Print

Print


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  
imperialism thereafter.

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  
self interest.

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  
the effort.

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:

> Tadit:
>
> 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  
> an
> extension of oneself.
>
> But there was an unreality about it all:
>
> All the philosopher's were white males, I think.  No blacks, no asians,  
> no
> 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
> consequence.
>
> 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  
> effect
> 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  
> ones
> 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.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>>
>> https://vimeo.com/45403954