Exploration of "Historical Moment"

[Justin S.]

In another thread I said, "One cannot force historical moments."

This does not mean, one has "no effect on one's time", or "no effect on historical movements". What it means is that one cannot force the context of possibility he finds himself in. A farmer's task represents an appropriate analogy.

It would be a mistake to say the farmer "grows" his crops. The seeds grow by their own mechanisms; the farmer influences the seeds' conditions to allow them to successfully germinate (for his purposes) and turn to crop. Nor does the farmer dictate the precipitation, the humidity, the soil conditions, the technology and agricultural industry of his time, etc. Even greater, he is not responsible for the possibility of seed, earth, growth, or crops and how they play out in his world. By observation and induction, he chooses his actions within parameters that are outside his effect. Certainly, he cannot force a shift in these parameters either (the farmer cannot cultivate crops by will, but only by working/willing in accordance with his context).

So it is for us in other areas. One cannot simply force a paradigm shift because one wills it. One must work in accordance with possibility. In certain times, profound change ("revolution") is one of such possibilities. In another time, it is a pathetic delusion.

 

[Seditious]

It's besides the point but
I don't know about "Nor does the farmer dictate the precipitation, the humidity, the soil conditions, the technology and agricultural industry of his time, etc"

they always water their grounds and ensure the suitable Ph levels in soil, and obviously only try to grow crops in the suitable climate (or create it in glasshouses). and farmers protest and lobby government policy which affects them in import/export and profit margins. and farming technology comes about just as medical technology does, when the need is observed and it's possible to address

The farmer guides the growth of the crop as much as possible including getting rid of pests and even selection of which fruit to let grow and which to remove.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure how well that farming analogy explains what you're suggesting since all the things you mentioned are 'in accordance with possibility.'

 

[A Dying Breed]

One must work in accordance with possibility. In certain times, profound change ("revolution") is one of such possibilities. In another time, it is a pathetic delusion.

I'm pretty sure the present time is of the "revolution as pathetic delusion" variety.

 

[Silver Incubus]

I'm pretty sure the present time is of the "revolution as pathetic delusion" variety.

Only if you are a pessimist. That level of Apathy towards the needed change could be an idea that isn't entirely your own reasoning. It may be better to examine how you have such ideas about revolution, where they come from, and who's point of view has created this. When you find out who, then ask why does this person not want me to change things for the better, and then what can be done to implement a more progressive and beneficial change.

 

[Silver Incubus]

In another thread I said, "One cannot force historical moments."

This does not mean, one has "no effect on one's time", or "no effect on historical movements". What it means is that one cannot force the context of possibility he finds himself in. A farmer's task represents an appropriate analogy.

It would be a mistake to say the farmer "grows" his crops. The seeds grow by their own mechanisms; the farmer influences the seeds' conditions to allow them to successfully germinate (for his purposes) and turn to crop. Nor does the farmer dictate the precipitation, the humidity, the soil conditions, the technology and agricultural industry of his time, etc. Even greater, he is not responsible for the possibility of seed, earth, growth, or crops and how they play out in his world. By observation and induction, he chooses his actions within parameters that are outside his effect. Certainly, he cannot force a shift in these parameters either (the farmer cannot cultivate crops by will, but only by working/willing in accordance with his context).

So it is for us in other areas. One cannot simply force a paradigm shift because one wills it. One must work in accordance with possibility. In certain times, profound change ("revolution") is one of such possibilities. In another time, it is a pathetic delusion.

Could you possibly rephrase this analogy for more visual orientated people like me? I find that I don't relate to Kinesthetic very well. Otherwise I really have no idea of what you are attempting to discuss as a topic.

It may be true that you cannot force the context of possiblity, but you can always change the possibilites and the context to fit your goal. Its limited possibilities that define ridgid contexts for such places you may find yourself in.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Only if you are a pessimist. That level of Apathy towards the needed change could be an idea that isn't entirely your own reasoning. It may be better to examine how you have such ideas about revolution, where they come from, and who's point of view has created this. When you find out who, then ask why does this person not want me to change things for the better, and then what can be done to implement a more progressive and beneficial change.

Does this have something to do with aliens?

