Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week
- Thread starter Ender Rises
- Start date
Einherjar86
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
It looks like Peter Watts is an accelerationist...
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6673
The Democrat machine put its foot down, told its bitches how to vote, and— barring some late-breaking statistical miracle— relegated Sanders to footnote status. Further to the right, Trump’s ascension has pretty much sealed the deal. Suddenly the court jester is within a stone’s throw of the crown. Pundits on both ends of the spectrum have stopped laughing. Conventional wisdom is that no sane person has a choice any longer: unite behind Clinton, lest the country burn.
I agree with that math. Which is exactly why I so fervently hope that Trump becomes the next US president.
"I make the best conflagrations. Nobody makes better conflagrations than me."
http://www.rifters.com/crawl/?p=6673
Dak
mentat
On the one hand, I think Trump is going to be a bad president. OTOH, I don't think he is going to be any worse than any of the other options available. Maybe I've just become completely cynical about the apocalypse, it having not appeared at any of the previous forewarned junctures. Things cannot continue as they have without some pain in the future, but if the pain comes under a Trump administration it will have very little to do with Trump and more like he presents the perfect spin artist situation for TPTB. I mean, after all:
"I make the best conflagrations. Nobody makes better conflagrations than me."
"I make the best conflagrations. Nobody makes better conflagrations than me."
Einherjar86
Active Member
I'm less concerned about Trump per se and more concerned about the people whom he's swindled - i.e. his constituency. And I can't entirely blame these people for their naivete either, since they belong to a demographic that has been economically and technologically cut off. I oscillate between amazement and indifference toward the attitude they regularly exhibit on topics such as immigration, terrorism, spirituality, and a plethora of social issues. If there's fodder for a diluted, media-friendly, socially palatable form of pseudo-academic/intellectual firebrand, it's the people that support Trump.
I'm convinced that Trump will back off on every issue if he's elected. He's a con artist, not an ideologue.
In other news, I attended a lecture a few weeks ago. The speaker was Cary Wolfe, author of What is Posthumanism?, and he gave a really dense (but very good) talk about the role of politics today. Interestingly enough, the topic of ethics came up only once during his talk, briefly, and associated with an entirely different theorist. Wolfe avoided the topic entirely, insinuating that politics and ethics are two separate practices...
I asked him about this in the Q&A, and he invoked Niklas Luhmann. He said that Luhmann rejected all applications of ethical praxis since they ultimately must fall back on a good/evil dichotomy, and he perceived those kinds of absolutes as dangerous (I agree, although I suppose I define ethics differently). Another scholar followed-up my question with a thinly veiled query as to how we attach responsibility in the aftermath of financial fraud (obviously alluding to the recent financial crisis). Wolfe admitted that for Luhmann, this kind of ethical prompting is untenable and that systems theory resists any "unnecessary structural coupling" (this was his exact phrase).
That very phrase, what those three words designate, is (in my opinion) a radical and potentially controversial notion for the humanities and one that I think it seriously needs to consider in theoretical discourses moving forward. Scientifically and technologically speaking, markets function in a disinterested fashion - i.e. they don't care whether they're "free" or not, whether they're hampered by regulatory measures. When we attribute "freedom" to them we load them with a history of cultural connotations that actually counteract what "free" superficially denotes. In other words, "free markets" are not free in a non-representational, technological sense, since "free" actually imposes human values onto market processes.
That being said, this doesn't equate to an argument for overbearing economic regulations - again, no "unnecessary structural coupling." Rather, it attempts to redefine the market according to more expansive parameters that allow for complex and uninhibited behaviors without ascribing to those behaviors the fulfillment of any immediate human goals.
tl;dr - modern science and technology demand a theoretical reassessment of social/market relations that move beyond the latent humanism of Marxism, but that also reject the conservative humanism of the "free market."
I'm convinced that Trump will back off on every issue if he's elected. He's a con artist, not an ideologue.
In other news, I attended a lecture a few weeks ago. The speaker was Cary Wolfe, author of What is Posthumanism?, and he gave a really dense (but very good) talk about the role of politics today. Interestingly enough, the topic of ethics came up only once during his talk, briefly, and associated with an entirely different theorist. Wolfe avoided the topic entirely, insinuating that politics and ethics are two separate practices...
I asked him about this in the Q&A, and he invoked Niklas Luhmann. He said that Luhmann rejected all applications of ethical praxis since they ultimately must fall back on a good/evil dichotomy, and he perceived those kinds of absolutes as dangerous (I agree, although I suppose I define ethics differently). Another scholar followed-up my question with a thinly veiled query as to how we attach responsibility in the aftermath of financial fraud (obviously alluding to the recent financial crisis). Wolfe admitted that for Luhmann, this kind of ethical prompting is untenable and that systems theory resists any "unnecessary structural coupling" (this was his exact phrase).
