Don,
Re MH, the
yoga mumbo-jumbo statement was mine, not his. Here as in
In a famous
AA article entitled “The cultural ecology of
For my part,
the Draupadi cult in deep southeast
In brief, no
one who has either done field work in
Feedback and
nonlinerarity does not contradict a materialist strategy. And if you ever bother
to read Harris, this is what you’ll find that he said. Of course, established norms,
traditions, and mumbo-jumbo to a great extent influence and loop back into our
economic lives. Yet if you’re trying to derive fundamental statements about life
within a given culture, your best bet is to begin with issues of
subsistence.
Every
anthropologist knows that; which, by the way, Deleuze (for all his other
virtues) wasn’t—and it’s obvious that you’re lacking this formal/conceptual
background, as well. Your failure
to provide in-the-field citations show as much.
Harris’ contribution were published, in- the- profession, peer-reviewed demonstrations of which way the causal arrows generally goes, so to speak, and its significance therein. This is not to fully endorse his views by any means; but only to say that your accusation of “simple-mindness” is shameful, to say the least.
Furthermore,
my original employ of Harris was as an easy source for outsiders such as
yourself to reference what CL-S looked like qua anthro, at the time
that he was writing. Denouncing my suggested source, then, is totally besides
the point-- as doing so in no way makes CL-S any more or less
valid.
So my
challenge remains unanswered: what, precisely do you (or anyone else) find of
value in CL-S? Again, my only insight into this issue is admittedly peer-group,
within- the- profession driven.
This is to say that I fully endorse transversalities, out- of- the- box
explanations, interdisciplinary approaches, whatever. But again, this talking
horse must, eventually, have something interesting to say; or else the
cross-purpose of which you speak is to become glue and
dog-food.
Your
perspective on Deleuze is both interesting and doubtlessly correct in a creative
sort of way. Mine simply addresses the question on how individualities emerge
from a collective. Deleuze admitted
that his je-fele model was in part taken from Bergson, and I find it rather
remarkable that this might serve as a model for a theory of cinema.
Be that as it
may, perhaps the lack of understanding of the collective as doxa from which
individual intellectual accomplishment emerges might in some way be attributed
to a confusion of the cinematic with real life? Art
emphasizes the unique, but it’s nice to understand from what uniqueness
springs.
Oh, by the way, Deleuze absolutely detested CL-S….
Bill
----- Original Message -----From: Don HandelmanSent: Sunday, June 15, 2008 8:50 AMSubject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 13 Jun 2008 to 14 Jun 2008 (#2008-216)The first paragraph, Bill, was intended for Indrakan, not for you.
Your early reference to Marvin Harris should have put me right. Harris
was an out-and-out materialist, unfortunately a simple-minded one to
boot, of no help to any anthropology concerned with non-linear
organization, cosmic and social. Harris' idea of the most valuable
distance between two points was a linear constant. Whatever was lost
along the way was of no value and disregarded. Indeed, for Harris,
'spiritual devotion', religion, ritual, was 'mumbo-jumbo'. A rejection
of the potential in favor of the possible.
Social organization, social self-organization is anything but linear,
even as there are moments of lineal trajectory. My understanding of
Deleuze is different from your's. I understand virtuality as
potentiality, without limits, open-ended. Actuality emerges from
virtuality, interacting with virtuality, returning to virtuality.
Deleuze's use of the potential in place of the possible points to
this. The possible indexes the impossible, excluding the impossible.
Deleuzian virtuality rejects the limits that the possible establishes.
So, too, dialectics engage the possible. Dialectics depend on the
formation of parameters of value within which thesis and antithesis
generate synthesis, itself a resolution within these boundaries and no
further. Dialectics (despite the emergence of the third, synthesis)
are close to dualism and its resolution through mediation. Dialectics
engage with the possible, not the potential; this is the profound
weakness of dialectics and why their dynamics are no more than pseudo-
dynamics.
Of course the productions of knowledge are social phenomena.
