Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Dak]

Yes it does. It's naive to think otherwise. You're isolating some kind of ideal, absolute core of a relationship under the impression that the dynamic of the relation itself doesn't alter the effect you're looking at. It most certainly does; you're just choosing to hypostatize it because of a specific set of values that you're imposing on a specific political situation.

So - to parallel - a ponzi scheme isn't theft then. Since Madoff (or Ponzi) didn't stick a gun in anyone's ribs, he didn't actually steal anything.

You cannot reduce it to this; but you continue to do so, over and over again, because you're not happy with the current state. And many people aren't; but you shouldn't confuse political proceedings and legal applications with some bogeyman elite out to make you do what they want. You can't draw a clear or clean line between politics and people. You just can't.

You've proven nothing, by the way, because there's nothing material here to prove. Your delusion fantasy of near-total dismantling is unactionable and entirely impractical.

I'd like to know what you think proof would look like. Point B isn't speaking of elites. I'm talking about the democratic base.

Charging a "fantasy of dismantling" is incorrect. Not only do I not expect anything even remotely anarchic in the future, I have no desire to push for it either. I see fragmenting and strengthening as the most likely future. Not sure if that's any better in the balance, merely different. I'm not anti-hierarchy - in fact I think some sort is absolutely necessary for any endeavor. But the modern conceptional structure needs critical adjustment.

 

[Einherjar86]

So - to parallel - a ponzi scheme isn't theft then. Since Madoff (or Ponzi) didn't stick a gun in anyone's ribs, he didn't actually steal anything.

See, you've already misdirected the entire discussion by making a false comparison.

A ponzi scheme sets out with the intention of ripping someone off. A government does not set out with this intention; governments don't swoop in from some outside position and take people for what they have by force. A government is not a de facto malicious organization because a government is established by the very people whom it thereby "rips off." This isn't to say that a government can't be malicious; but you are completely misguided and incorrect to equivocate that seeking political office somehow qualifies as a de facto malicious act.

I'd like to know what you think proof would look like. Point B isn't speaking of elites. I'm talking about the democratic base.

I'm asking you to prove to me that people who seek political office are, de facto, doing so with malicious intent. Not only is this impossible to prove, it is nearly impossible to argue convincingly.

Even if you argue that a government is an overwhelmingly negative thing, you cannot thereby extend the argument to include the claim that all office-seeking individuals are malicious. The second part hinges on a) the first claim being true, and b) the office-seeking individual being aware of this.

You might say that they don't see their actions as malicious. If that is the case, then they aren't intentionally maliciousness - in fact, they're not even malicious, since malice entails intent.

Your entire case is built on some paranoiac fantasy that all politicians are clandestine thieves and lowlifes bent on taking from everyone while doing little or no work themselves; and your argument only holds any water if that is the case.

Charging a "fantasy of dismantling" is incorrect. Not only do I not expect anything even remotely anarchic in the future, I have no desire to push for it either. I see fragmenting and strengthening as the most likely future. Not sure if that's any better in the balance, merely different. I'm not anti-hierarchy - in fact I think some sort is absolutely necessary for any endeavor. But the modern conceptional structure needs critical adjustment.

Fine, it needs critical adjustment. I'll even agree that lots of our politicians are dirty scum who aren't interested in serving the public or the country at large.

I'm merely contesting your absurd axiomatic claim that those who seek to hold political office are doing so out of malicious intent.

 

[Dak]

See, you've already misdirected the entire discussion by making a false comparison.

A ponzi scheme sets out with the intention of ripping someone off. A government does not set out with this intention; governments don't swoop in from some outside position and take people for what they have by force. A government is not a de facto malicious organization because a government is established by the very people whom it thereby "rips off." This isn't to say that a government can't be malicious; but you are completely misguided and incorrect to equivocate that seeking political office somehow qualifies as a de facto malicious act.

In what way is it not malicious I think is the better question. Governing, at some level of theory, is not de facto malicious. That's a completely different matter from saying that those seeking - particularly successfully - are malicious. Like I said, I'm not speaking purely of conscious intent. Again, the bumbling meant-well is little better than the powermonger. But it takes the powermonger to get into a political office of any consequence - because it takes support - which means being bought.

