Sorry about that:
got a little too chemically enhanced ecstatic the other night.
The combination of booze and writing a piece gets me little giddier than is practical.
It’s not so much Death that scares us as the getting there. It will be one of 2 things: either the perfect non-existence of the self as we know it, or some afterlife in which we are free of the burden of the body. This is why our anxieties concerning it generally surround imagining the transition from existence to non- existence.
It also creates a paradox for us in that we all know we’re going to die but can’t really imagine our own non-existence. Hence the mythologies we tend to turn to of afterlifes.
That said, in an episode of the To the Best of Our Knowledge, one of the guests pointed out that one of the best ways to deal with the ultimate death is to practice with the many small deaths we tend to go through throughout life. I mean let’s face it, we are never the person we use to be. We always change. And that requires that we give up some part of ourselves, in other words, let it die.
In a sense, our fear of death comes out of imagining how it will effect the body.
It’s not so much Death that scares us as the getting there. It will be one of 2 things: either the perfect non-existence of the self as we know it, or some afterlife in which we are free of the burden of the body. This is why our anxieties concerning it generally surround imagining the transition from existence to non- existence.
It also creates a paradox for us in that we all know we’re going to die but can’t really imagine our own non-existence. Hence the mythologies we tend to turn to of afterlifes.
That said, in an episode of the To the Best of Our Knowledge, one of the guests pointed out that one of the best ways to deal with the ultimate death is to practice with the many small deaths we tend to go through throughout life. I mean let’s face it, we are never the person we use to be. We always change. And that requires that we give up some part of ourselves, in other words, let it die.
*
“Actually, a good way to blanket the mind of thought (if that’s what you are talking about), is, in silence, to stop and think to yourself “I wonder what my next thought will be?” and with some work, one can achieve a close proximity to non-thought (actual non-thought, I still believe, is very difficult if not impossible)”
This is one of main aims of meditation: to shut down the brain chatter. But you have to do it in a loose way in that the only way out is through. You have to work your way to that empty state by indulging the persistent thoughts until you get beyond them. The point is to get to that fleeting moment of emptiness and to practice it until you can make that fleeting moment less fleeting.
As you seem to be suggesting: it is about stealing a moment of control from the impossible: of finding a momentary stay against confusion by taming the ego (the source of brain chatter (for a moment….
I’m not so sure that we can be too philosophical as we can take it for more than it really is: a perspective. To tweak Russell:
Philosophy lays in that no man’s land between science and literature.
And, in order to truly appreciate what philosophy is distinctly capable of doing, we have to approach it like literature: like a poem or artwork or even a dream. Unlike science, we have to look for meaning in the discourse that goes on around it.
Take, for instance, Baudrillard. Now we all know that, from a scientific perspective, there is no real entity that we can call a “simulacrum”. Still, by understanding what Baudrillard was talking about, we gain a lot of understanding about how our society is working in very real ways. We, for instance, better understand media which always shows us as being at the edge of doom when nothing seems to happen. We better understand advertisements which act like we’re in an age of joy due to producer/consumer Capitalism when we, as individuals, know better.
In other words, philosophy only fails when we take it too literally.
BTW: the letter got published. The content of my mind is now international!
There are many points I could make on this since it has been a central concern of mine since I have started to focus more on philosophy: that of defending it from a complete takeover by the analytic factions of philosophy (those who, out of a self conscious guilt and inferiority complex in the face of science, would prefer to reduce it to little more than lip service to science) and defending its more poetic aspects as that which defines and distinguishes philosophy as a discipline and is, in my opinion, its reason to be. And Epstein’s article typifies the import of Philosophy Now’s project and it’s openness to more continental approaches.
First of all, Russell rightly recognizes that philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and theology. But we live in a different situation and time than Russell did. Therefore, I would revise his statement to:
“Philosophy lies in that no-man’s land between science and literature.”
Some may shrink at the thought of philosophy being a form of literature, or having anything to do with fiction. But I take it as a point of pride. Take, for instance, Baudrillard. Now most of those who are open to him accept the description of him as a Sci Fi writer who happens to be writing philosophy. Furthermore, we all know that there is no empirically describable entity we can point to as the Simulacrum. Still, if we open ourselves to the suspension of disbelief and apply it as a perspective, we get a lot of interesting understandings of how our world may well be working: the way that media buries us in a frenzy of appearances and thereby leaves us powerless against the status quo that owns the media –a kind modern day Land of the Lotos Eaters as Tennyson described it. And we can say as much for Sartre’s being-for-itself and being-in-itself, Deleuze’s difference and repetition, and any number of concepts produced by more continental approaches. And if there is a flaw in the continental approach, it comes more from its analytic detractors than its practitioners in that the detractors base their argument against it on taking it too literally, on the questionable assumption that philosophy should only be seeking The Truth rather than truths or understanding.
