Print

Print


Tadit:

I want to respond directly to you rather than through the responses of
others, e.g., Kamran, Charles Claudia and Carrol.  Kamran came close to
understanding where I am at about the video, that is, I am na´ve about the
philosophy that was being discussed.  I don't know much about Heiddeggar,
for example, I am not aware of the other philosophers in the video and I
don't think in my response that I said that I did.  I have not read or
discussed very much about philosophy since college, although I did at that
time.  I continue to read political philosophy periodically.

I tried to indicate that I thought I understood, felt even, the parts
about creativity and the object one was working on becoming part of
oneself.  That is very real to me.

I think of my science as my art.  I think my art is my science.  I don't
follow recipes in my research, I create them, i.e., models of physical
reality.  I am part of the ideas I work with and my modest contributions
of new ones to science in general are am expression of myself, although
the ideas (models) become independent of me when they work their way into
the scientific community.

I have contributed to the development of the models for the self-assembly
of surface active molecules in solution, surfactant micelles,
microemulsion, vesicles, and emulsions.  People, mostly other scientists
in my field, understand better why surfactants speed and inhibit chemical
reactions better because of my contributions, and perhaps why some
surfactant solutions turn viscous when certain salts are added, but not
others.  It is my art, it is part of me and I am part of it.

But, just like it is a sign of racism and sexism when science buildings
are filled primarily of white males (the number of women is increasing
rapidly, but not the number of blacks) so, it is an odd kind of
discrimination when the philosophers in the video were all white males.
That speaks of a potential social problem in the practice of philosophy to
me.  I have no idea how broad it is.

The other thing I want to say is that I was not writing from any
authority, I was writing mostly questions and concerns about what seemed,
to me, to be missing from the philosophical discussion in the video.  How
can one discuss reality and leave out the large social realities that we
all live in?  I found that strange. I would have been very interesting in
their critique of materialism or Marxism, for example.

I really liked the guy working with wood because I like working with
materials with my hands myself, although about the only object my hands
touch currently is a keyboard.

I was not trying to piss you off Tadit. And I had not intended to offend
you and was surprised that I had.  In some ways I appreciate the intensity
of your response.  It means you care deeply.  I simply intended to give
you a feel for my response to the video.  I do feel that you so
overreacted that you almost did not hear me, and instead dived into
pejorative argument.


Also, let me add, Kamran writes is a language I can follow.  Your response
to him, to the contrary, was extremely difficult for me as was your
response to me.

How about this, if you do not demand too much philosophical understanding
from working chemists, I will not demand too much understanding of
chemistry from philosophers.

Deal?

Maybe we, you and I, can do better next time.

Larry
 



 

  

On 3/4/13 11:11 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