I also object to the assertion that governments are established "by the people". Rhetoric aside, the majority does not participate in the establishment of government, and even fewer than few actually participate within it (I'm speaking specifically of legislative and executive branches). It's always a handful backed by a powerful few. Even in the US, our best voting turnouts are what, like 60%? So 40% are just tolerating the charade at best. If we figure even a generous 40/20 split on the voting, that means 60% have given no confidence in the ability and/or intent of those in office or the office itself.

I'm asking you to prove to me that people who seek political office are, de facto, doing so with malicious intent. Not only is this impossible to prove, it is nearly impossible to argue convincingly.

Even if you argue that a government is an overwhelmingly negative thing, you cannot thereby extend the argument to include the claim that all office-seeking individuals are malicious. The second part hinges on a) the first claim being true, and b) the office-seeking individual being aware of this.

You might say that they don't see their actions as malicious. If that is the case, then they aren't intentionally maliciousness - in fact, they're not even malicious, since malice entails intent.

Your entire case is built on some paranoiac fantasy that all politicians are clandestine thieves and lowlifes bent on taking from everyone while doing little or no work themselves; and your argument only holds any water if that is the case.

So I'm not malicious if I walk around killing people on the misguided notion that I'm doing them a favor by sending them to a "better place"? Are we not told that ignorance is no excuse?

The bold portion is a strawman. Being a politician, especially at the higher level, is hard work. It's just not "honest work", and it's not only for the purposes of thievery (although it's amusing to watch those personal net wealth balances bloom when guys get into public office - serving the peeeplz). There are those occasional white knights (even if only parttime) of populist and/or social concerns. DOMA, CRA, etc were not about particular wealth transfers (unless you count paying for votes with legislation).

Fine, it needs critical adjustment. I'll even agree that lots of our politicians are dirty scum who aren't interested in serving the public or the country at large.

I'm merely contesting your absurd axiomatic claim that those who seek to hold political office are doing so out of malicious intent.

If you insist that maliciousness requires conscious enlightened knowledgeable intent to do harm, then that would of course be absurd. In fact, I expect that most politicians sleep at night feeling like they are all that stands against the forces of darkness. This doesn't mitigate the damage they are doing at all - and a refusal to come to terms with the nature of the system is just as bad as knowingly embracing it. You want the power, you get the responsibility that comes with it. It's your job to find out and to know. The politician is merely a wielder of violence. If we conclude this is a necessity in some cases, we need to do this in plain and stark language to prevent its overuse.

This applies more and moreso to the military. Rather than doing things right, we just call everything a nail and send in the hammer. The military - as the conclusion of (foreign) politics - is for blowing things up. When someone goes into office it is to figuratively (and maybe even literally, heya hawks) blow things up. That should be the last of the last resorts, as there is no such thing as zero collateral damage.

 

[Einherjar86]

In what way is it not malicious I think is the better question. Governing, at some level of theory, is not de facto malicious. That's a completely different matter from saying that those seeking - particularly successfully - are malicious. Like I said, I'm not speaking purely of conscious intent.

Malice entails intent. That's its definition. It's how the word is understood in its use.

I also object to the assertion that governments are established "by the people". Rhetoric aside, the majority does not participate in the establishment of government, and even fewer than few actually participate within it (I'm speaking specifically of legislative and executive branches). It's always a handful backed by a powerful few. Even in the US, our best voting turnouts are what, like 60%? So 40% are just tolerating the charade at best. If we figure even a generous 40/20 split on the voting, that means 60% have given no confidence in the ability and/or intent of those in office or the office itself.

Not "the people"; but it's started by people. And if government is exploitative, then it also exploits the people that found it. You can't separate them.

So I'm not malicious if I walk around killing people on the misguided notion that I'm doing them a favor by sending them to a "better place"? Are we not told that ignorance is no excuse?

No; you're not, if we maintain a strict definition of malicious. This is an extreme example, but it follows my point.

The bold portion is a strawman. Being a politician, especially at the higher level, is hard work. It's just not "honest work", and it's not only for the purposes of thievery (although it's amusing to watch those personal net wealth balances bloom when guys get into public office - serving the peeeplz). There are those occasional white knights (even if only parttime) of populist and/or social concerns. DOMA, CRA, etc were not about particular wealth transfers (unless you count paying for votes with legislation).

But someone can "honestly" feel that they're doing a good thing while still hurting people. We obviously can't place all the importance on intent; but we have to be careful when accusing people of being malicious because they cause harm.