That very phrase, what those three words designate, is (in my opinion) a radical and potentially controversial notion for the humanities and one that I think it seriously needs to consider in theoretical discourses moving forward. Scientifically and technologically speaking, markets function in a disinterested fashion - i.e. they don't care whether they're "free" or not, whether they're hampered by regulatory measures. When we attribute "freedom" to them we load them with a history of cultural connotations that actually counteract what "free" superficially denotes. In other words, "free markets" are not free in a non-representational, technological sense, since "free" actually imposes human values onto market processes.
That being said, this doesn't equate to an argument for overbearing economic regulations - again, no "unnecessary structural coupling." Rather, it attempts to redefine the market according to more expansive parameters that allow for complex and uninhibited behaviors without ascribing to those behaviors the fulfillment of any immediate human goals.
tl;dr - modern science and technology demand a theoretical reassessment of social/market relations that move beyond the latent humanism of Marxism, but that also reject the conservative humanism of the "free market."
Dak
mentat
I would say his constituency will be disappointed, but if we see Trump as the anti-Obama, we can certainly see a mirrored constituency. So for every failure to follow through on campaign promises, either ignorance or excuses. Merely seeing a "take charge feller" behind the Presidentially sealed podium will provide a sort of fuzzy comfort to "middle America" that Obama currently provides to western and northeast coastal whites.
I agree that Trump is no idealogue, but I do think he is different from previous Republican offerings in that he really believes "America First". I'll go out on a pretty thick limb and say he is likely to be better than either Bush proved to be.
Trying to divorce ethics from politics is wishful thinking. Additionally, "responsibility" can be assigned without pearl clutching or over-the-top moralizing. The market has mechanisms for assigning responsibility and punishment, and would have done so had there been no bailouts. Punishing the bankers isn't nearly so big an issue when their banks are all bankrupt.
Land would like a word
Einherjar86
Active Member
I've identified this trend in Land's work for years; but in more recent posts he seems to oscillate between all-out market complexity and some weird residue of humanistic improvement.
He's at his best when he suggests that uninhibited market functioniality may spell human extinction, since he's at least being consistent; but then he also seems to want to argue that uninhibited market functionality is the best thing for humanity. That confuses me.
And for what it's worth, Niklas Luhmann was already saying these things in the 1980s, as my most recent research has revealed to me. He was just saying it without the post-Deleuzian flair that Land invokes.
He's at his best when he suggests that uninhibited market functioniality may spell human extinction, since he's at least being consistent; but then he also seems to want to argue that uninhibited market functionality is the best thing for humanity. That confuses me.
And for what it's worth, Niklas Luhmann was already saying these things in the 1980s, as my most recent research has revealed to me. He was just saying it without the post-Deleuzian flair that Land invokes.
Dak
mentat
I still believe this is a side effect of having kids. Easier to be disinterested with no "skin in the game".
Dak
mentat
http://www.theawl.com/2016/05/john-mcafee-libertarian-candidate-for-president
I wonder if McAfee winds up in a Trump administration.
I wonder if McAfee winds up in a Trump administration.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Dak
mentat
Einherjar86
Active Member
Not sure how I feel about all of the logical acrobatics happening here, but I do at the very least agree with Brassier's diagnosis of the problem. In effect, he charges contemporary intellectual thought (and I mean that in an all-encompassing sense) operates according to a divide between affirmative and critical methodologies: on one hand, affirmationist philosophies that attempt to construct models of the world or the subject (traditionally pre-Socratic philosophers, but also Plato, Aristotle, and more recently Kant, Hegel, Heidegger, Whitehead, Deleuze, Badiou, etc.), and on the other hand, critical theory that basically offer de-constructions of reality (mostly post-Heideggerian figures, the Frankfurt School, and French late structuralism).
Brassier wants to explore a means of methodologically unifying these two side of intellectual thought that drives through a Nietzschean model into a kind of negative Platonism. This is all really, really abstract to me, and I'd like to see him do it, as skeptical as I am. Either way, I'm buying his next book.
http://stasisjournal.net/all-issues...osophy-as-entwinement-of-truth-and-negativity
Brassier wants to explore a means of methodologically unifying these two side of intellectual thought that drives through a Nietzschean model into a kind of negative Platonism. This is all really, really abstract to me, and I'd like to see him do it, as skeptical as I am. Either way, I'm buying his next book.
http://stasisjournal.net/all-issues...osophy-as-entwinement-of-truth-and-negativity
Dak
mentat
My interest is piqued. I'm curious as to what is meant by "drive through a Nietzschean model".
Einherjar86
Active Member
His first book (which he admits was ultimately flawed) was an effort to do just that. He argues that Nietzsche's philosophy presents us with contradictions that shouldn't be abandoned, but should be pressed through beyond their (nihilistic) conclusions. I have no idea what that would look like, by the way. Brassier contends that nihilism is the greatest problem facing intellectual thought today, and that it doesn't deserve to be abandoned but needs to be thought through, basically. That's what I meant by a "drive through."
