Determinism - subtle anthropo-
morphism - says that everything occurs as if in a machine as understood by myself.
But every mechanical law is irrational at base - experimental… . The meaning of
the word determinism is vague to the same degree as that of the word freedom… . Rigid determinism is profoundly deistic. Because you have to have a god to be able
to see the entire infinite chain. It is necessary to imagine a god, the face of a god, to
be able to imagine this logic. It is a divine point of view. So that the god who was
confined to the creation of the universe is reinstated in order to understand this uni-
verse. Whether one likes it or not, a god is a requisite part of the idea of determin-
ism - and this is a harsh irony.
…the means of salvation are apparently the same as those of the loss…
Just to reassure him [Badiou], we will not cut off his fingers, for how would he do arithmetic then?
Major 21st-century field studies of ecocriticism problematize the notion that pre-modern cultures lived in perpetual harmony with nature (Garrard 120-1, 133; Buell 23). To question this notion, both Garrard and Buell reference Krech’s work which was groundbreaking and controversial for examining evidence that not all North American Indian tribes hunted animals such as the buffalo “sustainably,” as that term has come to be used in modern contexts. Krech concludes that the dominant image of the Indian in nature is based on assumptions that take for granted that each indigenous person “understands the systemic consequences of his actions, feels deep sympathy with all living forms, and takes steps to conserve so that the earth’s harmonies are never imbalanced and resources never in doubt” (Krech 21). He then analyzes evidence that both supports and confronts the image of the “Ecological Indian” thriving in “public culture” today (213). Krech’s conclusions about the mixed and contradictory anthropological record has been used by some scholars to imply that species extinctions have not entirely been the fault of Europeans and therefore indigenous peoples should not be held up as models of ecological awareness. However, Krech himself concludes that while not all indigenous groups could be said to be “conservationist,” many “clearly possessed vast knowledge of their environment” and “understood relationships among living things in the environment” (Krech 103, 212).
Joni Adamson (2012). Whale as cosmos: Multi-species ethnography and contemporary indigenous cosmopolitics (via socio-logic)
I fucking love Laruelle’s anti-badiou
What seems to be a circle is in reality broken, opened up (rather than distended) between a cause in-the-last-instance and an occasional cause (between a prior-to-first cause and a first cause). More than distended, as a topological and plastic body would be; instead, open as a ‘unilateral duality’ whose identity is inalienable in duality, or whose prior-to-first term is immanence through and through, and transits every transcendence with radical immanence. This distribution is not just another case of the transcendental; we shall call it ‘immanental.’ It is a transcendence fallen into-immanence, where immanence is not reciprocally alienated in the unilaterality that it determines.
…to the planification that, in Badiou, replaces the old dialectic, I ‘oppose’ unilateral duality; to the exception of the Idea that is the complementary idealist part of materialism, the prior-to-first exception of the human in te world; to the materialist position, lived materiality; to the ‘circumstance’ the conjecture; to corpuscular Being, the undulatory One-in-One; to the Cantorian multiple, the particulate multiple; to the stellar brilliance of philosophy, a quantum of the flash of the Logos; to mathematical formalism, a generic and materiel formalism with no residual bond to real arithmetic; to the mathematical Idea that one would contemplate to save oneself, the humans who alone will save themselves; to topological torsion, the ‘quarter turn’ and the vector’; to Plato (a gnostic who betrayed the gnosis of which he was capable, in favor of Pythagoras and transcendent philosophy, as Badiou does in favor of Cantor), I oppose the figure of the philosopher as demi-god, inexperienced and precipitate. It remains to discover who to oppose to the world, to the rather botched work of a God who is mischievous and (himself also) inexperienced.
A change is called for in the usage of traditional mathematical and geometrical means that are too attached to an authoritarian and harassing philosophy, in favor of the suppleness and the plasticity of a lighter apparatus—for example an algebra, as used in quantum thinking.
…philosophy has always been more or less a catchall, a corral for scientific statements, for virtuous and political slogans found along the road of tradition, all the while being also that ‘bone-bag’ (Plato) that collects up the cadavers of humans.
i did get a chance to watch the last 20 minutes of Life of Brian today. it’s enormous.