The politician is merely a wielder of violence. If we conclude this is a necessity in some cases, we need to do this in plain and stark language to prevent its overuse.

By lying?

And the politician is not "merely" a wielder of violence.

 

[Dak]

Malice entails intent. That's its definition. It's how the word is understood in its use.

No; you're not, if we maintain a strict definition of malicious. This is an extreme example, but it follows my point.

I won't argue over the definition of the word in this case. But my point stands, and I don't see any practical difference between dogooders and the mother who drowns her children to send them to heaven. At least the mother only hurts 3 rather than whole civil bodies.

Not "the people"; but it's started by people. And if government is exploitative, then it also exploits the people that found it. You can't separate them.

I don't have to separate them, they do it themselves. Not in absolutely all cases, but many government bodies exempt themselves from many/most of laws - particularly those involving money.

Is the Inner Party in China exploited? Are Reid and Boehner exploited?

And the politician is not "merely" a wielder of violence.

I think I've gone over the process before, but yes they are. Laws are backed with the threat of a range of violence that has various lower limits but always includes death as the upper limit in every single case. Laws are empty without violence behind them.

When people say "there ought to be a law" what they are saying is "people need to do it my way or they can die".

 

[Einherjar86]

I won't argue over the definition of the word in this case. But my point stands, and I don't see any practical difference between dogooders and the mother who drowns her children to send them to heaven. At least the mother only hurts 3 rather than whole civil bodies.

There might not be a practical difference; but that means we have to critique the practical/material effects, not some purported intention that is (ultimately) neither here nor there.

I don't have to separate them, they do it themselves. Not in absolutely all cases, but many government bodies exempt themselves from many/most of laws - particularly those involving money.

Is the Inner Party in China exploited? Are Reid and Boehner exploited?

Yes, they are. Were members of the politburo safe from Soviet totalitarianism? Even Stalin wasn't safe.

I think I've gone over the process before, but yes they are. Laws are backed with the threat of a range of violence that has various lower limits but always includes death as the upper limit in every single case. Laws are empty without violence behind them.

When people say "there ought to be a law" what they are saying is "people need to do it my way or they can die".

I know you've gone over it before, but your logic is a simplification of a complex cultural institution/process. You boil everything down to the conditions that would exist between two people, rather than between communities of citizens and expectations of a mass population. You simply don't tackle the issue effectively, in my opinion.

Laws are backed by the threat of violence, but violence from where? Not from any outside source that oppresses its citizens, but from citizens themselves. You can't treat government as some alien force imposing from the outside, like an administrative Chthulu. The agreement that takes place collectively among a group of citizens alters the structure of the object you're critiquing. There is no way to attribute the violence to anyone absolutely. Government is not an absolutely violent institution, nor is the violence committed absolutely reducible to government itself. There are mediating factors and internal dynamics that displace violence, defer it; all this has to be taken into consideration lest we stupify the discussion.

 

[Dak]

Yes, they are. Were members of the politburo safe from Soviet totalitarianism? Even Stalin wasn't safe.

There's a difference between "safety" and exploitation.

There might not be a practical difference; but that means we have to critique the practical/material effects, not some purported intention that is (ultimately) neither here nor there.

I know you've gone over it before, but your logic is a simplification of a complex cultural institution/process. You boil everything down to the conditions that would exist between two people, rather than between communities of citizens and expectations of a mass population. You simply don't tackle the issue effectively, in my opinion.

Laws are backed by the threat of violence, but violence from where? Not from any outside source that oppresses its citizens, but from citizens themselves. You can't treat government as some alien force imposing from the outside, like an administrative Chthulu. The agreement that takes place collectively among a group of citizens alters the structure of the object you're critiquing. There is no way to attribute the violence to anyone absolutely. Government is not an absolutely violent institution, nor is the violence committed absolutely reducible to government itself. There are mediating factors and internal dynamics that displace violence, defer it; all this has to be taken into consideration lest we stupify the discussion.

And my response is that all of these "mediating factors and dynamics" are nothing more than a sort of Rube Goldberg machine, rather than affecting a fundamental difference in the relations.

The violence does indeed come from different groups, not all the same in any given situation. Different laws represent the wishes of different interest groups. "The people" is as stupidly vague as the oft-criticized "they".But what non-violence does government do? I cannot find a single item.

 

[Einherjar86]

There's a difference between "safety" and exploitation.

Well, of course there is; they're opposites in fact.