The thing to consider here is the role that resonance and seduction (lyrical philosophy) plays in all this, whether we want it to or not. We build our arguments on facts, data (formal and informal), beliefs, and shared assumptions in the hope that it will win the other over: in other words, resonate and seduce. And we build our process on what resonates with and seduces us. We start with certain sensibilities and build from there.
Of course, those who lean towards the more scientific side of the spectrum between science and literature will scoff at this. They believe (and believe because they want to) that they have found a path that bypasses resonance and seduction –hence the smug dismissal of more continental approaches. But isn’t it possible that resonance and seduction had everything to do with their choice to do so? Isn’t it possible that their choice to defer to the rigor of science, logic, or mathematics was more about a dispositional (and anal) aversion to chaos than a rational decision to choose reason over feeling?
First of all, Sean, thanks for giving me something to fill my 500 word window with. Today’s reading session wasn’t doing much for me. And I had resigned myself to the drive-by style of going about and making quick responses to minimal points. And while there is value in that, and enjoyment to be had, you’ve given me an opportunity to work in the way I have grown more comfortable with and seems more productive. But, yeah:
“ Our health care system is slowly becoming privatized again I agree.”
That’s what I was afraid of. Thanks for confirming it for me. Another development that concerns me came to my attention in an MSN article in which a writer from Holland was giving advice to Washington State concerning the legalization of pot. What was brought to my attention was a reactionary movement in the government, due to a more conservative government, which involves Amsterdam scaling back a lot of freedoms that made it a kind of Mecca to partiers in America. And I can’t but feel this is the result of corporations creating economic turmoil in order to get the people of that country to vote more conservative on top of using those freedoms as an escape goat for those failures. It reeks of the same type of misdirection we deal with from conservatives in America. Plus that, it is as if Holland is actually folding to the pressure America was putting on it during the height of America’s War on Drugs.
“To be fair there isn’t all too much difference between our countries. We have a single monarchy family with the perception of a democratic parliament, you have the Bush’s and Clinton’s. Tis all still dominant families ruling like an aristocracy.”
Couldn’t agree with you more. As it stands, our democracy has become little more than an a smokescreen for an emerging aristocracy/oligarchy. Although, I would argue that our presidents don’t have near the power a true monarchy would have. This can be seen in Obama who, I believe, sincerely believed he was going to stand up to Capitalism, only to find himself up against corporate forces that he had to dance around. This is why we ended up with Obamacare as compared to nationalized version of healthcare that you and other western industrialized nations have enjoyed for some time –or at least a public option. It was the only way, due to the influence of lobbyists from the health insurance industry, that he could pass any kind of healthcare reform –reform, mind you, that will ultimately end up being an appeasement that supports the illusion that our democracy is actually working. The reason for this is that our democracy has become little more than puppet show designed to distract us from the puppet masters. We are offered a choice between 2 candidates handpicked by corporations in order to give us the illusion that we are actually participating in the process, when all we are actually getting from the aristocracy/oligarchy are concessions that create the illusion of freedom while keeping us well within the parameters of our role as produce/consumers.
And you make some negative points about America. And as far as I’m concerned, while I believe in the principles that started this country, those principles have lost their force here. I mean it: fuck American exceptionalism. But allow me to outdo you on your concerns. America, compared to every other western industrialized nation, is relatively young. It is as if we are in this adolescent phase in which we feel that the world would fall apart if we weren’t number 1. And it is why we can maintain that exceptionalism when, statistically, we’re far from first in about everything but military strength and confidence in our youth. And this is not just our political system. For instance, when the subject of France comes up, and their contempt for Americans, the explanation I tend to get out of my conservative friends is that they’re jealous of us. Then I proceed to hear a lot of grumbling about how the French forgets that it was us that saved their asses in WW2. But anyone who has actually gotten the news from anything other than radio talk show hosts or FOX news would recognize that it is because we are shoving our form of Capitalism down their throats. This issue came up when the French were facing the possibility of having their 35 hr. workweek raised to 40 to make them more economically competitive. The popular myth being spread around at the time was that while the French worked to live, the Americans lived to work. It’s a myth. Pure nonsense. Yet the myth was propagated to make the French more pliable in giving up a privilege that they had earned through dissent.
