mind_philip
saw the light
WOEBOT said:
It's the ring-tailed ones you have to be wary of. The most important natural affinity they bring to the world of Magick is the ability to hold a wand in any of their four paws.
Badiou has all the answers
- Thread starter k-punk
- Start date
It's the ring-tailed ones you have to be wary of. The most important natural affinity they bring to the world of Magick is the ability to hold a wand in any of their four paws.
noel emits
a wonderful wooden reason
Jules,
"Thought and argument is a discipline, if you think everything is subjective and personal then why bother telling anyone about it."
I don't think anyone here has said that 'everything' is subjective and personal (not even me), but a lot of things are - including just about all perceptions/experience. Why bother telling anyone about it? Well, why not? To share some experience, to get another perspective on something, to entertain, to find some mutuality, to get to some kernal of 'truth', to sort our ideas out... It is hugely valuable, informative, educational and often fun - that's why we are doing it no? Or are we just jerking off? Of course there's no real guarantee that anyone ever really understands anything anyone else says, especially with words. One thing that makes other forms of expression/communication so important to humans.
"The game is not played by rationalists they use reason as a tool for persuasion and philosophy. The game is played (play in the sense of ruleless spontinaeity) by those who cant/wont formailise their ideas. Capitalism would love us all to abandon rational discourse and simply exchange remarks about our favourite perfumes. Politics, social critique and philosophy are not shopping, there are good theories and shit theories but something that cannot be approached by rational criticism is not a theory at all, it has the status of yellow ie. fuck all."
Not sure what's meant by 'The game' here (discussion?), but are you seriously ruling out the value of hypotheses / postulations / insights / intuitive leaps / jokes? These may not be 'formal' theories but they can still be immensely valuable and can even be approached by 'rational criticism', no matter if these ideas may originate from an 'irrational' source (this is the essence of creativity, surely?) - rational criticism may not survive unscathed however
In my view capitalism would love us all to get hooked on rationalism and forget all about 'ruleless sponteneity'.
If politics, social critique and philosophy are just games with formalised rules, then the rulemakers have already won and we'd better start breaking the rules or find some other games to play.
"Something of a rant but its annoying to see people attacked for trying to write clearly and rationally with a sense of purpose beyond "self expression".
If people want to be subjective then we could set up a thread were we exchange inarticulate grunts and then congratulate each other."
I really think that anyone who can seriously maintain that kind of position either does not know themselves very well, or really is some kind of super-rational clear channel not hindered by the heinous colourations of 'subjectivity', cultural filters, species-bias, or the will to 'self-expression'. In a way I agree - Mark does seem to be trying to adopt a lofty position of un-human logicallity. From an experimental point of view this is laudable and fascinating - like stelfox i just hope he realises that this is a theoretical position and where it could ultimately lead (personally and collectively) if taken too seriously / too far.
"Thought and argument is a discipline, if you think everything is subjective and personal then why bother telling anyone about it."
I don't think anyone here has said that 'everything' is subjective and personal (not even me), but a lot of things are - including just about all perceptions/experience. Why bother telling anyone about it? Well, why not? To share some experience, to get another perspective on something, to entertain, to find some mutuality, to get to some kernal of 'truth', to sort our ideas out... It is hugely valuable, informative, educational and often fun - that's why we are doing it no? Or are we just jerking off? Of course there's no real guarantee that anyone ever really understands anything anyone else says, especially with words. One thing that makes other forms of expression/communication so important to humans.
"The game is not played by rationalists they use reason as a tool for persuasion and philosophy. The game is played (play in the sense of ruleless spontinaeity) by those who cant/wont formailise their ideas. Capitalism would love us all to abandon rational discourse and simply exchange remarks about our favourite perfumes. Politics, social critique and philosophy are not shopping, there are good theories and shit theories but something that cannot be approached by rational criticism is not a theory at all, it has the status of yellow ie. fuck all."
