Mark Schmanko started an interesting FB IPS discussion on the background consensus trance (BCT) here. My comments so far:
There
are ontologies without assholons, as I call them. And that don't
colonize everything into their ontologies but leave space-time for
change without an overriding telos. And still incorporate complexity and
mereology but of a different sort. Perhaps
read the 'flat' ontologies of the speculative realists and
object-oriented ontologists? (Latour, Bryant, Morton, DeLanda, Protevi,
Stengers, Badiou etc.) They also seem to avert the BCT, since there is
no lockstep agreement about the field among them, though there are some
very broad parameters of kinship.
Saturday, November 29, 2014
The reasonable polis
At FB Bonnie linked to this essay. Therein we have Latour criticizing the 'reasonable' notion of
creating a broad generalization of the polis and then trying to fit
(pigeonhole) everything into this abstract model. For Socrates the base
was geometry, for McIntosh and 'mainstream'
integralists it's AQALingus. Both stem from this 'false' reason. This
sort of reason misses the democracy of objects Latour and the other
speculative realists and object-oriented ontologists enact. Theirs is a
'flat' ontology that still recognizes complexity and mereology, but of a
different kind. It's also the difference between real and false reason
so much expounded in the IPS thread of that name. All of which has been
explored at length and in depth at that wonderful Ning IPS forum from
which the FB one springs.
Friday, November 28, 2014
Walmart is so charitable
While workers protest the store today keep in mind that Walmart owners are not only stingy with wages.
Lakoff's Salon interview
Read it here. Some excerpts follow, with follow-up discussion at this IPS thread:
"People thought that when I was talking about framing that I was talking about words. This is what Frank Luntz keeps saying, 'Words that Work.' The reason he can do that is that on the right, the think tanks figured out the frames before he came along. All he had to do was supply the words for the frames, whereas we have to think out the whole thing. Moreover, the assumption was that there was no difference between framing and spin, which is utterly ridiculous. You do framing every time you talk, every time you think, because frames are what you use in thinking—they’re neural structures."
"[W]hen you start talking about the communications system that the right wing has set up, people think, 'Well, we’re Democrats and progressives, we don’t do that. We don’t set up a real communications system; that would be underhanded, that would be propaganda.' There’s a difference between saying what you believe in, getting your ideas out there, and propaganda to say what you believe. You tell the truth, that’s not propaganda."
"People thought that when I was talking about framing that I was talking about words. This is what Frank Luntz keeps saying, 'Words that Work.' The reason he can do that is that on the right, the think tanks figured out the frames before he came along. All he had to do was supply the words for the frames, whereas we have to think out the whole thing. Moreover, the assumption was that there was no difference between framing and spin, which is utterly ridiculous. You do framing every time you talk, every time you think, because frames are what you use in thinking—they’re neural structures."
"[W]hen you start talking about the communications system that the right wing has set up, people think, 'Well, we’re Democrats and progressives, we don’t do that. We don’t set up a real communications system; that would be underhanded, that would be propaganda.' There’s a difference between saying what you believe in, getting your ideas out there, and propaganda to say what you believe. You tell the truth, that’s not propaganda."
Thursday, November 27, 2014
The AQALack
Continuing from this post, and the ongoing IPS FB thread on the topic, part of the problem
with the epistemic fallacy is actualism. Now Wilber does account for the
non-actual via the timeless, changeless Causal real which subsists the
actual, but then turns around in the
next breath and asserts we can directly access the Causal via a non-dual
meditative state (aka satori), the Absolute side of the equation. Which
is exactly what Bryant is criticizing, that we can directly and
accurately 'know' not just this state, but that this state directly
accesses that Causal realm underlying the actual.
So yes, it's a fixation on enacting the interior state(s), because this 'consciousness per se' IS the metaphysical foundationalism of ALL, "for foundationalism is premised on the possibility of absolute presence." Bryant (and Morton) have the good sense to carefully read and understand Derrida on this metaphysics of presence.
