certifications of some kind. Of course, the need for unskilled labor may have filled in some of that gap. But we are talking about the “American Dream” here. So that doesn’t count. And while I’m sure that differential has closed a little, I’m not sure it's enough to justify your embrace of the American Dream.
The other issue that the American Dream masks is that it is never so much a matter of how much you make; it’s a matter of how much you make as compared to everyone else. If the kid that was serving me a hamburger at Burger King was making as much as me, then the wages I was making wouldn’t mean shit since everything would be so expensive as to render my effort pointless.
Once again: in order for anyone to win in Capitalism, someone has to lose. The American dream only works in a world in which not everyone exploits it. A world in which everyone embraced the American Dream would only result in a lot of highly educated people serving you burgers or cleaning someone's toilet. This is what makes the complaints of the thrifty such nonsense. I had a friend who owned a lot in stock and acted as if everyone followed his example, everyone would have what he had. What he failed to recognize was the paradox of thrift. If everyone were as frugal as him and refused to use credit for anything, the economy would have collapsed a long time ago taking down every stock he had with it. He embraced the American Dream while failing to recognize the dirty secrets that propped it up.
What it implies and the reality of it are 2 completely different things.
Re: Postcards:
Reference: https://broadclarity.com/the-experience-machine
What I want to do here, as concerns Hawkin’s essay, is start with J S Mill’s point, that happiness seems to be a side effect of something else, then hopefully put some shine on Nozick’s experience machine. And, hopefully, I will not have managed to simply go off on my own tangent (the self indulgence of being off topic (in the process. If you think about your experiences with it: those happy moments in your life, Mill’s seems to be right. It’s never like having someone jacking in to the pleasure center of your brain (as scientists have done (and keeping you in constant state of pleasure: a technological land of the lotos eaters. Still, we can only assume that pleasure (or the pleasure center of the brain (has something to do with happiness. Nor can we deny the role that displeasure or even the indifferent (that state of experiencing neither pleasure nor displeasure in any significant measure (plays in it. Therefore, we could define happiness as a crap in one hand and gold in the other situation, one that is defined through an accumulative effect of pleasant experiences (that which stimulates the pleasure center of the brain (in relationship and contrast to the unpleasant and indifferent experiences we have.
(And we as the intellectually and creatively curious should understand that as well anyone. Think about the tedious shit we go through, such as reading pages of text that often makes no sense to us whatsoever, in order to achieve that experience of revelation and the pleasure that comes with it.)
And if we follow Lacan’s concept of Jouissance, we can see how our experience of happiness is rooted in and an expression of our experience of the component of pleasure:
First of all, Jouissance (as your initial instincts might tell you (is French for sexual ecstasy: the very bar by which most of us define the experience of pleasure. What Lacan goes on to point out is that Jouissance, in terms of sex, is a conscious experience of pleasure while we experience discomfort (or displeasure (at a subconscious level. Lacan’s support for this was to point out that if you took it up to the point of climax, then shut it down, you would experience displeasure. True enough. But it goes a little deeper and more subtle than that. If you think about it, sex is a process of working towards a threshold that will take you out of a place that you are really enjoying at the time. In other words, the experience of that pleasure is one of being pulled in 2 directions at once. This puts a little shine on the aesthetic experience we sometimes get with artistic creations: that feeling it gives you of wanting to fold into yourself. But it gets even more subtle than that when you think about direct experiences of pleasure (such as that of cocaine: the kind of discomfort that always seems to accompany it, one we would feel if someone jacked into the pleasure center of our brain and stimulated it.
