Print

Print


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