Individual originality actualizes from the social yet subverts this,
just as the social restrains and controls originality. How is
originality perceived culturally? Take a look at Sharon Traweek's
Beamtimes & Lifetimes: The World of High Energy Physicists, a
comparison of of how Japanese physicists work together in contrast to
how American physicists do this. Or, a look at how American
primatologists understand rhesus monkey relationships in 'groups' in
contrast to the understanding of Japanese primatologists.
Critically discussing among peers our own and others' creativity ~
originality is a taboo subject for academics. This isn't a matter of
'genre'. These qualities are publicly assumed to be a sine qua non of
being a scholar, otherwise how can one be of value to scholarship? In
terms of peer judgements, all of us are publicly said to be creative ~
original, nonsensical. In the academic milieu in which I worked, the
buzzword was' standards of excellence', which fits so well with peer
review (of all kinds) that sets normative standards for thought
presented to academic publics. In anthropology (and likely in other of
the social sciences) creativity ~ originality in scholarly thought is
rarely written about, for obvious reasons. So, reading between the
lines is necessary. Oldish, but informative and not dated, are C.
Wright Mills', The Sociological Imagination, and Theodore Caplow and
Reece McGee's The academic marketplace.
By now I think we simply are arguing at cross-purposes. This thread is
counter-productive.
And, Kafka, yes, he went to the movies a lot.
Don
> Don,
>
> Was your first paragraph sent in error? For my part, I have no
> interest =
> in Indio-mumbo-jumbo about spiritual devotion, Hare-Krisna, the
> Gita..or =
> whatever. Indian mythology explains present cosmology. For an =
> anthropologist, this is interesting; but surely no reason to go
> native =
> in the mall.
> Deleuze's highly individualized context of "thought" refers to how =
> philosophy is done. Moreover, his constant use of "doxa" (that which
> is =
> taught) obviously suggests that lines of flight, virtualities, et al =
> originate from actualities, or what is known. Personal creativity =
> originating in-and deviating from-a particular base of shared
> knowledge =
> is likewise established by Kant as freedom in the Third Critique.
>
> So to give a direct answer to your question: absolutely, yes.
> Moreover, =
> it would be rather difficult to find a significant piece of
> knowledge =
> that wasn't social-if only from the point of criticism, revise, =
> re-critique, etc.'You know, that dialectical thing of Socrates?
>
> Yet you've raised an important point of subtlety regarding peerage
> that =
> I'd like to address because, perhaps, you've assumed that my
> "peerage" =
> is all about what happens within the cloistered confines of an
> academic =
> department. (Perhaps you're waking up nights screaming
> "Narratology!! My =
> God, I'm a realist stuck in a departmental-land of Dorothy and =
> friends!!! Aggghhh." My sympathies) Anyway, not.=20
>
> =20
>
> In a generic, socio 101 sense, peerage might be "formal" as in =
> "departmental tenure -driven", or as "informal" as e-mail note-
> passing =
> over the lack of black faces in "Iwo". Peerage means seeing others
> as =
> equal to the extent that one communicates as such. Nobody doesn't do =
> that. Even Kafka had friends.
>
> =20
>
> Now back, briefly, to CL-S: Whatever peerage he found, it wasn't
> within =
> the community of anthros circa 1960. That the brain contained a
> prete a =
> porter code for social structure wasn't provable, and discourse-
> wise, it =
> reminded the non-proof-oriented philosophical crowd far too much of =
> late, stale Husserl redux.=20
>
> =20
>
> So perhaps, then, the alleged philo-naive Americans might soak his
> stuff =
> in? Well, only if it's strategically placed next to Ayn Rand down at =
> Borders. Here we might well discover an artsy peer group nestled
> over in =
> the chairs behind self-help fervently discussing both, together:
> "Like =
> totally cool, man. Our brain is wired in plusnminus binomials that =
> explain why there's a virtue in selfishness. It reflects the fact
> that =
> society naturally consists of the haves and nave nots. It's, like,
> all =
> totally upstairs! We, the elite, are just wired for exploitition!"