But if we think it through, we can see what distinguishes pleasure from happiness, even though the experience of happiness presupposes the experience of pleasure. Say someone was to jack into the pleasure center of our brain and leave the switch on. At some point, it would seem, the experience would have to become unpleasant (we would become unhappy (since it would become undifferentiated and undistinguished. The pleasure would lose all meaning since we would no longer have anything to compare it with. To offer an example (and hopefully I’m not gerrymandering here: one of the most interesting scenes in the Hellraiser series was one in which the characters were walking through Hell and in one of the rooms, a man and a woman were condemned to engage in an eternal sexual act –that is without any hope of a climax. Now think about how brutal that would be: to be eternally working towards a threshold (the comparatively less pleasant experience (that one will never arrive at and be able to engage in the added pleasure (the happiness (of remembering a pleasure one is no longer experiencing. In other words: while they may be in an eternal state of pleasure, they will never be happy or satisfied. It’s never enough to experience something pleasant. A good party is never a matter of getting blackout drunk and forgetting what a good time we had. Part of the pleasure comes in the hindsight of having a good time: of having pleasure.
And I think we can apply what we have learned about the pleasure machine (Jouissance (to the happiness machine: the experience machine we might use to experience eternal happiness. Like eternal pleasure, the eternal happiness of the experience machine seems impossible since sooner or later our experience and the pleasure we derive from it would become undifferentiated.
So yeah!!!!! I think I would have a few reservations about the eternal pleasure of the experience machine.
What I want to do here, as concerns Hawkin’s essay, is start with J S Mill’s point, that happiness seems to be a side effect of something else, then hopefully put some shine on Nozick’s experience machine. And, hopefully, I will not have managed to simply go off on my own tangent (the self indulgence of being off topic (in the process. If you think about your experiences with it: those happy moments in your life, Mill’s seems to be right. It’s never like having someone jacking in to the pleasure center of your brain (as scientists have done (and keeping you in constant state of pleasure: a technological land of the lotos eaters. Still, we can only assume that pleasure (or the pleasure center of the brain (has something to do with happiness. Nor can we deny the role that displeasure or even the indifferent (that state of experiencing neither pleasure nor displeasure in any significant measure (plays in it. Therefore, we could define happiness as a crap in one hand and gold in the other situation, one that is defined through an accumulative effect of pleasant experiences (that which stimulates the pleasure center of the brain (in relationship and contrast to the unpleasant and indifferent experiences we have.
(And we as the intellectually and creatively curious should understand that as well anyone. Think about the tedious shit we go through, such as reading pages of text that often makes no sense to us whatsoever, in order to achieve that experience of revelation and the pleasure that comes with it.)
And if we follow Lacan’s concept of Jouissance, we can see how our experience of happiness is rooted in and an expression of our experience of the component of pleasure:
First of all, Jouissance (as your initial instincts might tell you (is French for sexual ecstasy: the very bar by which most of us define the experience of pleasure. What Lacan goes on to point out is that Jouissance, in terms of sex, is a conscious experience of pleasure while we experience discomfort (or displeasure (at a subconscious level. Lacan’s support for this was to point out that if you took it up to the point of climax, then shut it down, you would experience displeasure. True enough. But it goes a little deeper and more subtle than that. If you think about it, sex is a process of working towards a threshold that will take you out of a place that you are really enjoying at the time. In other words, the experience of that pleasure is one of being pulled in 2 directions at once. This puts a little shine on the aesthetic experience we sometimes get with artistic creations: that feeling it gives you of wanting to fold into yourself. But it gets even more subtle than that when you think about direct experiences of pleasure (such as that of cocaine: the kind of discomfort that always seems to accompany it, one we would feel if someone jacked into the pleasure center of our brain and stimulated it.
But if we think it through, we can see what distinguishes pleasure from happiness, even though the experience of happiness presupposes the experience of pleasure. Say someone was to jack into the pleasure center of our brain and leave the switch on. At some point, it would seem, the experience would have to become unpleasant (we would become unhappy (since it would become undifferentiated and undistinguished. The pleasure would lose all meaning since we would no longer have anything to compare it with. To offer an example (and hopefully I’m not gerrymandering here: one of the most interesting scenes in the Hellraiser series was one in which the characters were walking through Hell and in one of the rooms, a man and a woman were condemned to engage in an eternal sexual act –that is without any hope of a climax. Now think about how brutal that would be: to be eternally working towards a threshold (the comparatively less pleasant experience (that one will never arrive at and be able to engage in the added pleasure (the happiness (of remembering a pleasure one is no longer experiencing. In other words: while they may be in an eternal state of pleasure, they will never be happy or satisfied. It’s never enough to experience something pleasant. A good party is never a matter of getting blackout drunk and forgetting what a good time we had. Part of the pleasure comes in the hindsight of having a good time: of having pleasure.