I'm saying that the fact that even the topmost members of governmental institutions aren't safe from the workings of said institutions demonstrates that exploitation - as it derives from the system - affects everyone.

And my response is that all of these "mediating factors and dynamics" are nothing more than a sort of Rube Goldberg machine, rather than affecting a fundamental difference in the relations.

The violence does indeed come from different groups, not all the same in any given situation. Different laws represent the wishes of different interest groups. "The people" is as stupidly vague as the oft-criticized "they".But what non-violence does government do? I cannot find a single item.

The point is that none of the violence committed by a government is reducible to that government; and this means that exorcising or even reducing governmental control will not reduce the coercion imposed upon citizens from various sectors of society.

It's much more complicated than a "Rube Goldberg machine"; there is no simple core that is being obscured by unnecessary or totally arbitrary measures/institutions.

Violence might derive explicitly from "defense" organizations: the police, the military, etc. But from whom do they police receive their directives? They receive them from their superiors, who in turn receive them from politicians, who in turn receive them from private individuals of varying degrees of power. If the system is corrupted (and it surely is), this doesn't mean that the violence originates in any one sector, or even from within governmental apparatuses. It's not as easy as a Rube Goldberg machine.

 

[Dak]

Well, of course there is; they're opposites in fact.

I'm saying that the fact that even the topmost members of governmental institutions aren't safe from the workings of said institutions demonstrates that exploitation - as it derives from the system - affects everyone.

Just being threatened with death doesn't mean "exploitation." I see exploitation as relatively synonymous with "harvesting". While someone at some level of exploitative power can be turned against, rarely is it just to kick them down to the common serf position.

The point is that none of the violence committed by a government is reducible to that government; and this means that exorcising or even reducing governmental control will not reduce the coercion imposed upon citizens from various sectors of society.

It's much more complicated than a "Rube Goldberg machine"; there is no simple core that is being obscured by unnecessary or totally arbitrary measures/institutions.

Violence might derive explicitly from "defense" organizations: the police, the military, etc. But from whom do they police receive their directives? They receive them from their superiors, who in turn receive them from politicians, who in turn receive them from private individuals of varying degrees of power. If the system is corrupted (and it surely is), this doesn't mean that the violence originates in any one sector, or even from within governmental apparatuses. It's not as easy as a Rube Goldberg machine.

I think the discussion might be getting a little confused between what law is (the threat of violence) and what justifies it. What justifies it is not an easy subject at all, as you and I have merely touched on. However, the law is the threat of violence, or we may for the sake of brevity say that it is violence.

While the politician him/herself may not ultimately authorize the violence, they do author it. Maybe I should have used this language to begin with as opposed to wield.

 

[Einherjar86]

Just being threatened with death doesn't mean "exploitation." I see exploitation as relatively synonymous with "harvesting". While someone at some level of exploitative power can be turned against, rarely is it just to kick them down to the common serf position.

I think that execution is an internal effect of the governmental system itself. I don't see how you can distinguish that kind of violence from "state violence." It's all state violence.

I think the discussion might be getting a little confused between what law is (the threat of violence) and what justifies it. What justifies it is not an easy subject at all, as you and I have merely touched on. However, the law is the threat of violence, or we may for the sake of brevity say that it is violence.

And as justification, law is always retrospective. We justify things after the fact, and particular cases might come to serve as precedents.

Even the execution of a top official undergoes justification, regardless of how questionable the action appears. Nothing justifies a law except a combination of two primary factors: a regime's capacity to enforce it, and a citizenry's tendency to agree on following it. The law does not reduce to the enforcement of state violence because this would mean that a law only succeeds based on a regime's capacity to enforce it, which simply isn't the case.

There's no law against shoving one's face into a plate of food and eating it with no hands, but this doesn't mean that people go around doing so. Cultural expectation plays a major role in the following of norms, rules, laws, etc. The response to the question "Why don't you eat your soup with no hands?" isn't "Because I'm afraid of being arrested."

Violence, or the threat of violence, plays a role in conditioning our behavior; but cultural agreement and recognition also plays an equally important role. I don't think you can say that violence precedes etiquette.

While the politician him/herself may not ultimately authorize the violence, they do author it. Maybe I should have used this language to begin with as opposed to wield.