Not sure what's meant by 'The game' here (discussion?), but are you seriously ruling out the value of hypotheses / postulations / insights / intuitive leaps / jokes? These may not be 'formal' theories but they can still be immensely valuable and can even be approached by 'rational criticism', no matter if these ideas may originate from an 'irrational' source (this is the essence of creativity, surely?) - rational criticism may not survive unscathed however
In my view capitalism would love us all to get hooked on rationalism and forget all about 'ruleless sponteneity'.If politics, social critique and philosophy are just games with formalised rules, then the rulemakers have already won and we'd better start breaking the rules or find some other games to play.
"Something of a rant but its annoying to see people attacked for trying to write clearly and rationally with a sense of purpose beyond "self expression".
If people want to be subjective then we could set up a thread were we exchange inarticulate grunts and then congratulate each other."
I really think that anyone who can seriously maintain that kind of position either does not know themselves very well, or really is some kind of super-rational clear channel not hindered by the heinous colourations of 'subjectivity', cultural filters, species-bias, or the will to 'self-expression'. In a way I agree - Mark does seem to be trying to adopt a lofty position of un-human logicallity. From an experimental point of view this is laudable and fascinating - like stelfox i just hope he realises that this is a theoretical position and where it could ultimately lead (personally and collectively) if taken too seriously / too far.
Jules Bonnot
Member
Yes, fair points.
I was thinking of subjective in the extreme sense of the word. Of course the first person perspectve is inaccessible to others but that is my point. We must refer to shared meanings if we are to understand what each other are saying. Pure subjectivity would involve some kind of private language and would preclude the possibilty of any meaningfull discourse.
Given the idea that meaning of concepts and words can and need to be pinned down shouldnt some time and energy be devoted to this project. Part of the discipline of thought is being self conscious about the meaning of the terms you use and how they relate to other concepts. With a bit of work you begin to see concepts linking together link in a vast abstract jig saw. This is not a subjective project, the network of meanings which is created are shared and absolute. In taking this on board appeals to the irrational (which is certainly an integrel part of the human experience) become harder to defend because the irrational cannot be pinned down and related to rest of our shared meanings. The irrational is always deeply personal precisly because it cannot be explained.
K-Punks posts are, perhaps ,directed towards the project i have sketched out with a particular focus of the political and social. The irrational has little or no part to play in this project because by its nature the project of political or revolutionary theory is social.
I was thinking of subjective in the extreme sense of the word. Of course the first person perspectve is inaccessible to others but that is my point. We must refer to shared meanings if we are to understand what each other are saying. Pure subjectivity would involve some kind of private language and would preclude the possibilty of any meaningfull discourse.
Given the idea that meaning of concepts and words can and need to be pinned down shouldnt some time and energy be devoted to this project. Part of the discipline of thought is being self conscious about the meaning of the terms you use and how they relate to other concepts. With a bit of work you begin to see concepts linking together link in a vast abstract jig saw. This is not a subjective project, the network of meanings which is created are shared and absolute. In taking this on board appeals to the irrational (which is certainly an integrel part of the human experience) become harder to defend because the irrational cannot be pinned down and related to rest of our shared meanings. The irrational is always deeply personal precisly because it cannot be explained.
K-Punks posts are, perhaps ,directed towards the project i have sketched out with a particular focus of the political and social. The irrational has little or no part to play in this project because by its nature the project of political or revolutionary theory is social.
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
To John Eden:
You get an F for your patronising nonsense.
No, teachers aren't structurally evil. Teaching AS A ROLE is the exact opposite of lawywers: it gives people autonomy and makes knowledge available to others, it doesn't rob them of autonomy and speak for them, like lawyers and priests.
Of course, there are very many bad teachers. I work with some of them. But the ROLE itself is not, like politicians, priests and lawyers, by its very nature, evil.
And please, drop it already with the 'some people might think that...' appeal to popularity fallacy...'Some people might think that Nazism was a good thing...' So what? Unless they can give REASONS why should I listen to them?
It's not by dint of teaching itself that I claim I'm not an elitist. It's simply from the sort of teacher I am in the sort of institution in which I work, with a great deal of experience of talking to what you would no doubt regard as 'ordinary kids' and seeing that what YOU consider to be rarefied and incomprehensible is perfectly acessible to them. But of course, stupidity and laziness are always the stupidity and laziness of the other. It's not YOU who can't be bothered to learn a bit of jargon and engage with texts that are slightly demanding, it's other people, 'ordinary' people who have to be protected from such supposed elitism.