And I think we can apply what we have learned about the pleasure machine (Jouissance (to the happiness machine: the experience machine we might use to experience eternal happiness. Like eternal pleasure, the eternal happiness of the experience machine seems impossible since sooner or later our experience and the pleasure we derive from it would become undifferentiated.
So yeah!!!!! I think I would have a few reservations about the eternal pleasure of the experience machine.
Re: Postcards:
One of the issues that has haunted my process has been one that haunted many post-structuralist and postmodern thinkers (such as Deleuze and Guattarri: the question posed by Wilhelm Reich:
What is it about people that seem to seek out their own oppression?
I would also argue that this question preoccupied Sartre given the amount of writing he put into dismissing, in rational way, the very a-rational experience of solipsism –especially in Being and Nothingness. And we can assume this came out of his experience with Nazism (a form of fascism, mind you (during the German occupation of France.
And looking at it now, I realize that one of cool things about it is that I get to stand on the shoulders of continental giants and approach it from the uniquely American perspective of a progressive living among Midwestern conservatives –many of which I consider good and dear friends. And having learned to listen to their little war rallies (that is against progressive policy (and not react (what good would it do me since I can always write about it later (I find myself in the privileged position of having a front row seat to the really bad reasoning they are engaging in. And this, I have to admit, is their gift to me since they also consider me a good and dear friend. This is based on an interesting dynamic in that 1: I never attack back because I always know I can think about it then write about it later, 2: this allows them to indulge their egoistic notions that they are winning the debate (that is since they know where I stand (and the delusion that they are capable of converting me by the sheer weight of their “Truth”, and 3: they never read what I write about them. It’s a fair exchange as far as I’m concerned.
This is because for reasons I will try to describe below, progressives, by their inherent nature are far better writers than speakers because they are never light enough on their feet (that is because of the burden of complexity (to analyze an argument and respond to it as compared to the conservatives who tend to work from popularly accepted assumptions. I listen to my friends' arguments and am tongue-tied, even though I know there is something wrong. But it doesn’t take long, when I get by myself, before I figure it out. But by then, it’s too late. And I will generally never see that argument again to pose the argument I have built against it. And it’s not that it would do me any good. They almost always work in packs, and will always find some way to dance around it with yet more bad reasoning.
Now to give you an example of how they work: such a conservative, having read this, will turn to common doxa and argue that maybe the reason I can’t respond on the fly is because I am wrong. But, of course, this will be based on the limited reading of this particular post with no consideration of the thousands of words I have written dismissing their arguments elsewhere. They wallow in the gotcha moment.
It’s as if they’re stuck in the language games they indulge in with complete indifference to the existential leap those games must make into reality in order have any reference to reality. Therefore, I can’t help but feel that this (the answer to Wilhelm Reich’s question (lies in language. And I would propose a quasi-Lacanian (with a sprinkle of Zizek (possibility.
One thing that seems clear is that conservative to right ideologies have an overwhelming need for a given order –usually THEIR sense of order. And what we might look at is how we develop our language skills in the first place. We always start with static nouns: Mommy! Daddy! Even the first verbs we use are used as nouns: Eat! Lacan refers to these as Point de Captions or points of capture. And we should also note here that the French term refers to upholstery buttons. It’s not until we adapt to our environment a little more that we start making statements of becoming (as compared to the static being of nouns (such as “I want”.
So it makes perfect sense for an individual, as their wants grow more complex and more resisted by their environment, to desire to return to the days of simple static nouns, to act as if language, as a whole, is a static expression of being rather than the dynamic expression of becoming. And we can easily see this desire to make language static in the Conservative to Right’s over dependence on common doxa, platitudes and soundbites, and fixed meanings and assumptions. This is also why they reject the existential leap: their language games work much better for them and reality is just too messy. This is how, for instance, they can throw out words like “socialism” and act like everyone should automatically hear psycho-shrieks:
“YOU CAN’T DO THAT!!!!! That’s SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!REEK!!!REEK!!!REEK!!!”