 

[Norsemaiden]

One must work in accordance with possibility. In certain times, profound change ("revolution") is one of such possibilities. In another time, it is a pathetic delusion.

You are right. To cause a revolution there have to be enough people agitating for it. Someone (or a group of people) agitate and stir up the revolutionary spirit, and then it can happen. But it is true that it can only happen when there are sufficient numbers of annoyed or exciteable people - so you are right Justin. There are situations where some people may want to cause a revolution, but due to the lack of interest from others, it can't get anywhere.


It is rare that there is such long term guaranteed stability in society that a revolution is not a possibility at short notice however. I have heard it said that we are only ever a few weeks or less from a possible revolution, which could be set off by: food not reaching shops or terrorist outrages by ethnic minorities causing riots and racial battles - as two obvious examples. An army coup would be a likely scenario in this kind of situation.

 

[Silver Incubus]

Does this have something to do with aliens?

What aliens? Who the fuck is talking about aliens?idiot

 

[Justin S.]

I dont have time at the moment, but later I will respond to the posts here and try to clarify, and add support to, my original post.

 

[Nile577]

In another thread I said, "One cannot force historical moments."

This does not mean, one has "no effect on one's time", or "no effect on historical movements". What it means is that one cannot force the context of possibility he finds himself in. A farmer's task represents an appropriate analogy.

It would be a mistake to say the farmer "grows" his crops. The seeds grow by their own mechanisms; the farmer influences the seeds' conditions to allow them to successfully germinate (for his purposes) and turn to crop. Nor does the farmer dictate the precipitation, the humidity, the soil conditions, the technology and agricultural industry of his time, etc. Even greater, he is not responsible for the possibility of seed, earth, growth, or crops and how they play out in his world. By observation and induction, he chooses his actions within parameters that are outside his effect. Certainly, he cannot force a shift in these parameters either (the farmer cannot cultivate crops by will, but only by working/willing in accordance with his context).

So it is for us in other areas. One cannot simply force a paradigm shift because one wills it. One must work in accordance with possibility. In certain times, profound change ("revolution") is one of such possibilities. In another time, it is a pathetic delusion.

I broadly agree with your post.

Foucault used the term 'episteme' to refer to the discursive climate of an epoch. An episteme is the collective body of societal thinking. It is constructed from what he calls discourses. That is, ways of thinking about things by particular persons or institutions. According to their power, one discourse may have more influence in shaping the episteme than another. For example, following the collapse of the Roman Empire, the Christian church offered extremely powerful (in terms of influence) discourse on moral and social issues.

I like to imagine these discourses as lines forming a grid from which the thought processes and actions of each and every person arise (either in rejection or affirmation of a particular discourse or group of discourses or even the entire episteme).

Sometimes, particularly in science, discoveries are made by people which are not ready to be accepted by the epistemic climate of the age. They may be rediscovered hundreds of years later and finally embraced. The discourse exerted by the initial discovery, regardless of its veracity, is too feeble to alter the the contemporary episteme.

If we project an episteme (pictured as a mesh of lines of discourse) into the fourth-dimension (time) we can see how acts do not change - the act of homosexual intercourse, for example - but discursive responses and epistemic valuations of them do. If we recognize this, it frees us from the error of objective morality.

The interesting question in regards to Foucault (since his thought seems very applicable here) is whether his 'archaeology' of the episteme - an academic/historical investigation to understand the history of discourses and what fuels them - is itself limited to epistemic context. That is, does Foucault assert a proposed objective point from which to analyze the history of epistemic shift, or is his work confined(?) by the episteme of the twentieth century, existing as a discourse about the history of discourses in its own epistemic grid?

 

[Seditious]

while I'm not sure that argument alone is enough to free us from moral objectivism, I enjoyed the read.

And, regarding the last paragraph, I'd imagine no truth is limited to the 'episteme' since no episteme shift will change the fact the earth is an imperfect sphere (even though, centuries be damned, so long as our ontology is the same our epistemology will always limit all our ideas equally (equally not meaning all are equal but that none pass a threshhold beyond our experience in time and our dimentions)).