Well, if there are 'ordinary people' I am one of them.
I repeat: if I can understand something, I am not so arrogant that I think others won't be able to either.
They won't be able to lazily inhale along with their dope smoke, no. It will require some effort. But then so does anything worthwhile.
This isn't about some easily digested ordinary language opinionism to help you relax after 'a hard day at work'. That is capitalist ideology in itself.
Obv I think I can teach ppl things when I write. If YOU don't think you can teach someone something, why do you write? In some onanistic act of 'self-expression'?
Of course I think I can learn something too... but not from self-confessed irrationalists. By definition, they talk nonsense. No doubt it's interesting to them, like druggie speak I suppose.
But I'd rather read a 'difficult' text, thanks, one that challenges me and changes me, not one that acts as confirmation of the commonsense worldview that is power in person. If demystifying magic means making it blokish and beerish and ordinary, please, let's have some mystification...
You get an F for your patronising nonsense.
No, teachers aren't structurally evil. Teaching AS A ROLE is the exact opposite of lawywers: it gives people autonomy and makes knowledge available to others, it doesn't rob them of autonomy and speak for them, like lawyers and priests.
Of course, there are very many bad teachers. I work with some of them. But the ROLE itself is not, like politicians, priests and lawyers, by its very nature, evil.
And please, drop it already with the 'some people might think that...' appeal to popularity fallacy...'Some people might think that Nazism was a good thing...' So what? Unless they can give REASONS why should I listen to them?
It's not by dint of teaching itself that I claim I'm not an elitist. It's simply from the sort of teacher I am in the sort of institution in which I work, with a great deal of experience of talking to what you would no doubt regard as 'ordinary kids' and seeing that what YOU consider to be rarefied and incomprehensible is perfectly acessible to them. But of course, stupidity and laziness are always the stupidity and laziness of the other. It's not YOU who can't be bothered to learn a bit of jargon and engage with texts that are slightly demanding, it's other people, 'ordinary' people who have to be protected from such supposed elitism.
Well, if there are 'ordinary people' I am one of them.
I repeat: if I can understand something, I am not so arrogant that I think others won't be able to either.
They won't be able to lazily inhale along with their dope smoke, no. It will require some effort. But then so does anything worthwhile.
This isn't about some easily digested ordinary language opinionism to help you relax after 'a hard day at work'. That is capitalist ideology in itself.
Obv I think I can teach ppl things when I write. If YOU don't think you can teach someone something, why do you write? In some onanistic act of 'self-expression'?
Of course I think I can learn something too... but not from self-confessed irrationalists. By definition, they talk nonsense. No doubt it's interesting to them, like druggie speak I suppose.
But I'd rather read a 'difficult' text, thanks, one that challenges me and changes me, not one that acts as confirmation of the commonsense worldview that is power in person. If demystifying magic means making it blokish and beerish and ordinary, please, let's have some mystification...
john eden
male pale and stale
Mark
Ooh, grades, is it? I've had worse than an F before. Bring it on, "sir".
You don't think teachers, in general, have any role whatsoever in disciplining people in the society in which we live?
Not even the academics who enacted all the "psychic vampirism" against you?
Fucking teachers. It's all coming back to me now. Yeah, everyone gets along fine if you play their game. But if you step out of line or try to do things differently you're "stupid" or "unwilling to learn" or "lazy". And then we see whose side they're on, don't we? All that facade of matiness falls away and the "good" teacher is revealed as the soft cop in all its fascistic glory.
But of course, you're not like that, are you Mark? You never patronise anybody. You're a Good Teacher.
You teach, in fact, not only as a job - but in every aspect of your life. And of course, teachers need pupils, don't they? They demand their pupils shut up and listen. You'd have to be blind not to spot the hierarchies at work there.
