By the time I had expanded the initial screen to a level where I could see anything I could see nothing because very little was on the screen at a time. So I heard a minute of music then nothing. So this is not a response to the video, which I have not seen.

But certain features of Tadit's reply to Larry are, I think, independent of the video.

First, after ignoring (a) analyses of Larry's moral character and (b) a a mass of name-dropping, there is not much left to Tadit's post, and his remarks on response to art are so intermixed with these two irrelevant items that the remarks on art become incoherent. But so far as I can follow them, these remarks confine themselves to assertive evaluations with no attempt to ground those evaluations in any concrete reference to the work concerned. And in any case, evaluations of art lack significance: they vary too much from person to person, culture to culture, and over time.

So Tadit' s post seems to be empty of content other than a complaint that Larry lacks artistic taste. "Neoliberal posturing" is simply unintelligible. I would like to see some specification of the elements in Larry's response which are grounded in "neoliberalism," which is a general trend in state economic policy. I don't know how a state policy enters into the style of an e-mail post. "PC" is an insult coined by reactionary critics of ordinary decency. It is PC, for example, to object to someone calling a nother person a cunt of a nigger. As that insult developed any objection to attacks on women, Blacks, gays became a bit of humorless and authoritarian "PC." By using it  as an insult Tadit formally denounces the legitimacy of leftist discourse.

This incoherent mix of personal attacks is then presented as the grounds for an act of mind-reading: Larry, according to Tadit, indulges in this PC and this posturing on the assumption that by being PC it is no longer required to properly respond to a video. Since when does anyone require an exemption from viewing or falling down in adulation of a stray video someone has admired. I cannot think of a single text, musical production, painting, building, or dance which anyone is _required_ to admire or even pay attention to. The list of potential candidates for that exalted position is simply too long and too subject to dispute.

 There is not a sentence in Tadit's post that is not subject to this kind of analysis, an analysis which merely assumes that a text must be minimally coherent.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Science for the People Discussion List [mailto:SCIENCE-FOR-THE-
> [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tadit Anderson
> Sent: Monday, March 04, 2013 10:12 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Being In The World
> 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.
> >>
> >>