Maybe it isn't so much a refusal to know (ignorance), so much as it might
be a dominant/defensive self-centeredness; a.k.a, privilege=individualism,
self-absorption/self-as-metaphor and the other residual effects/affects of
this queered ideological mutation
(as opposed to, though not excluding the material transformations of)
industrialization and Enlightenment,
...a refusal of responsibility, a distance from organic awe/awareness...?
> Globalisation is exemplary. Of course, like God, it doesn't exist
>>>and I dare anyone to define it without creating an idiotic tautology.
Come on : double dare? ha ha:
Globalization is empirical evidence of the theory of postindustrial chaos.
,
>>>its a theme that historically follows closely on the heels of any new
>>>communication technology which, however handy for the masses, ultimately
>>>serves the purposes of those who could profit from extended organisational
>>>capacities.
. Capitalism + anarchy = postindustrial chaos. How to
salvage/reinvent/recreate/rediscover/rewrite a moral or ethical
consciousness in such a state?
>>
>>WOW. You cynicism is exquisite! ha ha.
>
>Cynicism? Hell! This is the clear and uncontestable, irreconfootable,
>proven-time-after-time-result of empirical research and therefore is
>absolute and valid for ever end ever amen!
ya, i admit, I too accept these atrocities as inescapable, and I too see
the task as one of navigating such tyrannical territory ;
FOR EXAMPLE:
maybe like the 18th century Acadians, of Nove Scotia.
Anyone else know their history?
It provides a compelling metaphor for rebellion in the name of cultural
intelligence and self-respecting autonomy. I can provide more info if
anyone is interetsed, or
if this is not very xmca of me, then email me privately and I can offer
some historical anecdotes which, I think, illuminatet the notion of how
internal dissension in the anarchic structres of chaos can, at times,
survive.
>
>---snip --
>And that's brings me to another blight: an obsession with getting rid of
>anthropocentrism. Okay! There's other stuff out there - legitimate points
>of view no doubt - worthwhile, necessary, etc ad infinitum. But how in the
>hell can we engage with these until we clean up our own dungpile?
Phil, babe, seems we both know that everyone's shit stinks! :-)
>
>>...more than one language that everyone can speak, I am leaning towards
>>mulitlingualism,
>>that we might need to be more versed in many languages,
>>such as the language of science & mathemtatics, the language
>>of rhetoric, the language of philosophy, the language of fascism,
>>and so on.
[snip - reluctantly though, Phil, you crack me up!]
>It's okay for the intelligent wordsmiths and hermeneutically sophisticated
>among us to say: open a discursive space for all dialects. However, the
>fundamental of democracy - a healthy one, not the tokenistic kind we
>ususally get - is a language (a public dialect) in which _everyone_ can
>participate. That is, no matter where people come from in a given
>democracy, they should all have the public debates open to them, not closed
>as they most ususally are - especially when they count the most.
Absolutely. NEVERTHELESS (as Katie Hepburn announces at the end of "African
Queen", at the impossibility of blowing up that gunship, "Nevertheless,
that is what happened."
Public debates do take place, but in my experience, the lack of critical
consciounsess invariably interferes,
and self-interest takes over. There is so much resentment, now, aganist
what "difference" means, the targets of social hostility are so clearly
defined, krist. I feel like wearing skirts and high shoes, you know?
Why aren't I SAFE in this world? Why is my peril so acceptable to so many?
How do you expect us to continute to WRITE our frustrations before we sayy,
screw the canon man, show me the change.
wow. am I having a bad day or what?
>
>We're all blind: Reality is a patchwork quilt. There's a
>lovely little exercise in Maturana & Varela's 1987 (Tree of Knowledge) that
>shows quite plainly exactly how blind we are - we literally can't see great
>chunks of the world that we're looking at. Nevertheless, our clever little
>minds stitch up the blind spots into a nice neat continuum. If you do the
>exercise, you have to spend some time for it to work right. That's because
>the mind doesn't like to have its weaknesses exposed to itself. Especially
>the biggies like literal, sheer blindness.
Okay I was just talking/arguing with a friend about this:
1> there is an empirical reality which exists outside of our imagined
conceptions of reality;
2. reality is only available to us through our interpretations.
An inescapable paradox. What to do? Accept that emprical realities exist,
and act in the interests of...? What? Whom? Whose interpretation?
BAH! I've been reading too much moral philosophy. I'm drifting.
There is hope. There are a few who can see, and hear, and speak. We just
need to
look for 'em [hint: they're artistis]
ok.
a "Romantic" at heart, I remain,
diane
phew like verbose or what!
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8