(To give you a sense of the base-of-the-brain level this country is working at: I’m guessing that if someone mentioned the name of Marx or socialism, most people in Europe would see it for what it is: an ideological construct no less worthy of consideration than any other ideological construct –something you learn about as an option. In America, however, many of us are socially programmed to hear psycho-shrieks every time either word is mentioned. I mean all the republicans or Rush Limbaugh seem to have to do concerning a policy is mention the magic words and the Democrats are either sticking their tails between their legs or trying to explain why their policy is not socialist or Marxist.)
What is funny to me is that our Christians have always thought of the prediction of the Beast and anti-Christ as always emerging “over there”. In fact, they have even attributed it to the European Union. What is weird to me is that they have, for the most part, been standing in the most powerful country in the world while doing so. It just seems to me if there ever was going to be a candidate for the beast, it would be the very system under which they live, thrive, and that they embrace.
The point is, Sean, that I can outdo your issues with America in that this country, in its adolescence, and through a kind of growing pains, is laying the groundwork (through the deluded reasoning (rationalization) of self interest or the competitive model over the cooperative) for an atrocity (fascist in nature) comparable to that of Germany’s through our conservative elements. I mean what is the Tea Party but a modern day version of the Brownshirts? It has come to the point where it is facing the same process every other western industrialized country that has been number 1 has had to: that of stepping down from above other countries and taking its place among them.
And while it may not be the Apocalypse our Christians predict, it will likely feel like it to them. And it probably won’t be graceful….
Help me!
Fair enough. I look forward to your take on it. That said, you bring up an issue for me that came up in the latest issue of Philosophy Now concerning baseball and the ethics of using performance enhancing drugs. While it is easy to see the issues at work in a sport, it gets a little different when you consider the role that performance enhancing drugs (pot, alcohol, psychedelics (have when it comes to the arts. As Bill Maher said about heroin: “it certainly hasn’t hurt my record collection”. And we can easily make the distinction of the arts not being competitive in the sense of sports. Still, we can be almost certain that such an ethical point could be imposed upon the arts. For instance: why would giving creativity privilege over health not be an expression of freedom as much as good health? There are certainly works of art that would not be possible without the effects of performance enhancing drugs such as the later Beatles without LSD or even Jimi Hendrix without it. And I’m not sure there would be the blues as we know them (via Robert Johnson, Muddy Waters, and John Lee Hooker without alcohol along with the sudden freedom blacks found themselves confronted with after slavery. And I’m not sure a mathematician like Lewis Carroll would have written Alice in Wonderland without the use of opiates he engaged in in order to deal with health problems. In fact, even Nietzsche took opiates (that is while claiming beer would be the downfall of German society (to deal with his health problems and which clearly had an effect on his work. And I can’t help but feel that Deleuze’s drinking (due to constant pain (much like Kurt Cobain’s constant stomach pain that fueled his heroin addiction (had an effect on his work as well-perhaps, even, to the better. But Deleuze eventually sobered up and eventually claimed that the work goes on fine without alcohol. But he also wrote, in the dry period in What is Philosophy that we wander through the plane of imminence and return with bloodshot eyes. That sounds to me like someone who misses being able to have a drink. Perhaps his suicide was a result of recognizing his condemnation to what he was or felt like: a failed human being who managed to compensate for it by achieving greatness and, thereby, pushing humanity further than it had ever gone before. In this sense, performance enhancing drugs contribute to our common evolution as much as if not more than good health ever could.
“I believe in internet philosophy as open source wisdom, enabling us to grow without permission. I think the academic world is largely lost, at least when it concerns fundamental questions. Philosophy and science will have to carry their own weight, they can not rely on society, on funding, on tradition to grow beyond their current form, which is I suppose still adolescent, in the grand scheme of things. Or: split between adolescent will to freedom and dogmatic paternal control. For the father to become less dominant, the son will have to stop referring to this father as the authority. I believe the only way to defeat the machine is to disregard it. Of course fighting is necessary but the values that need to be established nee to stay clean of the machine. There’s two fronts; b) fight back the machine – in this fight millions upon millions of awesome humans are engaged, which gives me a lot of hope, and a) create a new mindform, which can only come to flourish ‘on neither side of the machine’.”
First of all, I apologize for seeing the use of this, and what I’m about to respond with, within the general discourse and for grooming your quote for that purpose. And I would also apologize to the Deleuzian group if I seem to be wandering “off topic”. But I believe there are Deleuzian implications in this as concerns the plane of immanence and the interaction of desiring and social machines implied by it and the creative aspect of the continental approach that Deleuze championed.
First of all, while I mainly avoid the university system for the practical matters of time and money; I also have reservations concerning (from what I have heard (the dominance of the analytic method in college philosophy departments. All I see coming out of it is an emphasis on the latest and greatest which will generally lean towards to the scientific, or that which is issue oriented as is implied by the recent popularity of such philosophical fields as animal and scientific ethics, at the expense of the literary. And while I like the work of such people as Searle or Dennett –or even Pete Singer if I ever read him, I’m not sure I would want to commit my future process to them.
