-----------------------------
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 04:42:41 EDT
From: Eric Willstaedt <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Fight Club
In a message dated 6/3/2002 4:23:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< We have Tyler as the Dionysian element in
Jack's brain with Jack proper being the Apollo. >>
YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am I an idiot because I watch movies without even THINKING about Nietzsche
or
about the Dionysian element or even have Apollo cross my mind????
TRUE, I am PROBABLY a card carrying certified half wit, been trying to
become
a full wit, but at least I enjoyed the movie without too much thinking.....
just LOVE this list...
Eric
Attempt at a reply to Doyle Saylor <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: His reply to Jon Baldwin Tuesday, May 28, 2002 11:24 AM
DS wrote:
Your points illustrate what I think are weaknesses of Post Modernism. Post
Modernist don't have common views, and asking for common views is extremely
difficult activity for a non-Post Modernist in engaging Post Modernists.
There is no in common way to simplify Post Modernism to communicate easily
what one is talking about.
[[Jon writes: Man, postmodernism is over anyway. We should ask what "was"
postmodernism, not what "is" postmodernism. Postmodernism is a bit early 80's
dont you think? Wasn't it just an academic publishing ploy? It's not
important. My guess is that what is important is deconstructionism and
post-structuralism - dont confuse these with postmodernism. Major differences
as big as a kite.
Anyway I don't believe that what was traditionally held to be 'postmodernism'
by a particular language community necessarily did exclude the possibility of
a 'common view'. Also I think the ideas of postmodernism are no less complex
than any other genre of philosophical thought (if indeed po-mo was a genre of
philosophical thought).
Sartre is just as complex and just as simple. Although it appears that he is
no longer 'fashionable'. Apparently Levinas is the main man. Isn't that
interesting and revealing - philosophy has fashions, cycles of vouge. Implies
there is no such thing as disinterested knowledge. I reckon that Sartre, in
the long run, is actually more important than Levinas. Levinas is toyed with
by Derrida. You just need 'Violence and Metaphysics' and 'Adieu Emmanuel
Levinas' to get that. I think Levinasian ethics are diabolical. The extreme
concern for the other is, it seems, simply a reversal of the self-interested
individual of classical political economy. Extreme concern for the other is
at the cost of the self. Self and other must interweave and be undecidable.
Not decided in favour of the self(interestedness) or the other (as in
Levinas). Derrida deconstructs this for us. I like the 'call' to ethics of
Levinas - yes we must have concern for the other (other in all it's
extension, other in terms of conceptual otherness, in terms of psychological
otherness, in terms of physical otherness) but we should not sacrifice
ourselves to, and for, this. Levinas demands too much, he decides the
undecidable and that in itself is unethical. He makes of man a use-value, he
sanctions against waste. I dont want to work, I want to waste. I want to get
wasted.
The notion of the two-party face-to-face is also interesting, but violent
against the 'third'. I mean this is all just Derrida. Like I said I think
Sartre is much more interesting than Levinas - although I must be out of
academic fashion. Are flares in? What type of hat should I wear this summer?
Sartre left behind a very complex scheme of thought regarding ethics which is
still to be confronted, unpacked, and responded to today.
I think I read someone on here say that Sartre was 'too' political. Or
disregarded his philosophy in favour of what turned out to be some dodgy
political stances. What is wrong with Sartre stating his politics? Sartre
spoke out and was political. Heidegger said nothing. But his nothing was also
political. I know whose politics I prefer. When it comes the notions of the
earth, blood, gathering and 'es gibt' Heidegger is wrong and
indistinguishable (or is it undistinguishable?) from nazi ideology (although
this might be giving too much credit to nazi ideology).
Anyway Doyle, dont read Derrida's 'Of Grammatology', it's a bit old hat
nowadays, not very fashionable. Read the recent and political stuff where the
ideas of deconstruction are explicity made practical (if I can say such a
thing and if I can propagate the practicallity of undecidability???) Go for
Specters of Marx, Politics of Friendship, Given Time, Of Hospitality. The
Work of Mourning.
Man, who would ever recommend Of Grammatology??? The fiend!!! Probably the
same person who would continually post on here all the time. Sublimating his
sexual exhibitionism by displaying his so-called philosophical knowledge. Hey
dude, we know you have a penis! We know you aint castrated! Stop flashing me.
Lighten up a little. Stop using and abusing the readers of this film-philo
thing in exhausting your libidinal energy.]]
[[Back to my friend Doyle, who wrote:]]
I can't very well write a less superficial treatment of some claims of some
Post Modernists except by following my own view of how to approach that
work. The point in your asking for something less superficial in my view is
to work together in producing brainwork. You basically want your
understanding to be adequately attended to and expressed rather than in some
way that short changes the depth and meaning you understand of Post
Modernism. The collaborative process can be more or less in depth. Various
levels have their place in producing understanding, but agreement upon some
process of doing work in common is virtually impossible with a Post
Modernist because the standards we might adopt are philosophically a clash
with Post Modernist philosophy.