I like the wordplay, but I don't find these terms to be all that illuminating. In fact, my inclination would be to reverse it: that, if anything, a politician does authorize violence rather than author it. Or, depending on what you mean, a politician both authorizes and authors state violence; but keeping with the metaphor, if a writer authors a novel, a politician does not author violence - in other words, a politician does not carry out violence the way a writer carries out the act of authoring a novel. A politician may author - literally - a piece of legislation that authorizes violence. But the legislation is more than a piece of violence.

Furthermore, violence is abstract; there are various instantiations of violent behavior or action. A poet might author an book of poems, but the poet is not the origin of poetry.

 

[Dak]

I think that execution is an internal effect of the governmental system itself. I don't see how you can distinguish that kind of violence from "state violence." It's all state violence.

When the state throws one of its own under the bus, it is rarely for exploitation as it were, in a $ sense. It is to appease either the mob or a bigger fish. It is of course still state violence, but of little pity.

And as justification, law is always retrospective. We justify things after the fact, and particular cases might come to serve as precedents.

Even the execution of a top official undergoes justification, regardless of how questionable the action appears. Nothing justifies a law except a combination of two primary factors: a regime's capacity to enforce it, and a citizenry's tendency to agree on following it. The law does not reduce to the enforcement of state violence because this would mean that a law only succeeds based on a regime's capacity to enforce it, which simply isn't the case.

There's no law against shoving one's face into a plate of food and eating it with no hands, but this doesn't mean that people go around doing so. Cultural expectation plays a major role in the following of norms, rules, laws, etc. The response to the question "Why don't you eat your soup with no hands?" isn't "Because I'm afraid of being arrested."

Violence, or the threat of violence, plays a role in conditioning our behavior; but cultural agreement and recognition also plays an equally important role. I don't think you can say that violence precedes etiquette.

It matters little about the citizenry's acceptance if the inability to be caught is high. Despite the sodomy laws still on the books (particularly those which state "non-missionary sex"), it's pretty much impossible to catch the umpteen bazillion non-missionary sex acts going on. There is more going on than enforcement in the sense that things cannot always be caught, but when caught is it enforced? In what cases do you see mass open disobedience I think is the point you were going for, but then that still makes my point.

I like the wordplay, but I don't find these terms to be all that illuminating. In fact, my inclination would be to reverse it: that, if anything, a politician does authorize violence rather than author it. Or, depending on what you mean, a politician both authorizes and authors state violence; but keeping with the metaphor, if a writer authors a novel, a politician does not author violence - in other words, a politician does not carry out violence the way a writer carries out the act of authoring a novel. A politician may author - literally - a piece of legislation that authorizes violence. But the legislation is more than a piece of violence.

Furthermore, violence is abstract; there are various instantiations of violent behavior or action. A poet might author an book of poems, but the poet is not the origin of poetry.

If you want to get super technical, it is rather common for someone other than the politician to actually write his bills. But he signs for them, as the process goes, and then all those who vote also sign for them. Even if I actually (literally lulz) wrote every bill passed by Congress this year, my name wouldn't be on a single one.

While law enforcement carries out the violence, it is only legally authorized if directed by the law authorizers (collectively) - those who sign things into law. So if I, as a politician, introduce and vote for my (passed) legislation, I both author and authorize it. Everyone else merely participates in the authorization.
________________________________________________

My my my, the darker-dark-enlightenment?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html

Bettina Aptheker, a professor of feminist studies at the University of California–Santa Cruz, recently wrote an essay commemorating the Berkeley Free Speech movement, in which she participated as a student in 1964. She now expressed a newfound skepticism in the merits of free speech. “Freedom of speech is a constitutional guarantee, but who gets to exercise it without the chilling restraints of censure depends very much on one’s location in the political and social cartography,” she wrote. “We [Free Speech movement] veterans … were too young and inexperienced in 1964 to know this, but we do now, and we speak with a new awareness, a new consciousness, and a new urgency that the wisdom of a true freedom is inexorably tied to who exercises power and for what ends.”

and later on:

“If our university community opposes racism, sexism, and heterosexism,” asked the author, “why should we put up with research that counters our goals simply in the name of ‘academic freedom’?”

 

[Einherjar86]

When the state throws one of its own under the bus, it is rarely for exploitation as it were, in a $ sense. It is to appease either the mob or a bigger fish. It is of course still state violence, but of little pity.

It all plays into the same logic.

