Brian McAndrews wrote:
[snip]
> > "For one human being to love another: that is perhaps the most difficult of
> > our tasks; the ultimate, the last test and proof, the work for which all
> > other work is but preparation." -Rainer Maria Rilke
I like the distinction between work and works. An assembly
line worker works. Bach produced works. Some speak of
"the Beatles' collected works". De gustibus....
>
> The work that Rilke sees as most important stands in sharp contrast to the
> work that Keith and many others deems critical:
>
> On Sunday Feb. 24/02 Keith Hudson wrote:
>
> > "Meanwhile, America and Europe will have to start thinking seriously about
> > reforming their school systems because their governments, industries and
> > universities will no longer be able to attract the thousands of
> > highly-qualified scientists, engineers and medical people every year from
> > Asia as they do now. The financial and career opportunities in Asia will be
> > just as great, if not greater."
The conservative German political theorist Arnold Gehlen
has a fine book: _Man in the Age of Technology_, in which
he wrote:
[n]o matter how indispensable the expert may
become in a rationalized society, his own [narrowly
functionalist] perspective (which originated within
the world of crafts and agriculture, and then moved
on to prosper in that of industry) is of no ultimate
significance. (1957/1980, p. 161)
>
> What is critically important for life should also be found in what we do for
> our livelihood. Actually our life and our livelihood should not be seen as
> separate subjects. Living with joy, purpose, and a sense of contributing to
> the greater community should be the meaning of our lives and our livelihoods.
This happy situation would be the end of *alienation* (sociological) and
*splitting* (psychological) -- or at least the end of most of these formations.
> When looking to the past we should try to find examples of this being the case
> and learn from these examples. We should also learn from what was not life
> giving.
We should treat the past as a semiotic smorgasbord, from which
to take ideas (etc.) we like, but not to feel constrained to
kowtow to.
> The industrial revolution grew out of a radically different view of
> the universe. We were lead to believe that we lived in a clockwork universe.
> We were part of a machine. Our bodies were machine like and made up of parts
> (Mary Shelly's Frankenstein). Humans could be made to be part of assembly
> lines and schools were created in that image. Physics and biology tell us even
> lonelier stories now. There is no creator (designer) there is only probability
> and random chance.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the industrial
revolution was part of the *construction* of such a radically different
view.
On the other hand, it is important to keep in mind that just because
the universe was more "touchy feely" *OUR PLACE IN IT* was not
necessarily better: Being a well maintained machine may well be
preferable to being a really hated and much kicked cat.
More seriously, as Hans Blumenberg points out,
when man was the center of the universe, he was *at the bottom of it*.
Heaven was *superlunary*.
I agree that physics and biology tell us lonely and impoverished
stories. But I argue the reason is different: The stories are lonely
and impoverished because they fail to include the act of doing science,
*as if it did not exist*. Doing science is ontologically very
different from being a scientific specimen!!! Read thy Husserl!
>
> Which takes us back to Rilke's quote and this thing called love.
>
> More to follow,
Freud said that the two requirements for a good life were good love
and good work.
May we again be able to say what Medieval monks said, but
may we cease to alienate divinity from "the conversation we are":
Orare est laborare.
The notion of life-made-whole is, of course, implacably
opposed to capitalism, which sees life as
subordinate to economic process rather than economic
organization as serving life....
I have in my life encountered one person who
managed to live a whole life even within techno-capitalism.
As I said to his manager: "You should learn from
him, because you will never meet another person
like him again in your life". The manager did not
avail himself of the opportunity so offered to him.
As for myself, I had other issues which prevent me from
living this kind of Enlightenment in the Age of TechnoCapitalism --
in part that I always had to struggle to keep up with the technical
requirements of my job (you've heard of Maslow's hierarchy, yes?).
The path to the reinvention of work lies in the direction,
as Robert Musil pointed out, of seeking "the mystical" at the
heart(core) of the most precise technological work. If
Brittany Speers(sp?) publicly said that she
had orgasms in doing engineering
drawings instead of in sneezing, she could set an
example for young persons (and older ones, too)....
Nature doesn't give a shit about us (it's promiscuous...).
Traditional society actively oppresses us (it's mean...).
Real modernity would nurture us (see, e.g., Jan Szczepanski's
essay "Individuality and Society, about which I have
a summary at http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/individuality.html ).
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