You still think that people who reject your escapist bollocks about "cold rationalism" must be, by definition, "Irrationalist" and therefore presumably irrational and not worth bothering with, don't you? But of course, you actually learn things from irrationalists every day. Everyone does.
You think that anyone who tries to communicate things in simple language is all about blokey beerishness? Have you read any of the TOPY texts?
As if, because I have the impertinence to stand up in class and try to criticise aspects what you're doing, that I'm unable/unwilling to read "difficult" texts. I do that for a living. I've sat around for large chunks of my life grappling with difficult texts, both in and out of work. Maybe I approach it differently to you, is all. Maybe I think there are more effective ways of using that knowledge than simply quoting massive chunks of it on internet bulletin boards and then calling people stupid if they criticise me for it.
So why do I write? Not to "teach" that's for sure. I write because I enjoy it (what's wrong with onanism? no room for a warm five knuckle shuffle in the world of the cold cold rationalist? You read any Austin Osman Spare?) and I like opening things up for discussion. To make a contribution. I write to raise questions which hopefully others can answer. I write to work things out for myself. I'm not a teacher, or any kind of authority. When I do talks, I'm much more interested in the heckles and the questions which get asked at the end than people telling me how much they've learned or how much they've enjoyed it.
So... was I right about that Badiou quote, or what?
And... what's this obsession you have with hippies and smoking dope? Is that supposed to be directed at me? LMFAO if it is - "must try harder".
S
simon silverdollar
Guest
all this back-biting and little jabs at each other is both very entertaining and quite saddening.
Woebot
Well-known member
matt b
Indexing all opinion
k-punk said:
total nonsense- depending on where you work, you are automatically excluding about 50% of people who do not get 5 GCSEs at grade 'C' or above. (i too work in an FE college w/ the same entry requirements, bu t i don't fool myself that i am a one-man communist utopia)
k-punk said:
again, total nonsense. i assume you are teaching A levels, therefore you are teaching to a curriculum which has been written/ checked by the QCA etc, which are gvt bodies and therefore may be influenced by those in power: ideological factors come into what is taught (citizenship lessons anyone?). you can try to minimise the ideologiocal aspects of the job, but to some extent they are still around you. deal with it.
and to think that teachers are angels morally soaring above lawyers, priests etc, well sheesh.
k-punk
Spectres of Mark
Matt b,
You obviously hate yourself.
Carry on enjoying it.
My claim was that I am not an elitist. Surely you can see the difference between the idea of elitism and the idea of opening up everything to every single person (if you've got a functioning CNS come on in...) I would say teaching courses that in principle are open to 50% of the population is not elitist.
I'm working within constraints but AT WORST I'm helping kids improve their employment prospects. The constraints are actually not very constricting if you are imaginative and not an authoritarian dupe. Of course, if you're in bad faith, you can claim that your subordination to authority is 'realism' and 'not kidding yourself'. Naturally, if you have any political sense, you know that what counts as realism is very precisely a political question - perhaps THE political question.
At BEST I'm opening up their minds, giving them knowledge, changing their perception of the world and inspiring them. This is possible, even under the downpressing conditions of Blairite Kapital.
Lawyers, priests and politicians, by contrast, are of their nature authoritarian mystagogues.
As for 'one man communist utopia'...
(1) I'm not a man (this is an ideological, not a biological, designation).
(2) The idea of a one-man communist anything is of course absurd.
(3) It's not a utopia, but it's a start, and that's not nothing in this world of hell.
You obviously hate yourself.
Carry on enjoying it.
My claim was that I am not an elitist. Surely you can see the difference between the idea of elitism and the idea of opening up everything to every single person (if you've got a functioning CNS come on in...) I would say teaching courses that in principle are open to 50% of the population is not elitist.
I'm working within constraints but AT WORST I'm helping kids improve their employment prospects. The constraints are actually not very constricting if you are imaginative and not an authoritarian dupe. Of course, if you're in bad faith, you can claim that your subordination to authority is 'realism' and 'not kidding yourself'. Naturally, if you have any political sense, you know that what counts as realism is very precisely a political question - perhaps THE political question.
