Tuesday, April 12, 2011

On progressive dialogue

In this complex, a number of associated thoughts: the Satrean ideal of the "active man", politically resolute and got it together ala Che Guevera, say. This linked with the business of the "presentation of philosophy" as "the book" (leaving aside, if it is possible, the issues of the death of the author and whatever massive capitalized enterprises there are long those lines), and dialogue.

With some interactions on reddit, I am finding that on the on hand as usual, dialogue doesn't go that far, on the other hand, it does, occasionally, go somewhere. But the issues what would it mean for there to emerge a more substantial "philosphical" trajectory that really does arise in dialogue? And perhaps this could like with the idea of the opening of thought in the likewise disruption of the notion of the book as such and the whole business of "thinking through being only to enter right back into it 'whole'" ala, again, the Satrean idea. Or a Foucauldian one, etc.

Rather, I favor a concept of thoughtaction that can never fully "return to the world" whole, and which has an inherent critique of that very "wholeness", holisim, "completeness" and the manners in which the sense of the "arena of being" is constituted. This includes the "post-postmodern" questions of how and nonviolence.

This makes so much sense to me, and feels at the same time to a tremendous "assault on", or divergence from, so many of the major assumptions of the world. And yet so right...

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

Always be slightly wrong

When moralence and errolence are used to obviate anything that get in their way, it is needful to always do something slightly wrong and make the work that of dealing with the "consequences" of this. That is, deal with the seizures, unbridled attacks, using the "wrongness" as the "excuse" to do anything, get rid of anything, ignore everything, etc. Why? Because that is what happens, that's why. It is the major source of what is wrong; it is the major thing that is wrong, plain and simple.

For me, this goes way back. Sometime in 6th grade, I got the sense that my friends were going into a kind of "ganging up" thing that I knew had something wrong in it. I told a story to my friends, of putting a penny on the railroad tracks. It stretched the penny (flattened it) a bit. I was going on to say how far it stretched it. Right then, in my mind, I felt a strong impulse to exaggerate this because of the reaction I knew was waiting around the corner were I to do so. I remember this moment as clear as day. I said it was about 3 inches or something, which is too big for a stretched penny on RR tracks, I think. They seized on this, which I knew they would do. I felt there was something wrong with this seizure. There was.

What was wrong goes very deep. Deeper, indeed, than I could have imagined. And my insight was spot on.