Brassier has a somewhat different take on Nietzsche than most contemporary philosophers, from what I understand, and that has segregated him from the contemporary school of Western affirmationist philosophy, and aligned him more with critical schools. But he really resists this association, and his writing partakes of a very traditional, rigorously precise analytical style. Unfortunately it's also very dense and presumptuous (i.e. it assumes that its readership is familiar with the nuances of philosophical tradition).
Brassier has a somewhat different take on Nietzsche than most contemporary philosophers, from what I understand, and that has segregated him from the contemporary school of Western affirmationist philosophy, and aligned him more with critical schools. But he really resists this association, and his writing partakes of a very traditional, rigorously precise analytical style. Unfortunately it's also very dense and presumptuous (i.e. it assumes that its readership is familiar with the nuances of philosophical tradition).
Dak
mentat
Nietzsche said nihilism was the greatest problem facing humanity in general over a century ago.
Taking nihilism as a sort of central focus of an area of philosophy, Nietzsche's philosophy could be construed as having contradictions, and not dissimilar to Landian contradictions ( and Brassier doesn't like Land). So I don't know what Brassier wants to do here.I don't know in what way Brassier differs in his take on Nietzsche, especially since I don't know what the contemporary take is. I had a whole semester on Nietzsche but we spent no time on other's interpretations.
Einherjar86
Active Member
Yeah, he's still too recent to warrant significant attention in the classroom. I wouldn't say that Brassier dislikes Land though. He actually co-wrote the introduction to the collection of Land's writings, Fanged Noumena. He definitely disagrees with some of Land's conclusions, but in that intro he writes that the challenges Land's work poses "cannot be circumvented" by contemporary philosophy.
Einherjar86
Active Member
https://nithgrim.wordpress.com/2016/05/11/what-is-marxism/
While I probably don't share the author's attitude, this post is generally pretty accurate and agreeable. Academia today is in the thralls of "post-Marxism," which doesn't mean we've abandoned Marxism wholesale as much as we've abandoned its underlying methodology while retaining its polemics.
Obviously I don't agree that Judith Butler is a "charlatan," but I tend to believe that most people who hold this position misinterpret Butler's work. And I don't think that the lingering traces of Marxism can be entirely reduced to a "set of shibboleths." Marxism's persisting influence today, in my opinion, is its introduction of a truly critical approach (i.e. ideology critique), which until the nineteenth century hadn't really existed in philosophy. The point today is that Marxism has absolutely been absorbed into ideology, having become, in some countries, its own ideology, while having fallen victim to a non-critical pathos in others.
The author mentions Anderson's Imagined Communities, which - along with a slew of other late structuralist theoretical texts - was already documenting Marxism's slide from a critical to a mostly rhetorical practice.
While I probably don't share the author's attitude, this post is generally pretty accurate and agreeable. Academia today is in the thralls of "post-Marxism," which doesn't mean we've abandoned Marxism wholesale as much as we've abandoned its underlying methodology while retaining its polemics.
Obviously I don't agree that Judith Butler is a "charlatan," but I tend to believe that most people who hold this position misinterpret Butler's work. And I don't think that the lingering traces of Marxism can be entirely reduced to a "set of shibboleths." Marxism's persisting influence today, in my opinion, is its introduction of a truly critical approach (i.e. ideology critique), which until the nineteenth century hadn't really existed in philosophy. The point today is that Marxism has absolutely been absorbed into ideology, having become, in some countries, its own ideology, while having fallen victim to a non-critical pathos in others.
The author mentions Anderson's Imagined Communities, which - along with a slew of other late structuralist theoretical texts - was already documenting Marxism's slide from a critical to a mostly rhetorical practice.
Dak
mentat
It's kind of a curiosity that the author conflates the New Left with Mencken.
I think the primary charge against Butler is that no one can be sure about their interpretation.
I think the primary charge against Butler is that no one can be sure about their interpretation.
Dak
mentat
https://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/2016/05/15/the-more-powerful-than-a-bomb/
A word on the practical aspects of Marxism (shared on XS).
A word on the practical aspects of Marxism (shared on XS).
Einherjar86
Active Member
Well, that may be true. Although to be fair, one can say the same about plenty of other philosophers, including Kant.This is the more polemical strain of anti-Marxism. Good points, but I have an issue with those opening comments.
For me, comparing the "ideas" of Marx and Hitler is a total red herring. Marx wasn't the leader of the Soviet Union. Hitler was the leader of Nazi Germany. To me, that just comes off as more of the same rhetorical hogwash that we see from democrats who compare Bush to Hitler.
Drawing responsibility back to "ideas," especially when the person who wrote them was in no control over their application, seems like a really flimsy premise.
