10 books about ketamine? I didn't think there was that much literature about it.. I can only think of John Lilly and Carl Jansen. Would love to know what was on that list.
Postmodernity
- Thread starter sodiumnightlife
- Start date
10 books about ketamine? I didn't think there was that much literature about it.. I can only think of John Lilly and Carl Jansen. Would love to know what was on that list.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
tht said:
His use of it may seem idiosyncratic, but no maths degree should be necessary.
Could you possibly elaborate on how you see his events (his idea of an event understood as an eruption which is not counted by the structure or encyclopedia governing the situation, and stands on the edge of the void foundational to the situation, and so is unmediated by the historical and semiotic space structuring a social situation and thus provides a point of leverage outside of power for producing a truth.) and truth-processes (his truths - following from an event - understood as an active intervention in a situation that seeks to transform the situation, with a “truth-procedure” being that activity that consists in reconfiguring the elements of a situation in terms of the event) as restrictive, or his (interventionist) politics as dogmatic, gek-opel?
Woebot
Well-known member
i think you're right Guybrush. the policy in this particular situation in future is going to be to NOT BAN.
i've chatted with hmlt (who's grudgingly accepted this- though we may lose him of his own volition) and Mr.Tea (who will be back and who's promised he will try to avoid antagonising hmlt)
for the record (as requested by john eden and simply so people understand what i was driving at), here was the inflammatory avatar:
Last edited:
vimothy
yurp
In other words, you won't stop calling me a racist. To be honest, I have ceased to expect much in the way of courtesy from you, so I'm not suprised.
And I post at this discussion board because I enjoy a good argument. I'm not trolling. I want to communicate with people who disagree with me.
hundredmillionlifetimes
Banned
That will only end when you stop expressing racist views.
You'll not receive any 'courtesy' while you continue to actively disrupt this forum with racist, neo-fascist propaganda that is purely intended to win support for further war crimes and mass slaughter.
You don't know what an argument is. You enjoy being a troll, an intellectual terrorist.
Well initially I didn't think so either- and I don't think it HAS to be restrictive- the basic structure is a fantastic way of analysing innovative change within seemingly fixed systems. However, in his writings on the particular truth processes it does seem rather restrictive in ways which appear more to do with Badiou's personal background in French post-Maoist politics than to do with the basics of his system. For example his dogged insistance (thru l'Organisation Politique) that trade unions have nothing to offer in the political struggle of the worker (I mean there ARE arguments against trade unions, but not that coherently from within Badiou's system as I see it, especially given the activities of the OP). Also his insistance on "subtracting economics" from the political (and his claim that "the age of revolution is over"). One might also take him to task for his insistance that the turn of the century avant-gardes (ie- Surrealism, Dada, I think he mentions situationism here too) fail as truths (or are mere simulacra) because they fall into the trap of demanding an "end to art" so that a new art can be built in its place... his system is always subtractive, not destructive.
But outside of his own prejudices, perhaps, his schema is wonderful. I am interested in seeing how one could read environmentalism into it, along with attempts to reform the systems of economics (like the post-autistic economics lot)-- they seem to fit most of his criteria (event-declaration of event-"it happened!"-the slow process of being the subject to truth gathering every previously existing element and comparing, measuring it up to the truth, the slow forcing of the state to admit the new generic set etc)...
perhaps, but "modern" consciousness begins with a sense of separation from the ancient past, i.e., the renaissance project was aimed at recovering as much of the classical past as could be done -- which meant very little
i.e., the byzantines had a sense of "continuity" with the classical past, even though there was in fact great change and were countless mutations over the years -- how could there not be? 1000 years from fall of rome to fall of constantinople -- nearly 2000 years from plato to circa 1400/1500
(byzantine emigre scholars in northern italy sparked the renaissance in the west, as it happens)
the modern as such takes the shape of a "quarrel" against the ancients -- i.e., modern learning and techniques as superior to that of the ancients
so in political philosophy, at a very early date, there's machiavelli -- but the first full-on mdoern political philosopher is hobbes -- machiavelli and hobbes reject aristotle's teaching and promulgate a more realistic, (allegedly) more effective teaching
and then i suppose descartes is the first modern for straight philosphy
or whatever. i'm not a school teacher. the point is that victorians, as moderns, did not have a sense of continuity with the classical past. they may have been schooled in the classics, but such schooling could not bridge the chasm of 1000+ years. certainly matthew arnold knew that the classical and especially christian forms were dead
as for the postmodern, i think it is the consciousness of despair -- i.e., the despairing recognition that nothing can be done to improve man's lot absolutely -- i.e., that there is no fully satisfactory political solution -- that things are indeed a zero-sum game
and in science, i guess the postmodern begins with the notion of paradigm shifts, i.e., that although a fundamental way of approaching/understanding nature may yield great insights and knowledge, that same approach will close-off other questions and kinds of knowledge
he's reminiscent of heidegger's student hannah arendt in the above respects
arendt treats economic questions as mere administrative issues -- and she bases her disdain for the economic on aristotle's (or the classical greek) distinction b/w the public and the private -- or rather, this is perhaps mediated by her understanding of heidegger's reading of aristotle
but heidegger was never so openly disdainful of economic questions as arendt was
i.e., both arendt and badiou strike me as foolish in their contempt for economic issues -- i.e., foolish in attempting to substract the economic from the political
and with the late heidegger, i think this "despair" is a sense of irreversible decline -- i.e., that capitalism/globalization and modern science now have so much historical momentum that no successful interventions are possible
i.e., rousseau was a critic of the modern project and modern petty vanity, but he thought that he could ennoble democracy by recovering or emulating ancient virtue -- i.e., devotion to the common good of small political communities
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Perhaps this is one of the things I most dislike about PM, then: its unceasing cynicism, pessimism and general doom-and-gloom outlook (to say nothing of those who gleefully look forward to the apparently imminent 'downfall of capitalism' and all the war, starvation and general misery that would attend it). Of course there is no fully satisfactort political solution: this is the way of the world for as long as different people have different values, desires and priorities. But that's not to say that some political solutions can't be much better than others.
