Print

Print


Kamran,

This is an able and reasoned response. "Highly sensitive" perhaps it is a  
matter of accumulated direct experience dealing with the faux science of  
the nominally "positive" (as in positivistic) pretensions of conventional  
social "science" as well as attempting to communicate through the negation  
reproduced by the pretensions of "progressives" which reproduce in detail  
the same conformism to extremis as the culture which they feign to abhor.  
As one example Reich's apt description of Stalin's Soviet Union as a  
fascist state. More to the present those that will wring their hands about  
economic inequality, and then accept in its entirety Reagan-esque Free  
market economics as the entire definition of economics, with the caveat  
that it puts them personally in a position to decide which pet cause gets  
a tax deductible donation and which do not.

There is also the layer of where and when activities begin and end as  
science. In total the preemptive nature of the list of the apparent  
assumptions and then using Marx as a cover rationalization sums up to a  
screed deeply in dissonance of a process operating under the assumption of  
"Science for/of the People" (sic), but perhaps something closer to  
"SCIENTISTS for the people" (sic). The breadth of the dismissal, of what  
in more informed contexts is a very serious topic, was flatly stunning.  
The video also clearly points to the masters as emblematic of being in the  
world, while the occupants of the MIT AI contingent dedicated to what was  
demonstrated to be an elitist absurdity.

While the artifice of Platonic theory building has a utility, perhaps it  
is because those "who" are obliged on pretense to suffer dismissal can't  
talk back, except as the conflated are forced to revise.

Tadit




On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 12:36:18 -0500, Kamran Nayeri  
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> The central issue in the video is the subject-object distinction in the
> history of Western philosophical tradition with a focus of Heideggar's
> contribution that disputes the distinction.  With due respect I think  
> Larry
> either missed the point or does not appreciate the philosophical problem  
> (I
> am not philosopher--just a layman reader of philosophy).  It is a fallacy
> to any proposition because they are held by white men or they do not pay
> respect to Marx and Engles, etc.  The subject-object relationship applies
> to humans even when we were gatherer-hunters, that is about 95% of our
> existence when there was no class society.  It is also obvious that Tadit
> is highly sensitive to the topic introduced.
>
> Here is my own reaction: the video only focuses on the creative  
> (positive)
> "subject-object" relation where the outcome is pleasant and nurturing of
> human character.  Clearly, there is ample evidence of "subject-object"
> relationship where the outcome is negative and debasing of human
> character--for example: gangs, guns, and violence or imperialism, arms,  
> and
> war.  Heiddegar himself betrayed pro-Nazi sympathies (I do not say this  
> to
> undermine his philosophical thesis but just to point to how  
> subject-object
> relations are not always creative but can also be destructive).  This  
> issue
> was not addressed in the video.
>
> We are what we do but how do we choose what is good for us to do.  Pluto
> dissolve the concrete into abstractions. Heidegger and the  
> existentialists
> wanted to return "man" to its existential being.  If there is a
> contribution here for Marx it is this: the return of "man" to his
> existential being is historical, it require us to become the subjects of
> history as opposed to its objects. One can take issues with this view as
> well. But at least this is a discussion worth having and we can all learn
> from it and from each other.
>
> Regards,
>
> Kamran
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Tadit Anderson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>>