It matters little about the citizenry's acceptance if the inability to be caught is high. Despite the sodomy laws still on the books (particularly those which state "non-missionary sex"), it's pretty much impossible to catch the umpteen bazillion non-missionary sex acts going on. There is more going on than enforcement in the sense that things cannot always be caught, but when caught is it enforced? In what cases do you see mass open disobedience I think is the point you were going for, but then that still makes my point.

I think it makes my point too. This is one of those interesting instances when "facts" are exposed as "perspectives."

If you want to get super technical, it is rather common for someone other than the politician to actually write his bills. But he signs for them, as the process goes, and then all those who vote also sign for them. Even if I actually (literally lulz) wrote every bill passed by Congress this year, my name wouldn't be on a single one.

While law enforcement carries out the violence, it is only legally authorized if directed by the law authorizers (collectively) - those who sign things into law. So if I, as a politician, introduce and vote for my (passed) legislation, I both author and authorize it. Everyone else merely participates in the authorization.

Which is precisely what I said.

My objection is that this isn't the bottom line; or rather, the threat of violence is permeated through by elements of compliance and consent, which doesn't rationalize violence so much as it dissolves it. Or, if it rationalizes violence, then it determines a precedent for potentially coercive action; in which case, where does the violence come from? Does it come from some domineering governmental overlord, or from the internal system of the citizenry and its relation to the governing body?

If I were to agree that the politician is, bottom line, a wielder of violence, then I would venture that all human relationships are founded upon a threat of violence (or exploitation). Indeed, if you want to insist that even compliance cannot dissipate the threat of state-sanctioned violence, then free compliance among individuals still does not dissipate the threat of violence or exploitation between individuals. Human relationships appear parasitic. This is another possible philosophical trajectory.

________________________________________________

My my my, the darker-dark-enlightenment?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/not-a-very-pc-thing-to-say.html



and later on:

Reading now...

 

[Einherjar86]

I have a new blog post up on my science fiction site. Comparison of the movies Gravity and Interstellar. Not quite as long or as theory-driven as previous pieces.

http://roadsidepicnictalks.blogspot.com/2015/02/epic-themes-and-novel-forms-brief.html

 

[Dak]

Didn't watch Interstellar and probably won't. Wife persuaded me to watch Gravity with her. Definitely belongs in the horror genre. The infinitely expanding emptiness of space is far more uncanny than any slasher a writer in Hollywood can conjure.

 

[Einherjar86]

Interstellar, in my opinion, is beautifully shot film that is undermined by a very contrived plot.

Gravity, I agree, is a horror film absent the generic horror tropes.

 

[Dak]

I did read the blogpost btw, but dealing with narrative theory does less for me than metaphysics does (suffering under the dragged out back and forth of substance vs bundle theory debates via my metaphysics class).

As I learn more and age just a tad more, Hobbes is looking more prescient/accurate, if not always exactly in the way that he meant. Nature is brutal, even if the man/woman you meet isn't always. Civilization is the invisible glass dome reified in scifi.

 

[rms]

I kind of read Interstellar as Love is equal to Gravity in a way, not necessarily the driving force of gravity or a 'stronger' force

 

[Einherjar86]

I did read the blogpost btw, but dealing with narrative theory does less for me than metaphysics does

Well, they are related in a way, of course...

@rms:

Yeah, other people have said something similar. One of my friends suggested that you could drop Hathaway's speech out of the movie entirely and it wouldn't change anything (in fact, it would make it better, he suggested; I would probably agree).

But while I agree that it wouldn't ultimately change the film, this is because I see the concept of "love" as playing a role beyond Hathaway's speech. All the clues that are provided to young Murph and Cooper before he leaves are, in fact, coming from future Cooper because of his love for his daughter. He enacts exactly what Brand says she feels for her stranded lover - that is, that she can't help but feel more of a pull to save him than to save all of humanity.

Cooper feels the same way, he realizes; his actions just happen to coincide with both (communicating with his daughter and saving humanity). The entire movie is predetermined from within, and this predetermination rests on humanity's empathetic faculty.

 

[rms]

I agree with basically all you said, I think that speech was a more Hollywood moment than anything else.

 

[Dak]

I realize that statement was kind of ambiguous. As I lean towards a Kantian understanding of noumena/phenomena, speaking of things which would be noumenal quickly grows tedious and pointless imo. Narrative theory is even more tedious and uninteresting to me for the most part.