 

[Nile577]

I'd imagine no truth is limited to the 'episteme' since no episteme shift will change the fact the earth is an imperfect sphere

That raises an interesting point. It depends on your definition of truth. In epistemic theory, holistic truth is that which exerts the most influential discourse. If we take this definition, I think it’s always defined by its episteme. The truths of individual discourses within this combined 'truth' arise as affirmations or rejections of the whole.

The idea that the earth was round and not flat took a great deal of argumentation before its discourse was strong enough to meaningfully alter contemporary opinion. Flat-Earth societies still exist even today. Given that many Middle-American Christians believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, I would have no problem envisioning an epistemic shift towards the earth being flat if such an idea were proposed in a major religious text.

Scientific 'truth' is often applicable to need. We understand what is relevant to our age. In a thousand years time we may gain new information that shows the shape of the Earth is different if viewed through different dimensions, or similar. If we were to project a four dimensional view of the Earth, for example, it might look like a ringed donut spiraling all over the galaxy. Does this mean we are 'wrong' today? No, not really. I see science as a malleable window of 'truth' shifting in accordance to our understanding, 'development' or 'regression.' I think epistemic theory proves that absolute objectivity in scientific thought is unlikely.

Side point: Ascetic scientists strike me as the priests of the 21st century; vaguely sacerdotal in their ability to communicate with the 'divine' to provide gifts, cast prophecies and account for existence. Climate change is today's book of Revelations, mathematical equations are today's Latin, the doctor's surgery is the new confessional chamber, vitamin pills are our communion biscuit and the moral 'its-ok' of atheism the rubric that supports our indulgence. God is Dead, noticed Nietzsche, and science has killed him.

 

[Justin S.]

Below I will attempt to add support to my original argument, explain more fully the farming analogy, and address your responses as best I can.

I start with Seditious' criticism:

It's besides the point but
I don't know about "Nor does the farmer dictate the precipitation, the humidity, the soil conditions, the technology and agricultural industry of his time, etc"

they always water their grounds and ensure the suitable Ph levels in soil, and obviously only try to grow crops in the suitable climate (or create it in glasshouses). and farmers protest and lobby government policy which affects them in import/export and profit margins. and farming technology comes about just as medical technology does, when the need is observed and it's possible to address

The farmer guides the growth of the crop as much as possible including getting rid of pests and even selection of which fruit to let grow and which to remove.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure how well that farming analogy explains what you're suggesting since all the things you mentioned are 'in accordance with possibility.'

This is a misunderstanding that results from underestimating how general the original thinking is. However, our departure point is always the individual, as this is what in each case we experience. An individual presences in a context with a massive, multiform causal chain. It is a common mistake to interchangeably use a singular and a collective, non-temporally contextualized reference point. Let me illustrate.

Certainly a farmer could potentially water his soil baring sufficient rain (as a side note, this is not the case in most places). Where does he get this water, and how does he dispense it? If he conducts soil tests, or has information on climate patterns, how does he posses such tools? How can he lobby, how is there a government to lobby before? How is he able to look at satellite imagery on the news, operate a combine, or store his grain?

None of these possibilities stem from him, but the possibility his context affords him. The farmer simply works within this context. Any movement of the events that surround him (such as his contribution to technology, crop yield, climate change, etc) still stem from this possibility, and form the new ground for later generations.

Nile577 elaborated on Foucault's notion of "episteme" as a sociological sense of context. While I think highly of this general idea, it is too restrictive to be equated with my original statements. While episteme would be one significant element, there are many things outside human society which shape and influence human context and said episteme.

Some also questioned the effectiveness of the farming analogy, and why I chose it. I still maintain it is apt.

The main topic is "Historical Moment". This was not to serve as a compiling of all the factors of a causal chain at any given moment (this is an absurd pursuit, continuing infinitely), but to understand action and possibility within a historical context (namely, ours, since this is what we can affect). In a historical sense, it is often said that the "time was ripe", or that the "ground was fertile". These phrases allude to the same sense of perception of possibility and timing as in agriculture, hence my analogy. However much the farmer consults his instruments and measurements, he must decide by intuition the exact moment of harvest, the refinement of which comes with experience and keen perception.