Things are not a 'zero-sum game'. Call me hopelessly naive and optimistic if you like, but I think life is getting better for most people most of the time. Of course there are still huge problems everywhere, and some particular problems which seem to be getting worse rather than better, but I'd rather people tried somehow to do something about them - even rehashing old ideas that have been proven non-starters by history, like communism, would be better than nothing - than simply threw up their hands and declared "We're all doooomed!" like the old Scottish geezer in Dad's Army.
Well these ARE oft-declared criticisms. But philosophers like Deleuze and Badiou are pretty much the antithesis to all that- (avowedly post or anti postmodernist) massively affirmative... Badiou even resuscitates truth, good, evil, love... (admittedly in radically different forms to the common or garden meanings)... my own position is filled with a curious form of militant hope- I'm not a nihilist and don't think that everything need be fucked, and nor do I think that the left has been defeated as such, or that the domination of Capitalism is a fait-a-complis. However, the left as it stands has about as much chance of starting the revolution as I have of starting nuclear fusion with a toothpick. This is a challenge, but only to invent, to create, to devise new ways of thinking. But inane positivity is not the way, (and amounts to my mind to little more than a form of insidious nihilism-by-proxy). Its good to hear you have such a positive view of the world Mr Tea, I'm sure it must be excellent for your sense of self esteem and mental well-being, but I don't know what evidence you have to draw on. A number of genuinely uncomfortable crises are evolving as it is. Imminent global climate change perhaps... or do you subscribe to the view that "it couldn't happen" "it CAN'T happen" "Everything will be alright in the end...?"
Indeed, perhaps even a modicum of terror might be required to achieve what could be achieved, but that in and of itself does not mean that it is not worth the price. I strongly believe there are "interventions" to be made, but in a new and perverse manner, striking with not against the irresistible flow of capital... what is needed is an after-left an after-capital.
Last edited:
Are there any things which are particularly important to read prior to 'Ethics' by Badiou? Or will it be relatively accessible?
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Absolutely not! GCC is very much happening - I've discussed it widely in other threads. I suppose my position could be summed up as: what's happening couldn't really be bigger in terms of potential negative consequences, people are already starting to wake up to it and do something about it (which is a Good Thing), but far, far more still needs to be done. I'm anti-fatalism because that's just as dangerous as blithe denial of the problem - more dangerous, in fact, because the evidence suggests that something fairly fatal *is* going to happen if we carry on as we are (so if we do nothing, they'll be proven right, whereas the denyers' corner is getting harder to fight every day). But recognition of and praise for the (admittedly modest) achievements made so far are necessary in order for people not to lose hope, which would prevent the much bigger changes that still need to be made from ever happening. Do you see what I mean? I don't think optimism and realism need necessarily be mutually exlusive, so if it doesn't sound totally laughable I'd like to call myself a realistic optimist. If everyone sits back and says "GCC is going to happen whatever we do", it's going to become the mother of all self-fulfilling prophecies.
Last edited:
Ethics was intended for French school children! Admitedly, they must be pretty smart, and the opening section slicing vigorously into the weaknesses in human rights and identity politics kind of assumes some previous knowledge of the positions he's attacking. But basically no, step on in...
I think the old pessimism of the intellect/optimism of the will is appropriate here. I'm not fatalistic about GCC, it is going to happen, (already has of course) but it need not be total unmitigated catastrophe. I'm afraid it might well turn out like that, as eventually action will be taken, but at too slow a rate. But it is possible that providing GCC doesn't utterly destroy homo sapiens that we might be shaken from our paralysis... there's the optimism bit I guess...
Mr. Tea
Let's Talk About Ceps
Oh, I'm sure that (the utter destruction bit, I mean) wouldn't happen: have you never seen Mad Max?