And I think this comes out of 2 phenomena’s –both of which have to do with the tyranny of the functional. First of all, I think it come out of a self consciousness that philosophy has always felt in the face of science. No matter how profound it has managed to be, it has always cringed at the thought of not being able to make a Smartphone. The problem with this assumption is that, as the 90’s demonstrated, technological booms tend to be accompanied by creative booms. There are times, for instance, when it is the ambitions of the creative community (such as the video game, movie, or music industry (will lay out the agendas of the scientific and technical community. Plus that, there is the general creative energy generated between the practical (science and technology (and creative fields that can lead to advances in both –an exchange of flows in which the tyranny of the functional can only act as a blockage.
Secondly, I think that this is the result of unconditional state funds decreasing while universities become more dependent on corporate funding –that which is conditional on the tyranny of the functional or what will result in quantifiable profit margins. This is why universities might prefer to train future Searles or Dennetts and why the Anglo-American approach tends to focus on the more immediate issues presented by science and current issues. And it why, as Chris Hedges points out, Marx has basically been expelled from economic departments and exiled to the humanities.
However, because of this, my hope lies in the law of unintended consequences and the old adage: keep your friends close; but keep your enemies closer. As the influence of corporate funds grow stronger, there is a growing sentiment that higher education should be strictly geared to what will increase the profit margin. Even Bill Mahers, an American progressive, expresses distaste for such things as fine and liberal arts degrees. And we can easily see the higher education system accommodating this sentiment. Graphic Arts, because of their attachment to marketing and the Capitalist need to make their product pretty, will stay while the fine arts are thrown out on the streets. The humanities, including Marx and more continental approaches to philosophy will have to go while philosophers that play lip service to science and technological advancement (state philosophy (like Dennett and Searle (will stay.
The upside of this is that it might drive these aspects of our culture into workshops that, being more affordable, could end up democratizing the means of entering our cultural meme machine which, in turn, could democratize (much as the message boards are doing (the general discourse that Capitalism (via our universities (is performing an ideological coupe on.
“I think the academic world is largely lost, at least when it concerns fundamental questions.”
“LIKE MEDICINE IS LOST FOR HEALTH, ECONOMY IS LOST FOR WELlFARE AND HAPPINESS,… a lot of losses, to much for us poor people, isn’t it?”
Harald, I’m sorry, but your point reeks of the tyranny of the functional. While I and my peer and friend may seem a little hyperbolic, you seem to forget, given your examples, that higher education is not just about about addressing the practical matters you describe, it was also meant to be a way of furthering democracy by creating citizens who can think outside of the system that demands our loyalty based on those practical achievements.
The important thing to note here (at least for my part (is that we all gotta find our flow and that it is all fuel for the fire. So if someone chooses to take the academic route, it would feel, for the most part, pathetic on my part to berate that person -especially when I know they could end up being crucial to my process -even if they seem to have succumbed to the tyranny of the functional or state philosophy. I can either use what they have in the positive sense of building my understanding with their understanding, or I can use it in the negative sense of recognizing what it is I am trying to avoid.
The problem for me starts when philosophers from the analytic/academic side of the analytic/continental spectrum smugly dismiss the continental/literary approach such as when Searle argued that Derrida was a philosopher for those that knew nothing about philosophy. I mean who was he to suddenly declare that he, and others who shared his sentiment, held the only criteria by which philosophy works? That just feels a little dogmatic to me (state philosophy (and the antithesis of what it is that philosophy could do. It feels like someone riding on the endorsement of corporate power as it tends to be expressed in corporate sponsorship of the universities.
And nothing captures what I’m talking about more than Sokal’s hoax: throwing out false scientific evidence hoping that post structural and post modern philosophers might take the bait -which they did. I mean what did he prove? First of all, he proved that he was a prudish asshole and mean spirited prick who thought of knowledge as a means to power rather than one of understanding. And as Joe Hughes points out in his reader’s guide to Difference and Repetition, most of Sokal’s exposition was peppered with claims of not understanding. Secondly, he established what most people already know: that philosophers are not scientists and that they have to trust in the authority of scientists when it comes to scientific matters.
Public Journal: 6-24:
It is interesting to watch how 2 hard core right-wing elements work together. On one hand, you have the religious right-wing element that believe it is our God-given right to pursue Capitalism as it is and, consequently, to exploit the earth’s resources until Jesus takes them home in the Rapture . To them, Capitalism is an expression of God. If you’re rich, God (and Jesus (must love you. Right?