The irony of it is that these guys act like their position is some kind of sign of their maturity –that is when it is actually a sign of America’s adolescence. They throw out terms like “rugged individualism” (all tight fisted and shit (and put truck nuts on their 4 by 4’s (when all they seem to be doing is fighting their way back to the womb.
That said, I suppose this is a reaction to one of those conversations I had to listen to the other day. One of the points brought up was that old adage:
If you’re conservative when you’re young, you’re a square. And if you’re a liberal when you’re older, you’re a fool.
He then proceeded to explain that most people start to see past it in their 20’s. What I didn’t see was the statistical proof for this. It was only true because he either personally observed it or wanted to believe it. Of course, this is complete nonsense (and, quite frankly, a little operational in that it assumes any mature liberal position must automatically be assumed to be that of a fool (since I’m quite sure all the people keeping such shows as Bill Maher’s, Jon Stewart’s, or John Oliver’s alive are not all teens to early twenties. And I would assume, based on my friend’s assertion, that everyone in their 30’s is automatically watching Fox News.
It’s as if he heard the adage, liked what he heard, and built his whole reality around it.
I wonder if my friends will read what I’m writing now.
What is it about people that seem to seek out their own oppression?
I would also argue that this question preoccupied Sartre given the amount of writing he put into dismissing, in rational way, the very a-rational experience of solipsism –especially in Being and Nothingness. And we can assume this came out of his experience with Nazism (a form of fascism, mind you (during the German occupation of France.
And looking at it now, I realize that one of cool things about it is that I get to stand on the shoulders of continental giants and approach it from the uniquely American perspective of a progressive living among Midwestern conservatives –many of which I consider good and dear friends. And having learned to listen to their little war rallies (that is against progressive policy (and not react (what good would it do me since I can always write about it later (I find myself in the privileged position of having a front row seat to the really bad reasoning they are engaging in. And this, I have to admit, is their gift to me since they also consider me a good and dear friend. This is based on an interesting dynamic in that 1: I never attack back because I always know I can think about it then write about it later, 2: this allows them to indulge their egoistic notions that they are winning the debate (that is since they know where I stand (and the delusion that they are capable of converting me by the sheer weight of their “Truth”, and 3: they never read what I write about them. It’s a fair exchange as far as I’m concerned.
This is because for reasons I will try to describe below, progressives, by their inherent nature are far better writers than speakers because they are never light enough on their feet (that is because of the burden of complexity (to analyze an argument and respond to it as compared to the conservatives who tend to work from popularly accepted assumptions. I listen to my friends' arguments and am tongue-tied, even though I know there is something wrong. But it doesn’t take long, when I get by myself, before I figure it out. But by then, it’s too late. And I will generally never see that argument again to pose the argument I have built against it. And it’s not that it would do me any good. They almost always work in packs, and will always find some way to dance around it with yet more bad reasoning.
Now to give you an example of how they work: such a conservative, having read this, will turn to common doxa and argue that maybe the reason I can’t respond on the fly is because I am wrong. But, of course, this will be based on the limited reading of this particular post with no consideration of the thousands of words I have written dismissing their arguments elsewhere. They wallow in the gotcha moment.
It’s as if they’re stuck in the language games they indulge in with complete indifference to the existential leap those games must make into reality in order have any reference to reality. Therefore, I can’t help but feel that this (the answer to Wilhelm Reich’s question (lies in language. And I would propose a quasi-Lacanian (with a sprinkle of Zizek (possibility.
One thing that seems clear is that conservative to right ideologies have an overwhelming need for a given order –usually THEIR sense of order. And what we might look at is how we develop our language skills in the first place. We always start with static nouns: Mommy! Daddy! Even the first verbs we use are used as nouns: Eat! Lacan refers to these as Point de Captions or points of capture. And we should also note here that the French term refers to upholstery buttons. It’s not until we adapt to our environment a little more that we start making statements of becoming (as compared to the static being of nouns (such as “I want”.