At BEST I'm opening up their minds, giving them knowledge, changing their perception of the world and inspiring them. This is possible, even under the downpressing conditions of Blairite Kapital.
Lawyers, priests and politicians, by contrast, are of their nature authoritarian mystagogues.
As for 'one man communist utopia'...
(1) I'm not a man (this is an ideological, not a biological, designation).
(2) The idea of a one-man communist anything is of course absurd.
(3) It's not a utopia, but it's a start, and that's not nothing in this world of hell.
matt b
Indexing all opinion
k-punk said:
well, i'm not keen on certain aspects of myself- my ears are a bit big, but professionally i love my job. but, i also see how it could be improved and i don't make claims about teaching that aren't backed up by evidence. as far as i am aware, there is quite a gap between "opening up everything to every single person" and having entry requirements of 5 Cs at GCSE. i know for a fact that my college IS seen as elitist by many of those 16-19 year olds who do not come to the college. however i can deal with that....
of course as teachers we aim to help our students in many different ways- the thank you cards on my office wall are evidence, and i also know that i try not to 'subordinate myself to authority'. however, i do have a timetable that tells me where to be and when, and i do have to teach to a set curriculum, some of which is rubbish. i don't have to be an 'authoritarian dupe' (or any other abusive term) to understand that 'reality'.
you should get a job at our college- it sounds just like your cup of tea and it is the nearest to a teaching utopia that i can think of.
i chose teaching because i wanted to minimise my contact for 'the (non-gender specific) man'. i know solicitors and some are dicks, but i don't they are 'evil'. they probably made the wrong choice on their UCAS forms and had limited career choices.
ps 'one man communist utopia' was a joke
&catherine
Well-known member
it's not tennis
As a general comment, I wonder why it is that some people are so quick to bat unfamiliar ideas and suggestions away as soon as they come within hitting distance. Though you may disagree with some theory or find it illogical/counterintuitive, it seems rather presumptuous to label it 'bollocks' so quickly. Sure, some of it may seem somewhat (or even very) esoteric, but I can't see that there is good reason for assuming that just because the theory/philosophy/ideas are unfamiliar, that they are therefore hocus-pocus, elitist pooey-dribble.
Disagreement is imperative, but calling another poster's comments 'manure' does not make the exchange a fertile one. The hardest disciplines to master are a slowness of response and an open mind - though perhaps the internet is somewhat 'to blame' for this, given over as it is to speed...
As a general comment, I wonder why it is that some people are so quick to bat unfamiliar ideas and suggestions away as soon as they come within hitting distance. Though you may disagree with some theory or find it illogical/counterintuitive, it seems rather presumptuous to label it 'bollocks' so quickly. Sure, some of it may seem somewhat (or even very) esoteric, but I can't see that there is good reason for assuming that just because the theory/philosophy/ideas are unfamiliar, that they are therefore hocus-pocus, elitist pooey-dribble.
Disagreement is imperative, but calling another poster's comments 'manure' does not make the exchange a fertile one. The hardest disciplines to master are a slowness of response and an open mind - though perhaps the internet is somewhat 'to blame' for this, given over as it is to speed...
k-punk said:
Apart from the opening sally, in which K-Punk declares that there is no "spontaneous spirituality" but that "if there were it should be crushed without mercy," this passage is completely and utterly on the mark . . . . But I remain unconvinced that there is no such thing as "spirtuality." Perhaps K-Punk rejects the term "spirituality" because he thinks it metaphysical or too closely tied to notions of "eternal life." Yet it seems to me that the term "spirituality" also points to Deleuze's concept of the Body w/o Organs, which concept K-Punk presumably embraces. When people say that they feel "spiritual" while dancing, is that not but an unsophisticated way of saying that they have left the prisons of their own organized bodies for another mode of being??? Accordingly, the word "spirituality" may be fraught with error but it also contains a kernel of truth . . . . So why reject so absolutely the word and concept of "spirituality"? Can one reach the thought of the Body w/o Organs without first having the experience or thought of "spirituality"?