A storm, like a nation, has an indefinable abstract existence. Men speak of England when they mean neither its land nor its government nor its people, but merely some symbolic centuries-old ideal. And more, when men think thus, tears come to their eyes, and they march with high hearts to battle. So also in every storm exists a something which meteorologists cumbersomely name ‘a center of low pressure.’ This is neither air, nor cloud, nor wind, nor rain — yet, as with a nation, this mere abstraction represents the continuing reality of a storm.
George R. Stewart, Storm (1941), Fifth Day (via homilius)
[I]t is precisely because Chaplin portrays a kind of primitive proletarian, still outside Revolution, that the representative force of the latter is immense. No socialist work has yet succeeded in expressing the humiliated condition of the worker with so much violence and generosity. Brecht alone, perhaps, has glimpsed the necessity, for socialist art, of always taking Man on the eve of Revolution, that is to say, alone, still blind, on the point of having his eyes opened to the revolutionary light by the ‘natural’ excess of his wretchedness. Other works, in showing the worker already engaged in a conscious fight, subsumed under the Cause and the Party, give an account of a political reality which is necessary, but lacks aesthetic force.
Roland Barthes (The Poor and the Proletariat)
But: This kind of reading of Chaplin forces us to confront a problem about which I’ve always been uncomfortable - that in every gag is a deficit of good manners, that the punchline remains a wretched person.
The most basic act of normativizing disciplinarity at work here is not directly related to the increasingly comfortable fit between gender-normative homosexuality and neoliberal policy. It is rooted in a more fundamental and culturally pervasive disavowal of intrinsically diverse modes of bodily being as the lived ground of all knowing and of all knowledge production. In an epistemological regime structured by the subject-object split, the bodily situatedness of knowing becomes divorced from the status of formally legitimated objective knowledge; experiential knowledge of the material effects of one’s own antinormative bodily difference on the production and reception of what one knows consequently becomes delegitimated as merely subjective. This in turn circumscribes the radical potential of that knowledge to critique other knowledge produced from other bodily locations, equally partial and contingent, which have been vested with the prerogatives of a normativity variously figured as white, masculinist, heterosexist, or Eurocentric — as feminism, communities of color, and third world voices have long maintained, and as the disabled, intersexed, and transgendered increasingly contend.
Susan Stryker, “Transgender History, Homonormativity, and Disciplinarity,” 2012
I am drooling all over this essay. (via queertheoryissexy)
- The presence of one occupation (Al Qaeda) isn’t justified, and doesn’t miraculously nullify the actions of the previous one. (U.S.-NATO)
Replacing a country under contested control to one that will absolutely be presented with abusive authoritarians (extremist Sharia adherents) is…
I will have an undergraduate class, let’s say a young white male student, politically-correct, who will say: “I am only a bourgeois white male, I can’t speak.” … I say to them: “Why not develop a certain degree of rage against the history that has written such an abject script for you that you are silenced?” Then you begin to investigate what it is that silences you, rather than take this very determinist position-since my skin colour is this, since my sex is this, I cannot speak… From this position, then, I say you will of course not speak in the same way about the Third World material, but if you make it your task not only to learn what is going on there through language, through specific programmes of study, but also at the same time through a historical critique of your position as the investigating person, then you will have earned the right to criticize, you be heard. When you take the position of not doing your homework- “I will not criticize because of my accident of birth, the historical accident” - that is the much more pernicious position.
HOLY SHIT YES YES YES
it’s also SUCH a reverse victimization thing like
when ~antiracist allies~ say this shit it always includes this sort of faux-self-deprecating element
and intentionally or not, there’s the implication that we white people in general are being ~silenced~ by the ~cruel~ person of color, and that ~oh no we’ve been taught to hate ourselves for our whiteness and believe all these self-deprecating things~ which of course is EXACTLY the white guilt script that more blatantly racist whites looking at this will want to see as more ‘justification’ to dismiss analysis of racism.
and it’s inevitably framing people of color as mean or angry or ~reverse racist~ and ourselves as beleaguered; it’s inevitably fishing for compliments, for coddling, for having the conversation recentered around us and derailing the actual conversation taking place.
Spivak is literally the best tho