So it makes perfect sense for an individual, as their wants grow more complex and more resisted by their environment, to desire to return to the days of simple static nouns, to act as if language, as a whole, is a static expression of being rather than the dynamic expression of becoming. And we can easily see this desire to make language static in the Conservative to Right’s over dependence on common doxa, platitudes and soundbites, and fixed meanings and assumptions. This is also why they reject the existential leap: their language games work much better for them and reality is just too messy. This is how, for instance, they can throw out words like “socialism” and act like everyone should automatically hear psycho-shrieks:
“YOU CAN’T DO THAT!!!!! That’s SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!REEK!!!REEK!!!REEK!!!”
The irony of it is that these guys act like their position is some kind of sign of their maturity –that is when it is actually a sign of America’s adolescence. They throw out terms like “rugged individualism” (all tight fisted and shit (and put truck nuts on their 4 by 4’s (when all they seem to be doing is fighting their way back to the womb.
That said, I suppose this is a reaction to one of those conversations I had to listen to the other day. One of the points brought up was that old adage:
If you’re conservative when you’re young, you’re a square. And if you’re a liberal when you’re older, you’re a fool.
He then proceeded to explain that most people start to see past it in their 20’s. What I didn’t see was the statistical proof for this. It was only true because he either personally observed it or wanted to believe it. Of course, this is complete nonsense (and, quite frankly, a little operational in that it assumes any mature liberal position must automatically be assumed to be that of a fool (since I’m quite sure all the people keeping such shows as Bill Maher’s, Jon Stewart’s, or John Oliver’s alive are not all teens to early twenties. And I would assume, based on my friend’s assertion, that everyone in their 30’s is automatically watching Fox News.
It’s as if he heard the adage, liked what he heard, and built his whole reality around it.
I wonder if my friends will read what I’m writing now.
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Postcards:
Just an thought, d63. People do become more conservative as they age, due to responsibilities regarding jobs, children, etc. They seek stability. In that sense, it's a general truism, though not entirely.
Last edited by Dalek Prime on Thu May 28, 2015 5:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Postcards:
Double post.
Re: Postcards:
“Just an thought, d63. People do become more conservative as they age, due to responsibilities regarding jobs, children, etc. They seek stability. In that sense, it's a general truism, though not entirely.” –Dalek Prime in response to the attached post: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=12810&start=120
I agree with you, Dalek, but conditionally. And I am primarily speaking from personal experience here. For me, it has primarily been a matter of changing my style of being a progressive. And while my agenda has evolved; it hasn’t really changed in any fundamental sense.
To give you an example: when I first started out on the process that brought me here, I was mainly reacting to the war on drugs. When I first committed to learning everything I could and getting straight A’s in secondary education, the idea was to prove that an alcoholic and druggy could function as well as anyone else. The strange thing is that as I watch pot finally being legalized in my country, I find it happen at a time when I have, for the most part, lost interest in pot. On top of that, I have watched my own children go through the very phase I did from a completely different perspective. And in that sense, I have become more conservative in that I insist that we have to work to play, and play to work. But they seem to be figuring that out.
And over that period of time my focus has wandered away from the war on drugs and deeper into the issue of Capitalism (which I believe laid behind the war on drugs via the tyranny of the functional (while trying to move beyond the more hateful knee-jerk reactionary approach I tended towards when I was younger. Now, instead of looking for the gotcha moment in the other’s approach that I could throw at them like a fist, I am just trying to understand why these otherwise decent people are engaging in ideologies that can end up getting us either enslaved under global Capitalism or extinct through manmade climate change.
So yeah, the processes that you describe:
“People do become more conservative as they age, due to responsibilities regarding jobs, children, etc..”
:do change you: in a sense, make you more conservative. However, I run into a problem when you say:
“They seek stability. In that sense, it's a general truism, though not entirely.”
While it is true that people generally seek stability and order as they get older, you’re assuming that stability is the exclusive property of the conservative ideology when, in fact, the conservative ideology has been the primary source of instability and disorder in about 80% of the world’s population’s life. Maybe even a 100% since even the lives of the very rich are never as stable or orderly as we or they may think it is.