Last edited:
Much more dicey, however, is K-Punk's contention that what people "want" is often Not in their own "interests," that what is in fact in people's interests is to submit to the discipline of serious thinking and get in tune with uttunul. This contention is not without surface appeal. We say, to give but one example, that most voters in the recent US election voted contrary to their own interests . . . . However, in order to really know what is or is not in a person's interests, one must have a comprehensive understanding of human nature. Such a comprehensive understanding, if it is to hold true, must be able to address and account for the possibility that what is "good" for one person may not be "good" for another. This is especially the case where the differences in what various people pursue appear to be nothing other than varieties of pleasure, intellectual pleasures, bodily pleasures, egoistic pleasures, and so forth.
Note how K-Punk uses the words "Pleasure" and "Joy" in this passage:
K-Punk's joy, his Laetitia, is none other than the philosophic pleasure erotically sought by several of Plato's characters, his Socrates, his Glaucon, but not by all characters. [Or rather, how is "joy" anything other than "high" philosophic pleasure?]]
And is it not the case that what is for some high pleasure, is occasion for others of sheer boredom??? Are these others simply to be dismissed as dull wits, common and inferior men? Wouldn't it be less presumptuous to say that some men are apparently so natured and bred that they find intensely pleasurable, nay, joyous, the pursuit and contemplation of philosophic "truth," and that other men are apparently so natured and bred that they experience their greatest pleasure during sex or while high on weed? Why maintain that all persons have the same interests, at least in the highest respects, when people the world over are so manifestly different???
Note how K-Punk uses the words "Pleasure" and "Joy" in this passage:
k-punk said:
K-Punk's joy, his Laetitia, is none other than the philosophic pleasure erotically sought by several of Plato's characters, his Socrates, his Glaucon, but not by all characters. [Or rather, how is "joy" anything other than "high" philosophic pleasure?]]
And is it not the case that what is for some high pleasure, is occasion for others of sheer boredom??? Are these others simply to be dismissed as dull wits, common and inferior men? Wouldn't it be less presumptuous to say that some men are apparently so natured and bred that they find intensely pleasurable, nay, joyous, the pursuit and contemplation of philosophic "truth," and that other men are apparently so natured and bred that they experience their greatest pleasure during sex or while high on weed? Why maintain that all persons have the same interests, at least in the highest respects, when people the world over are so manifestly different???
Last edited:
And finally I disagree with K-Punk on the following, which could have been lifted directly from Kant:
This is "modern" rationalism, not "ancient" rationalism. Plato shows us true rationalism in his philosophic dialogues cum plays. Socrates is a "character" who talks to different "characters." And each of these characters, in the course of engaging in dialectic, retains his particular character, his sex, his ethnicity, his age, his social background, and so forth . . . . Philosophy attempts to leave the Cave by taking seriously what it encounters there, not by negating everything from the start . . . .
k-punk said:
This is "modern" rationalism, not "ancient" rationalism. Plato shows us true rationalism in his philosophic dialogues cum plays. Socrates is a "character" who talks to different "characters." And each of these characters, in the course of engaging in dialectic, retains his particular character, his sex, his ethnicity, his age, his social background, and so forth . . . . Philosophy attempts to leave the Cave by taking seriously what it encounters there, not by negating everything from the start . . . .
I might add that I can see how lawyers are not unlike priests, mediating between the Flock and the Law, keeping the former largely ignorant of what is in fact accessible to all, that is, the Law . . . . At the same time, lawyers properly strive for consistency and integrity in the Law, and for this reason alone might deserve some sympathy from K-Punk. Whether philosophers should strive for consistency and integrity is, however, an altogether different question. Philosophers should try to apprehend (and speak) the truth, even where the truth is rife with contradiction, inhospitable to fully consistent positions
&catherine
Well-known member
I guess this is where you see Mark's Spinozist position - that you can mechanically break down 'what is best' for people. I think it is difficult, at best, to justify any sort of 'political action' (crusading, teaching, campaigning...) without having a sense that a) there is a set of conditions that is best for everyone's interests, and b) you know what these conditions are. Whether or not you think this is compatible with some sort of pluralism (which is how I've interpreted your position) is another question.dominic said: