Commedia dell'arte seems somehow never to be played when we have the real II Capitano (Blair, Bush) in power as they play the role without irony and in the knowledge they will never be in the trenches. The draft would bring a new sharpness to the 'new world order'. A phase in my science fiction story has me and Chris, post-acopalypto in the boredom of space work, watching clips of 21st century porn and Blair and Bush's speeches in an attempt to understand how the wars came about in pre-GROC (genetic, relational, open communication) society. I owe the concept of this to meeting Orn. The GROC gives access to an inner-generated world of pleasure that leaves porn in the dust, though its roles in social communication and learning are more important. Chris and I have merely academic intent in seeking to establish that human political communication was once all pornographic. Space is that boring in the early 22nd century. No doubt, for audience satisfaction, we will have to show an unhealthy interest in the real thing on our return to Earth as gravity once again courses through our red blood. This is a world in which deception is easily 'groc(k)ed'. NIce, enigmatic, compliment-backhander Orn. I'm touched - but enough play with words! Paulo Frere had ideas on theatre and I wonder whether many of Orn's links play to the 'theatre of the oppressed'. We have enough for a 101 programme and perhaps should post one. Gabby could be our Wittgenstein.
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.