So yes, it's a fixation on enacting the interior state(s), because this 'consciousness per se' IS the metaphysical foundationalism of ALL, "for foundationalism is premised on the possibility of absolute presence." Bryant (and Morton) have the good sense to carefully read and understand Derrida on this metaphysics of presence.
Exodus: Gods and Kings
I'm eagerly anticipating this
new movie under Ridley Scott's direction set to open Dec. 12. I've been
seeing previews for the last 2 months and it looks to be a cinematic
masterpiece as well as blockbuster. Especially with Christian Bale as
Moses under Scott's direction. The cinematography and CGI look
astounding from the previews. And the chemistry between Bale's Moses and
Joel Edgerton's Ramses looks fiercely intense.
It's also a good metaphor for today's saga of wage slavery, with Senator Warren leading the masses out of Egypt (poverty) against the indomitable will of the 1% played by Charles Koch. This IPS thread will serve as discussion prior to the film's release, as well as commentary after we've seen it.
It's also a good metaphor for today's saga of wage slavery, with Senator Warren leading the masses out of Egypt (poverty) against the indomitable will of the 1% played by Charles Koch. This IPS thread will serve as discussion prior to the film's release, as well as commentary after we've seen it.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Bethany & Derek
This was their freestyle on Monday night. It was the popular pick for the encore performance on last night's finale.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
The epistemic fallacy
Here's Bryant from The Democracy of Objects, section 1.5:
"Here it is necessary to clarify what the epistemic fallacy is and is not about. A critique of the epistemic fallacy and how it operates in philosophy does not amount to the claim that epistemology or questions of the nature of inquiry and knowledge are a fallacy. What the epistemic fallacy identifies is the fallacy of reducing ontological questions to epistemological questions, or conflating questions of how we know with questions of what beings are. In short, the epistemic fallacy occurs wherever being is reduced to our access to being. Thus, for example, wherever beings are reduced to our impressions or sensations of being, wherever being is reduced to our talk about being, wherever being is reduced to discourses about being, wherever being is reduced to signs through which being is manifest, the epistemic fallacy has been committed.
"Here it is necessary to clarify what the epistemic fallacy is and is not about. A critique of the epistemic fallacy and how it operates in philosophy does not amount to the claim that epistemology or questions of the nature of inquiry and knowledge are a fallacy. What the epistemic fallacy identifies is the fallacy of reducing ontological questions to epistemological questions, or conflating questions of how we know with questions of what beings are. In short, the epistemic fallacy occurs wherever being is reduced to our access to being. Thus, for example, wherever beings are reduced to our impressions or sensations of being, wherever being is reduced to our talk about being, wherever being is reduced to discourses about being, wherever being is reduced to signs through which being is manifest, the epistemic fallacy has been committed.
Monday, November 24, 2014
Is propaganda just an illusion?
In the FB IPS forum Fractal Organism started a thread on the epistemic fallacy. I responded to his statement that "the world we create is necessarily a world of propaganda, and by extension a world of delusions and illusions" with the following:
"I disagree that propaganda by extension is delusion and illusion. See my most recent post in the Lakoff thread on the movie Mockingjay. Like in the movie [...] propaganda requires an emotional connection to motivate and inspire people to action, like framing per Lakoff. It isn't necessarily about creating an illusion but about creating embodied and emotional connection with ideas.
FO: "ok, agreed, but making something embodied and emotional doesnt necessarily take the illusion out, it just gives it tangibility."
Me:
"I disagree that propaganda by extension is delusion and illusion. See my most recent post in the Lakoff thread on the movie Mockingjay. Like in the movie [...] propaganda requires an emotional connection to motivate and inspire people to action, like framing per Lakoff. It isn't necessarily about creating an illusion but about creating embodied and emotional connection with ideas.
FO: "ok, agreed, but making something embodied and emotional doesnt necessarily take the illusion out, it just gives it tangibility."
Me:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)