I am both astonished and embarrassed by your PC simplicity and essentially
your neo-liberal posturing, which apparently is presumed to exempt you
from grasping the project represented by "Being In The World." It may be
that your portal to history and art, apart from your laboratory and
classroom, is so narrow and essentially conformist that you are unable to
suppose any other basis for "critical thinking." If you find my words
offensive, I assure you, it is less offensive than your dismissal of
"Being In the World" seemed to me.
Of the "masters" interviewed the majority are of nominal minorities
relative to the standards of white western Euro heritage. A Gypsy
musician, a Japanese carpenter, a female juggler, a female cultural
critic/speaker, two Afro American chefs, and several Afro American
musicians. True, the professional "philosophers" as a category are all
white males, AND are not the masters, as presented, also philosophers
besides? One of the major points of the film is that the philosophers are
admitting the perverseness of the philosophical and cultural dominance
represented by Plato and Plato's legacy, and effectively the nature of
To the nature of your PC dismissal, Art is generally interpreted both in
the context of the artist and of the culture to which and in which it is
produced. One of the top layers of intent is to honor Hubert Dreyfus's
resistance to the culture of technological over-reach. The project of the
video is also to focus upon a body of work still in progress.
It has remained darkly comic for me to realize the apparent short distance
for many nominal progressives and socialists to an ideological rigor
mortis and surrender to its own reproduction of corporatism. Beneath this
is an absence of standards over the assertion of authority by presumption
of the authority conferred by an academic degree or by the publication of
something that appears to be a book, though absent much validation of the
sacrifice of cellulose to pretense beyond profit and other varieties of
There is certainly room in the broader context to discuss Marx's
contributions in a kindred direction, and there are intrinsic limitations
to doing art, rather than reproducing a deification and theology in a
manner that is contrary to the limits of the theme and its production.
Your response in this context would have been much more authentic if that
had been the basis of your effort rather than toward taking down and
discrediting "Being In The World."
My own disappointment with the production were in honesty minor though
significant, such as in tacitly accepting the over-writing of the
philosophies of Parmenides as "pre-Socratic," when in their time Socrates,
Plato, and Aristotle were factually post Parmenidean, and that part of
Heidegger's and Gadamer's projects were directed to resurrecting
Parmenides and the contributions of his cohorts and students, including
Zeno. And I am willing to over-look such details for the greater value of
Further, the absence of mention of Hannah Arendt's conditioning of social
and ideological capacities, is also a technical deficiency, though
acknowledged in principle.
Your response to a large degree exemplifies the imperial nature of
pop-level progressivism, absent much in the way of social capacities or of
the socialization obliged. Enough.
in disappointment for SftP, Tadit
On Sun, 03 Mar 2013 23:37:35 -0500, Romsted, Laurence
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I watched much of the video. Thank you.
> Some of the discussion was interesting, especially about the parts about
> what becoming creative feels like and how ones work becomes part of and
> extension of oneself.
> But there was an unreality about it all:
> All the philosopher's were white males, I think. No blacks, no asians,
> women. Weird.
> The political economy that we all live in seemed to be outside of the
> reality they discussed or was just part of it with no particular
> They talked about many philosophers over time, but never Marx, never
> Engels, etc. How can they leave such a large hole in their discussion?
> They did not even explain why they might think them wrong.
> They spoke and discussed like there were no social classes that we are
> born into and must deal with. What class one is in has an enormous
> on ones view of the world and ones sense of what is possible and what it
> means to be creative in ones work.
> I bet lots of corporate CEO's feel creative. Never mentioned. There
> seemed to be only two levels, working with ones head and working with
> hands and always acting as individuals. It is like no one ever organized
> to do anything, which of course, manifestly part of human reality. Labor
> struggles, wars, running governments, building global corporations.
> People in power struggles. Not part of the reality considered.
> On 3/1/13 1:04 PM, "Tadit Anderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> This video has a major contribution to the nature of theory, science,
>> technology, and simply being in the everyday world. Excellent production
>> as well.