>
> =20
>
> Well, maybe your particular peerage has been able to put CL-S to a
> more =
> sublime use: and if so, I'm all ears. Lots of words have been
> spilled to =
> the effect that he was a great thinker, but no one has been able to
> come =
> up with even a remote notion of what this greatness entailed. Have I =
> used my "talking horse that had nothing interesting to say" analogy
> yet? =
> It's taken directly from Marvin Harris, by the way.
>
> =20
>
> And lastly, kindly inform me of the genre of "anthropology" to which =
> you've been referring. Even a name or two would be nice. I'll be
> happy =
> to research with (reasonable) openness of mind, and reply
> accordingly. =
> This is because I totally agree in the transversal approach that
> cuts =
> across disciplinary lines; as long, of course, as the content
> therein =
> doesn't suck.
>
> =20
>
> Bill Harris
>
> ----- Original Message -----=20
> From: Don Handelman<mailto:[log in to unmask]>=20
> To: =
> [log in to unmask]<mailto:FILM-
> [log in to unmask]>=20
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:14 AM
> Subject: Re: FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 6 Jun 2008 to 10 Jun 2008 =
> (#2008-212)
>
>
> The Bhakti revolution made the idea of personal deity available in
> =20
> Hinduisms. In this sense bhakti devotion is intensely personal, as
> is =
>
> to an important degree the insight and knowledge the individual =20
> derives from this. In more Deleuzian terms, bhaktism generated =20
> multiplicity, and multiplicity, one could argue, is an excellent
> way =20
> of critiquing the limits of dualism (and of Hegelian dialectics).
>>
> I do doubt whether in the arts (and I understand much of
> anthropology =
>
> as closer to the arts than to the sciences) group effects nurture =20
> creativity. In scholarly terms, the creative act likely can be =20
> analyzed by dissecting its components and tracing the influences
> from =
>
> which these derive. Yet the creative act then cannot be
> reconstructed =
>
> from this deconstruction, though the influences of 'groups' and =20
> 'traditions' may well be specified. The exercise is somewhat akin
> to =20
> longstanding efforts in the History of Religions of understanding a
> =20
> ritual by discovering how each of its elements is derived =20
> philologically, and therefore attaining an understanding of what
> each =
>
> of these elements means, and then arguing that by putting these =20
> meanings together this provides understanding of how the ritual =20
> operates as a unit of practice. Doesn't work.
>
> Peer review in anthropology too often destroys creativity by not
> being =
> =20
> able to relate to this, yet by 'knowing' in some sense that the =20
> creative act may well threaten group norms of the discipline. Group
> =20
> effects are profoundly powerful in shaping the intellect to shape
> up =20
> in accordance with norm and fashion. Whether paradigm shifts point
> to =
>
> groups in science catching up with creative acts or point to
> creative =
>
> acts sufficiently domesticated to be acceptable in effecting
> smaller =20
> shifts, remains an open question. So, Bill, do you think the
> creation =
>
> of knowledge is the product of intellectual equals interacting =20
> critically, or of creative trajectories that go elsewhere (and so,
> =20
> that may well be unrecognized by peers ...), so that knowledge =20
> creation hardly emerges from peer equality. Is the generation of =20
> knowledge in the arts a function of peer equality and critical
> trust =20
> among peers? In emic terms, the terms of cultural understanding in
> =20
> native terms, we will find support for all these positions. Yet, =20
> analytically, we should never overlook the disciplinary functions
> of =
>
> peers who join as equals to police one another. I find this much
> more =
>
> powerful than trust among peers. To reiterate, peer review is a
> great =
>
> leveler, reinforcing the groups without which a discipline will not
> =20
> exist, yet simultaneously threatening creative acts that do indeed
> =20
> subvert the social organization of these groups.
>
>>
*
*
Film-Philosophy salon
After hitting 'reply' please always delete the text of the message you are replying to.
To leave, send the message: leave film-philosophy to: [log in to unmask].
Or visit: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/film-philosophy.html
For help email: [log in to unmask], not the salon.
*
Film-Philosophy online: http://www.film-philosophy.com
Contact: [log in to unmask]
**