On the other, you have the secular right-wing that sees the invisible hand as a stand-in for god. They will have nothing to do with Christian rules (but they will immerse themselves in the light.
But as the saying goes:
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
What would the 2 of them do together without their common enemy:
the liberal?
Hey d63, I hadn’t seen this yet. I may keep active in your threads here now and then, maybe I can just limit my ILP time to stuff that is actually going somewhere. For now I’ll limit myself to addressing the one thing I disagree with.
“Secondly, he established what most people already know: that philosophers are not scientists and that they have to trust in the authority of scientists when it comes to scientific matters.”
I rather see science as an extension of a certain brand of philosophy, and the way science draws its conclusions as a philosophical choice, thought the choice has receded into the background and has become invisible, and now appears as an inevitability.
Fact is, science can not account for its own laws. Philosophy, at least VO, can.
Scientists know how to build using the laws that have been disclosed by thinkers. Scientists aren’t usually thinkers, but rather laborers. Laborers who repeat actions, who apply existing thought in different situations, thereby selecting only situations that are compatible with these ideas. The scientific system is wholly circular, recognizes only outcomes that obey and sustain its limiting principles, disregards the vast cosmos of phenomena that do no obey this limiting; it draws out of nature a single aspect made of two qualities: isolation and repetition. All that doesn’t let itself be isolated without collapsing into a different, lower nature, and all that does not infinitely repeat while remaining identical, is considered unreal.
If science “has its way”, al that will exist on Earth will be isolated bits of identical quality. If we want to prevent this, science desperately needs to be subjected to humanity, to philosophy, to the ground from which its power once emerged.
“Just on capitalism… Let’s accelerate the sucker. “
This reminds me of what was written on a flyer thrown out during a Kottonmouth Kings concert when their punk rockers came out (it was kind of like a 3+ ring circus, but in a cool way:
“Anarchy through Capitalism.”
Sometimes, the only way out is through. And Capitalism has become like an extreme alcoholic: you can’t reason it out of its trajectory; therefore, the only thing you can do is sit back, use the technology it creates to let it know it’s fucking up, and wait until it reaches such a low point that it can see for itself. It’s become too powerful to do otherwise. And in this sense, I think you have gotten deeper into the schizophrenic process than maybe even I have.
“You know how we had to have glam rock in order to get to heavy metal and we had to have punk in order to get to grunge. In the end it’s all just on a imminent plane of the humming Marshall Rack anyway. I think the consciousness is here, we just need to infect more awareness, compassion and connectedness. I am hoping acceleration will achieve this.”
Okay, Joseph, I would tend to agree with you in principle. But if you think about it, there is always a kind of mutual solipsism between a rockstar and their audience -especially when it comes to a live show. Now keep in mind here that I use the word solipsism in the sense defined by Sartre in Being and Nothingness: as the perfectly natural tendency of people to reduce the other to an object -we all, technically, being objects occupying each other’s space, and having no real proof that the other has the same perceiving thing looking out of their eyes as us outside of a leap of faith we’re often compelled (out of hope and loneliness perhaps (to engage in.
Now I don’t bring this up to undermine your point, but to compliment it and add yet another dimension. As you rightly argue:
“Beautiful isn’t it. We got ourselves into the this hole, sceptical about our own knowledge and sensory experience. Condemned to be free and alone.
The loss of sense of self in not being aware of oneself, in being for others in giving and sharing is then an entirely selfish act. It is selfish in that seeking the destruction of ‘I’ ness in all it’s form. To be in the crowd to be with the crowd, absorbed into an effervescence where one no longer becomes an ‘I’ escapes and suspense whereby momentarily that we leave our loneliness in doubt and scepticism, yet its the experience we continuously seek. In love, in making love in jamming, in understanding, in concerts, in playing music, in playing with others, in engaging with others even on Facebook. Perhaps we are not so alone after all, but have the ability of ‘being’ in both?”
:while there is a mutual solipsism going on, there is equally an attempt to overcome it and connect.
You mention glam rock. Now imagine Bowie back in the 70’s (mainly because he seemed to understand that mutual solipsism more than most in his willingness to reduce himself to an object through the different personas he chose to take on:
Now imagine looking through his eyes at an audience (an object consisting of a lot of individual objects that he has to seduce and resonate with. And this requires that he makes the leap of faith while still dealing with the audience as an object. He may point to individuals at the front of that audience in order to get a reaction out of them that confirms that leap of faith. But it never truly gives it a solid foundation. It never can. The whole time he is on the stage, he can never truly overcome that feeling of solipsistic isolation. But he will try. And that is what makes him an artist. It is what drives him to perfect his ability to seduce and resonate.
