S M O K I N G

[gek-opel]

I though I'd explained a bit clearer than this up-thread. What you have there in quotes is not what I've said here at all. For a start it's not 'capitalism' that is the problem - that's just a manifestation - the 'problem' is really us and our pathology. So, you can't tackle it without tackling yourself, you can't even understand it really I would say. To me going about it any other way is fairly useless and ineffective.

This relies on a very settled notion of the human self. And it also reduces everything political to the merely pathological, the psychological.

You could just as easily say- it is not capitalism which is the problem, the real problem is us and our pathology---> and hence we must alter OURSELVES to become adequate to the world of capital. The human must be rigorously taken apart (conceptually) and restructured to render us capable of continued existence within an inhuman domain. One way of doing tis would be to do liquify the perspective of the human entirely from any conception of reality as such.

 

[nomadologist]

This relies on a very settled notion of the human self. And it also reduces everything political to the merely pathological, the psychological.

You could just as easily say- it is not capitalism which is the problem, the real problem is us and our pathology---> and hence we must alter OURSELVES to become adequate to the world of capital. The human must be rigorously taken apart (conceptually) and restructured to render us capable of continued existence within an inhuman domain.

Exactly.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm losing my will to even argue this point anymore.

 

[gek-opel]

Exactly.

I never thought I'd say this but I'm losing my will to even argue this point anymore.

say it ain't so...

 

[nomadologist]

How many ways can you explain to someone that they've radically "assumed" a human subject that is heavily reliant on culturally determined notions of "nature" and "health" before it gets boring?

Based on this thread I'd say about 13 or 14 times.

 

[noel emits]

I'm in total agreement with you as far as the trap of critique goes. As a model it has to be abandoned... Critique alone fails, but to give up on reason entirely leaves us ... where exactly?

I'm not talking about abandoning reason. Analysis of these little details misses the big picture. Reason is useless here if it's not applied pragmatically to the situation, and sometimes it points past itself. Is reality entirly based in reason. Can we reasonably expect reason to come to grips with it all?

Your conclusions are utterly, tragically glib. How can anyone take you seriously with such a settled notion of "natural" from which we must remove the "viral barbs"... from my point of view reality is fucking viral in every direction, in every ontological register. The natural is a construct which emerges only as the negation of its opposite.

My 'conclusions' are rooted in experiment and experience. My notion of 'natural' is far from settled, it is utterly dynamic and specific to individuals and events.

You say that 'reality is viral at every ontological register'. Please explain what that means, how far does it go? Can we change the laws of physics through belief? Or does it just mean we have a hand in interpreting our reality?

Either way I would still say that the first thing to be done is to clear out a lot of junk from the attic to find out what's there. Destratify - get it all back together - make yourself a body without organs, it's the same thing. Become whole and reclaim your self. I think it's good to use various dialects of jargon so we know we're talking about a real process rather than an abstract theory that just relates to that process.

 

[noel emits]

How many ways can you explain to someone that they've radically "assumed" a human subject that is heavily reliant on culturally determined notions of "nature" and "health" before it gets boring?

Based on this thread I'd say about 13 or 14 times.

Bullshit nomad. You are assuming that I am assuming that. I'm fucking not. Those are your interpretations of those words, not mine.

 

[nomadologist]

Oh so now should we call in Merleau-Ponty? Or Sassure?

Let's talk about what the word "nature" means to YOU then, Noel. What is "nature"? This should be interesting.

 

[noel emits]

The human must be rigorously taken apart (conceptually) and restructured to render us capable of continued existence within an inhuman domain. One way of doing tis would be to do liquify the perspective of the human entirely from any conception of reality as such.

'Conceptually' in this sense has an exact parallel in physical being - they are the same thing and need each other. What you are saying here is something I pretty much take as a given. I think we are talking about the same thing basically, I just think that concentrating in the conceptual falls into a dualistic trap and assumes that it can all be done with mental gymnastics, it can't.

 

[gek-opel]

I'm not talking about abandoning reason. Analysis of these little details misses the big picture. Reason is useless here if it's not applied pragmatically to the situation, and sometimes it points past itself. Is reality entirly based in reason. Can we reasonably expect reason to come to grips with it all?

My 'conclusions' are rooted in experiment and experience. My notion of 'natural' is far from settled, it is utterly dynamic and specific to individuals and events.

You say that 'reality is viral at every ontological register'. Please explain what that means, how far does it go? Can we change the laws of physics through belief? Or does it just mean we have a hand in interpreting our reality?

Either way I would still say that the first thing to be done is to clear out a lot of junk from the attic to find out what's there. Destratify - get it all back together - make yourself a body without organs, it's the same thing. Become whole and reclaim your self.

This is pernicious bullshit! I have no desire to become a body-without organs or destratisfy... or worst of all "become whole" (like whole foods?) Reclaim my self? Next you will be telling me to return home to the humble ekstasis of the "clearing" of Heideggerean being. If anything we have not gone far enough...
Reason is not an end in itself, and must be applied in a manner appropriate to its task (cf Hegel's old "should we not be concerned that the fear of error is not just the error itself")

 

[noel emits]

Let's talk about what the word "nature" means to YOU then, Noel. What is "nature"? This should be interesting.

What matters is that there is bad stuff you need to get rid of before we can think sensibly about trying to improve the world.

 

[gek-opel]

'Conceptually' in this sense has an exact parallel in physical being - they are the same thing and need each other. What you are saying here is something I pretty much take as a given. I think we are talking about the same thing basically, I just think that concentrating in the conceptual falls into a dualistic trap and assumes that it can all be done with mental gymnastics, it can't.

It must be done through the processes of capitalism, not individualistic zen-mystical mind games or the merely biological. But just as much as altering Capital we alter the human itself.

 

[nomadologist]

Next you will be telling me to return home to the humble ekstasis of the "clearing" of Heideggerean being. If anything we have not gone far enough...

Hahah!

It actually does sound like he might break into that.

Back to the pastoral life in Heidelberg, looking at Greek statues all day and going for hikes.

 

[noel emits]

It must be done through the processes of capitalism, not individualistic zen-mystical mind games or the merely biological. But just as much as altering Capital we alter the human itself.

Capitalism doesn't exist. What is it? Or better, what is its opposite?

I say it's just a name mapped onto a subset of the effects of our general detachment from reality. The sleep of reason.

 

[noel emits]

Hahah!

It actually does sound like he might break into that.

Back to the pastoral life in Heidelberg, looking at Greek statues all day and going for hikes.

That's an image you've been sold. Well done.

Do you think I am prescribing certain behaviors? I'm not.

 

[nomadologist]

See that's funny, because I would say that capitalism is really the apothoesis of the Enlightenment project.

 

[nomadologist]

Then how exactly does one destratify in Noel's fantasy?

 

[noel emits]

See that's funny, because I would say that capitalism is really the apothoesis of the Enlightenment project.

It's not though really is it?

Maybe the tragic apotheosis of mechanistic materialism.

 

[nomadologist]

And the Enlightenment did not champion mechanistic materialism? Eventually logical positivism?

Anyway enough about that, that's another bout of ennui waiting to happen.

 

[noel emits]

Then how exactly does one destratify in Noel's fantasy?

Noel is trying to point out that there are direct and striking correlations between some of your favorite jargon and concepts and equivalents in other interpretive ontological maps that you might habitually find less palatable due to cultural prejudice.

 

[Eric]

looks like it's time for a smoke (Teatime for me)