So yeah: we may become a little more conservative in that we are willing to play along with the status quo in order to get along. But that doesn’t mean we’re happy with it. That doesn’t mean we become conservatives.
I agree with you, Dalek, but conditionally. And I am primarily speaking from personal experience here. For me, it has primarily been a matter of changing my style of being a progressive. And while my agenda has evolved; it hasn’t really changed in any fundamental sense.
To give you an example: when I first started out on the process that brought me here, I was mainly reacting to the war on drugs. When I first committed to learning everything I could and getting straight A’s in secondary education, the idea was to prove that an alcoholic and druggy could function as well as anyone else. The strange thing is that as I watch pot finally being legalized in my country, I find it happen at a time when I have, for the most part, lost interest in pot. On top of that, I have watched my own children go through the very phase I did from a completely different perspective. And in that sense, I have become more conservative in that I insist that we have to work to play, and play to work. But they seem to be figuring that out.
And over that period of time my focus has wandered away from the war on drugs and deeper into the issue of Capitalism (which I believe laid behind the war on drugs via the tyranny of the functional (while trying to move beyond the more hateful knee-jerk reactionary approach I tended towards when I was younger. Now, instead of looking for the gotcha moment in the other’s approach that I could throw at them like a fist, I am just trying to understand why these otherwise decent people are engaging in ideologies that can end up getting us either enslaved under global Capitalism or extinct through manmade climate change.
So yeah, the processes that you describe:
“People do become more conservative as they age, due to responsibilities regarding jobs, children, etc..”
:do change you: in a sense, make you more conservative. However, I run into a problem when you say:
“They seek stability. In that sense, it's a general truism, though not entirely.”
While it is true that people generally seek stability and order as they get older, you’re assuming that stability is the exclusive property of the conservative ideology when, in fact, the conservative ideology has been the primary source of instability and disorder in about 80% of the world’s population’s life. Maybe even a 100% since even the lives of the very rich are never as stable or orderly as we or they may think it is.
So yeah: we may become a little more conservative in that we are willing to play along with the status quo in order to get along. But that doesn’t mean we’re happy with it. That doesn’t mean we become conservatives.
-
Dalek Prime
- Posts: 4922
- Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
- Location: Living in a tree with Polly.
Re: Postcards:
Perhaps it was the way I put it, but too much was read into the term conservative. I didn't mean it in any political sense. I dislike that phrase of the young being liberal, and the old being conservative. If anything, I've become more radical in my views as I've aged. My conservatism only stems from my wish for stability in my life. I am less willing to take the same risks as when I was younger. So really, we are still on the same page.
Re: Postcards:
Welcome to my world. I get exactly what you mean. For me, my routine is everything. I think it was the guy that made this quote that is confusing the two types of conservatism. At the same, they both share a common element in their orientation towards order which can give us some insight into the politically conservative mindset.Dalek Prime wrote:Perhaps it was the way I put it, but too much was read into the term conservative. I didn't mean it in any political sense. I dislike that phrase of the young being liberal, and the old being conservative. If anything, I've become more radical in my views as I've aged. My conservatism only stems from my wish for stability in my life. I am less willing to take the same risks as when I was younger. So really, we are still on the same page.
-
David Handeye
- Posts: 457
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 6:39 pm
- Location: Italia
Re: Postcards:
Fair enaugh. Anyway, do you think conservatorism establishes a kind of stability in society or just in your life? For if you are rich, satisfied, content with your life-style, I could understand; but if you're oppressed, downtrodden, left alone, then you wouldn't stand for conservatorism. In fact, it will be the reason of social instability, and consequently of your life status. Often conservatorism is much due to the fear of changing, rather than the change itself.Dalek Prime wrote:Perhaps it was the way I put it, but too much was read into the term conservative. I didn't mean it in any political sense. I dislike that phrase of the young being liberal, and the old being conservative. If anything, I've become more radical in my views as I've aged. My conservatism only stems from my wish for stability in my life. I am less willing to take the same risks as when I was younger. So really, we are still on the same page.