At the same time, all the audience has seen of him is pictures on album covers and in magazines. Yet, there he is: this object that looks exactly like him moving around on the stage.
(Now when I first came on this board, I could not help but pester Professor Buchanan. It was like I was prodding him because I was surprised at the thought that he would be so available to me when I had read his book. He was an object in my space that had suddenly become available to me –much as Sascha did which I fucked up (being drunk at the time (by blathering at the man like a star struck nitwit.
The point is that the same solipsism was (and is (at work in all 3 circumstances: my prodding Professor Buchanan, my blathering in an attempt to impress Sascha, and the way an audience will throw things at a rock star like Bowie to see if the object before them is really a perceiving thing like them.
Anyway, brother, ran out my window. Holiday things to do for the next 2 days: have to connect with old friends: some of which might hate me because of my disgust with fascistic Neo Cons which some of them have become. Still, they are my friends. Can’t save them. Just as well love them all the same. Hope this Sunday to get to the connective aspect you describe via Emile Durkheim.
Been a pleasure jamming with you.
d63 the thing fixed cross brings up with the absolute reduction of science’s effect of reducing to two identical elementary particles, will be a tremendous disappointment. But that is where we are heading: mutually hyped for identification between some thing, and it’s opposite. The function of which again will be some sort of qualitative easement, from the constraints of solipsism. It works, for only the top 95 percent.
“Hey d63, I hadn’t seen this yet. I may keep active in your threads here now and then, maybe I can just limit my ILP time to stuff that is actually going somewhere. For now I’ll limit myself to addressing the one thing I disagree with.
“Secondly, he established what most people already know: that philosophers are not scientists and that they have to trust in the authority of scientists when it comes to scientific matters.”
I rather see science as an extension of a certain brand of philosophy, and the way science draws its conclusions as a philosophical choice, thought the choice has receded into the background and has become invisible, and now appears as an inevitability.
Fact is, science can not account for its own laws. Philosophy, at least VO, can.
Scientists know how to build using the laws that have been disclosed by thinkers. Scientists aren’t usually thinkers, but rather laborers. Laborers who repeat actions, who apply existing thought in different situations, thereby selecting only situations that are compatible with these ideas. The scientific system is wholly circular, recognizes only outcomes that obey and sustain its limiting principles, disregards the vast cosmos of phenomena that do no obey this limiting; it draws out of nature a single aspect made of two qualities: isolation and repetition. All that doesn’t let itself be isolated without collapsing into a different, lower nature, and all that does not infinitely repeat while remaining identical, is considered unreal.
If science “has its way”, al that will exist on Earth will be isolated bits of identical quality. If we want to prevent this, science desperately needs to be subjected to humanity, to philosophy, to the ground from which its power once emerged.”
Your vacillation and ambivalence (and perhaps even angst (has worked in my favor here. I feel confident that it always will. It’s always a pleasure to hear and bounce off of your riffs –regardless of the silences in between.
You as well, obe.
But I have to bounce off of another point (or elaborate on it (concerning the Anti-Oedipus. I will try to get to this as soon as I can.
(And sorry, FC, didn’t even realize you had posted until today. Read through it a couple of times with the intent of responding. But I have to get this elaboration on the 3 syntheses as they apply to Carleas getting his law degree while it is still hot. Just glad you came back for a visit, brother.
“I rather see science as an extension of a certain brand of philosophy, and the way science draws its conclusions as a philosophical choice, though the choice has receded into the background and has become invisible, and now appears as an inevitability. “
Yes, this would seem to be a historical fact, that is given how science branched off of the initial inquiries of philosophers like Aristotle and Bacon. And while this aspect of it has pretty much been buried, you are right in pointing out that the choice to pursue scientific methods is still a philosophical one in that it involves the question how to best pursue understanding.
“Fact is [may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave], science can not account for its own laws. Philosophy, at least VO, can. “
Nor its own methods. There are all kinds people using all kinds of methods that contribute to scientific knowledge including armchair methods very similar to that of philosophers –for instance: Einstein and Hawkings. Neither Einstein or Hawkings could directly observe the conclusions they arrived at, but could only arrive at them by playing with the concepts and knowledge available to them. All they could do is form hypotheses and test them against reality –which can include the body of knowledge they were working with.
But this is pretty much what any intellectually and creatively curious person does. This is why I find it a little suspect when someone comes on these boards and starts flashing the scientific method around like some badge of authority and, based on it, claim to have the final word on the subject. To paraphrase Rorty:
“Those who would strut into the room ready to set everything straight”
You tend to see this a lot with hardcore materialists and libertarians. They talk a lot about facts, objectivity, and rationality, then jump to indemonstrable conclusions like the mind is merely the brain or Capitalism is the only workable economic system on the face of the earth –that is as if either have been sufficiently demonstrated as, say, water will boil at 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure.
