My feelings are that a new literature and revival of art might be the way to a broader understanding. The ghastly current stage actually prevents consideration in reason and imagination. I wonder whether there is any real content at all behind the presentations other than a kind of pornography.
On 11 Jan, 23:45, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm pretty sure, there is enough space for the distinctive other, too. > > On 11 Jan., 06:20, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Yet again Neil, your Il Capitano is well played! > > > On Jan 10, 6:12 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I wish, in many ways, that I was still footling about with lasers in a > > > laboratory, only having to give any concern to public argument over > > > delayed trains and the continued failure of my rugby league team. One > > > can do something rather similar in my subject, which is broadly about > > > how organisation comes about and develops, ending up in esoteric > > > arguments in 'good sense' whilst despising 'common sense' (these are > > > Gramscian terms). Science has no truck with common sense and academe > > > in general regards it as a theatre of the absurd. One can reverse the > > > gaze, and we often hear phrases like, 'he's bright, but has no common > > > sense'. > > > Some way into academic views, one can find the notion of 'paradigm', > > > that knowledge is always expressed in generic terms of reference and > > > one must understand the root metaphors or ways of life involved. > > > Science can be viewed as just such a form of life. People doing this > > > neglect many of the difficult questions this raises, such as whether > > > you'd ask a bunch of physicists to produce a Bose-Einstein condensate, > > > or a grannies' knitting club. Complex ideas of human understanding > > > are involved here, but it is too easy to lapse into a form of > > > knowledge deconstruction that denies evidence entirely. > > > > Philosophy can seem to quickly unhinge everything, but this is > > > generally a case of a little knowledge being a very dangerous thing. > > > Absurdity might be a place to understand how weak our arguments often > > > are. How did the Chinese rationalise 'foot-binding', the British > > > 'witch-burning' (we hung most of them really) and so on? Currently, > > > in the UK we hear our politicians saying we must find ways to > > > encourage the best people into politics, the absurdity being that > > > these politicians are clearly not the best people at all, looking like > > > a bunch of money-grubbing scum to many of us. > > > > My thesis is that argument is dangerous to power, and that as power > > > cannot do away with argument (as it uses a form of it), it ensures > > > control of it. We are encouraged to forget this through control > > > measures that are 'hidden' as manners. The abstract argument from > > > here is very complex, but there are some practical events in history > > > that can help to make them specific. Even these take considerable > > > space to detail. At bottom in this, power clearly hides evidence from > > > us to prevent proper argumentation. > > > > Theory aside (plenty is written if anyone wants to venture into the > > > field), I wonder what role our more emotional appreciation might play > > > in changing current politics? I, for instance, would rather watch a > > > Sartre play (an agony) than our current mainstream current affairs and > > > news - at least Sartre had some ludic intent to provoke, the latter > > > now merely soap opera of 'happy shiny news for happy shiny people'. > > > Even satire programmes are almost unwatchable because we know the > > > jokes are the same as ever and part of business-as-usual. Everything, > > > in some sense, becomes a niche-industry, including protest. Even 'The > > > Graduate' has become true, with a real life 'Mrs. Robinson', perhaps > > > even more added irony in that it has taken place in Northern Ireland, > > > a last bastion in bigoted morality. > > > > Many radical studies of Soviet Paradise noted the theatre of the > > > absurd, not just in show-trials, but in a gloying kitsch; Arendt noted > > > the banality of Nazi evil. I partly read Bellow's 'The Dean's > > > December' in Bucharest before the wall came down - his point being > > > that the moral climate was freezing in East and West. I didn't agree > > > then - we were free of some of the brutalities here. Now I believe we > > > are going backwards, and faster than we know. Politics as we have it > > > is absurd - they like it that way and much as in the soviets this may > > > be how they maintain their terror. > > > > One classic move in the media is to stick a microphone in front of Joe > > > Public, which seems to me to resemble monkeys, typewriters and > > > Shakespeare. He gets 15 seconds of fame saying something bland, and > > > they claim balance as the rest of the air-time is given to the very > > > people who have been failing us for 20 years and more.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