“Scientists know how to build using the laws that have been disclosed by thinkers. Scientists aren’t usually thinkers, but rather laborers. Laborers who repeat actions, who apply existing thought in different situations, thereby selecting only situations that are compatible with these ideas. The scientific system is wholly circular, recognizes only outcomes that obey and sustain its limiting principles, disregards the vast cosmos of phenomena that do no obey this limiting; it draws out of nature a single aspect made of two qualities: isolation and repetition. All that doesn’t let itself be isolated without collapsing into a different, lower nature, and all that does not infinitely repeat while remaining identical, is considered unreal.”
It sounds to me like you’re referring to Walter Kuhn’s normal science. And, in that sense, I would tend to agree with you. But let’s not underestimate the value of it. If science, much like art and philosophy, simply functioned when it was inspired, those disciplines would have died out a long time ago. It’s a little like something I learned from a book about making art concerning the myth of art as a mystical activity: art is, in fact (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave), an activity like any other –like that of a cabinet maker. We tend to give inspiration privilege over craft. But inspiration comes when it will. Therefore, we have to focus on the basic activity, to maintain and develop craft, until that inspiration comes along. That way, when it does, we’ll have the resources we need to fully utilize it.
My point is that abnormal science, that which tends to lead to that inspiration, could not exist without the labor of normal science.
“If science “has its way”, al that will exist on Earth will be isolated bits of identical quality. If we want to prevent this, science desperately needs to be subjected to humanity, to philosophy, to the ground from which its power once emerged.”
Yes, science does tend to work with isolated systems. It has to in order to work. The important thing is that it recognizes that. And I’m not so sure most scientists don’t. Granted, Hawking’s claim that philosophy is dead and the impression you get from a lot of trolls on these boards (those of materialist and libertarian kind) would suggest that. But I’m a little hesitant when it comes to judging the whole scientific community on Hawking’s lapse in judgment and a few wannabe gurus on the board. Ayn Rand tried to appeal to the scientific when she called her philosophy Objectivism. But I seriously doubt that the 97% of scientists who argue for man-made global warming caused by the mostly laissez Faire Capitalism she argued for would agree with the alleged objectivity of her claims.
First of all: easy guys! You’re not saying much that I wouldn’t myself. You have to look at it in the context of what I was responding to. That said, thanks for giving me my around 500 word run for today.
“ I feel like I have to jump in here in defense of Science.”
Actually, no you don’t. If you look at what it was I was responding to and saying you might find on a further run that I was defending science as well –most notably here normal science. If you look through it, you will find I was responding to respected peer whose complete dismissal of science I didn’t completely agree with. Where I will agree with him is that philosophy has no reason to suffer the inferiority complex it has in the face of science. That, as far as I am concerned, is the result of Capitalist values and the tyranny of the functional. Hence the dominance of the analytic method and its smug dismissal of the continental. If philosophy, as far as I am concerned (and this where I stand fully allied with my peer), is to be of value, it has to, along with the analytic approach, distinguish itself from science in its methods and goals. It has to embrace its poetic side as well as its scientific.
“Your comments about Einstein and Hawkings for example. You say that, “Neither Einstein or Hawkings could directly observe the conclusions they arrived at, but could only arrive at them by playing with the concepts and knowledge available to them.”
True, but you are neglecting the fact that they made predictions.”
No one would deny that. But what you are neglecting is the fact (and may the wrath of Strunk rest in its grave(that they arrived at those predictions by (much in the armchair manner of a philosopher (playing with concepts. Now Einstein may have eventually justified relativity through mathematics, but he clearly started by imagining the relationship between someone standing on a train watching a pulse of light bouncing up and down and someone watching that same train fly by. In fact, Einstein was very clear on the role that creativity plays in science.
And I’m sure it is the same case with Hawkings. However, Hawkings, unlike Einstein would dare to do, made the claim that science would make philosophy obsolete. Bad move, as far I’m concerned; especially considering (copping off Russell (the no man’s land that philosophy occupies between science and poetry. I mainly brought Hawkins into it because of his misguided arrogance.
“That’s why science doesn’t have room for the supernatural and that’s why science doesn’t much care about “theories” that merely attempt to look at the world through some “lens.””
Nor should it. However, one of the biggest failures with the continental approach lies not so much with its practitioners, but its detractors. And it comes from taking it too literally when, in fact, all it is offering itself as is a perspective. Continentals, for instance, have no problem with Baudrillard being described as a sci-fy writer who happens to be writing philosophy. We all know that there is no observable entity such as the simulacrum. But we can pretty much say the same thing about black holes, relativity, and evolution. No matter how compelling the evidence seems, they simply cannot be demonstrated in the same way that 1+1=2 or water boils at 212 degrees at atmospheric pressure can. They can only be inferred from the evidence given. Still, by taking on Baudrillard’s perspective, you can get a lot of understanding about how things work –even if they may be disproved by further evidence: the same inductive limit that black holes, relativity, and evolution is up against.
But even more: to dismiss the value of philosophy on that count is as much dismissing the value of poetry or art. And that would only veer science towards the fascistic-which makes the methods of art, poetry, and philosophy all that more valuable.
“Kuhn argued that normal science is necessary for revolutionary science to develop; that an alternative is necessary for paradigm change. Amongst the puzzle solving of normal science, anomalous data will become unable to be incorporated and throw the paradigm into crisis.
I wouldn’t call normal science uninspired. I’d call it quite the opposite – it’s highly inspired by the current paradigm.”
Pretty much what I was saying: it’s what we do when nothing as big as a change in paradigm is happening. Point out, if you will, any point at which I said it was unproductive.
Plus that, I think we can apply Kuhn’s argument to the arts and philosophy as well. While you are right in that it is inspired by the shift in paradigm, it will not be as inspired as the paradigm itself. And that was the point I was making to my respected peer. But, more importantly, I was arguing for the import of the normal process in that it builds a foundation for the next paradigm shift.
We all know this from a personal microcosmic level of having experienced these personal paradigm shifts then having spent time perfecting it until the next paradigm comes along. It’s pretty much what I do on these boards.
Just to give you sense of how fucked America is, and how tough it is to be a progressive in the Midwest:
I live close to an important Air Force base. Today we noticed a lot of jets flying over the area. Come to find out, it was practice for the air show that Obama cancelled last year in order to, at the demand of the Republicans, cut costs. And, of course, the person that explained that to me (someone, BTW, who is working a shit job (did so with a bit of vengeful pleasure that suggested that that [n-bomb] got his. Now first of all, in the words of a great thinker of our day and age, John Oliver:
“America, what the fuck is wrong with you?”
Secondly, and in explanation of the first point, the reason that Obama cancelled it last year was to cut frivolous costs in order to please the Republicans. But no doubt, it was tea bagger Republicans that bitched about the air show being cancelled. And this is what is so insidious about the whole thing. Apparently, when tea baggers and Republicans want to cut costs, what they mean are social programs that might actually help someone. But when it comes to being able to look at how big their dick is (via the technology of Capitalism (money is no object.
On top of that, I have the insult to injury in Ted Nugent and Hank William’s Jr. showing up locally –and a strange coincidence at that. Now to understand my feelings about this, imagine the last time I saw Nugent (that is for the 4th time (and having the whole thing transform into a fascist hate rally against Clinton and his team –that is when Clinton’s economy was the main reason anyone could afford to be there in the first place. On top that he denigrated his audience by screaming (and I am paraphrasing here:
“Hey all you fat beer guzzling motherfuckers: 52, alcohol and drug free, and in perfect shape!”
Or something like that. What he failed to acknowledge is how mediocre his career has been. He put out a few hits in his first 2 albums. But beyond that, I haven’t seen that much. And the only thing that made him a popular live was his misogynistic stage antics (I’m just here for all that good Midwestern pussy, that is before he got political, which he played on repeatedly throughout the first 3 times I saw him –mainly because of my being from the 70’s and it being almost kind of obligatory. There is a reason he had to turn to becoming a right-wing radio host. And since the fourth one, I have considered it a milestone when I see an artist I actually respect as many times as I have him: a small collection of Rob Zombie, KMFDM, and Yes. But I’m about to create a new milestone with Uncle Rob in September.
And I can only imagine what it will be like, between Nugent and William’s Jr., at that arena tonight: a bunch of old 70’s folks longing for the good old days of the 70’s when government was less intrusive, we had a clear sense of our social order that didn’t include minorities (the n-bomb dropped out of our mouths like it was nothing -we didn’t know any better (and we told tales of gays coming out of the closet in the same way you might dark tales around a campfire.
It may be advertized as good old all-American fun: a testament to freedom. But all I see happening is a brown shirt rally built around how despicable progressives are and how they are ruining America. I’ll be lucky if my friend who went doesn’t want to lynch me when she gets back. And I would bet money that it will be mentioned how great it is to have the air show back. In fact, it wouldn’t surprise me if Ted and Hank made an appearance.