[[ I (Jon) reply: Ok. No collaboration. I do think that we could have reached
some kind of understanding that would have benefitted us both. Man, we
could've reached nirvana. But yeah, you bet ya, we clash philosophically.
Incidently I am not a postmodernist, what would a postmodernist be? I have
never ever heard or read anyone who claims to be a postmodernist. It's like
if you claim to be a po-mod then by definition you aint. The concept is, at
best, meaningless. Is that why I like it?]]
[[Anyway Doyle wrote:]]
DS:
I am addressing simplified claims in my statements. I think you and I might
agree about what is sometimes called rule boundedness. That technical
phrase does not directly have much to do with arbitrariness, but it
indicates the limits of saying one thing is the other via laws and rules.
Structure is limited by contingency. I am thinking of two meditations on
this issue which I think are profound, first from Susan Oyama, "The Ontogeny
of Information, Developmental Systems and Evolution", Duke University press,
second revised edition 2000. Secondly, I have not read this book, but I am
starting to read, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory", S.J. Gould,
Harvard, 2002.
[[ I reply: As Bob Dylan sings in 'Idiot Wind' - "I can't even touch the
books you've read"]]
I agree that an in depth focus upon the issues is called for. I would
hesitate to write in depth on an email list, because the average reader
doesn't read more than about two pages. There would have to be a clamor for
more depth for me to undertake more depth. But the response you have to
what I wrote illustrates the problems with too simple an expression of
claims.
[[ To which I reply: The beast that is the 'average reader', eh? How'd you
know they only read two pages? I dont even read half a page. Am I thus below
or above average? I dislike the people that just sit there and dont write
anything. Especially the ones who have important things to say. Especially
the ones who can tell us all about George Lucas, for instance. Eh, Robert?]]
[[And on we go. Doyle (I like that name) wrote:]]
DS:
I purposely used a film sequence to avoid the much deeper issue of editing
footage. I believe embodiment filmosophy would and will address what you
bring up about for example Eisenstein. What is the relationship between
footage is fundamentally a question of memory and how to understand memory.
[[ I write: Good luck with your concept of embodiment filmosophy. Spectacular
defeats are worth more than banal victories. I'm not seduced by your idea,
nor do I, at all, feel compelled to respond.]]
In that sense neural networks are important. CG elsewhere wrote about how a
tree is a summary of all the trees we have known. How are we to understand
that? Eisenstein's work was meant to evoke the complexity of human
associations, but technically Eisenstein was clueless about neural networks.
[[ I say: Even brain surgeons are (still, actually) clueless about neural
networks!]]
As a human being I am in a room typing a reply on my computer. The desk top
has various office related supplies. They are a 'montage' of objects that
juxtaposed are what I use to do my work. The linear editing of movies does
not do justice to the problem of the objects on my desktop. That is
essentially an issue of interactivity and especially how the body relates to
those objects. I doubt very seriously that Eisenstein had a sense of what
synthesis in a neural network means. As a consequence the material reality
of synthesis in Eisenstein's work is lacking.
[[ I say, idiotically: Eh?]]
[[Doyle then said: ]] I find Hegel useless in a filmosophy sense.
[[Jon says something like: Is Hegel useful in any sense?]]
DS: [[Then said...]]
We are social animals in which getting the same point across to each other
is very important. If you can't learn to use tools from me, which most
animals have a great deal of trouble learning how to use tools from each
other, then as a human being we fail each other.
We learn to see red, and call red red. When I use the word you show
evidence that you understand me. The literal differences we have in life
experience do not matter in the sense of exchanging those words. Taking
into account the contingent nature of the process, there is still
fundamental to human beings the possibility of saying red, meaning red, you
hearing and understanding red, and knowing when I call a chair red, that my
attention to that chair is shared with you, and you think that red chair is
the same chair you are talking about.
[[ I said, blushing at my lack of memory: Hasn't Umberto Eco done something
on the semiotics of colour? What was it? I was once drunk with someone and we
discussed something like this point. He said, something like, - 'Tell me
what red is without pointing to a red thing.' If I remember correctly I
quickly changed the subject.]]
[[Doyle finished with:]]
To preserve this to a reasonable length I am stopping here. Of course you
deserve more response, but I would try over time and many conversations to
address that issue. With respect then for your words to me,
Thanks,
Doyle Saylor
[[ I finish with: Doyle I dont deserve any response. I dont deserve any
respect. You keep doing what you gotta do. I think you and I would have a
ball if ever we met, I get the impression that we would be real friends. I
hope my afternoon drinking has not impeded on this attempt at a response.
It's just in England (where I am) it is a bank holiday and I was bored so I
opened the vodka and beer, and I am a bit depressed because England only drew
in the World Cup. And I am a lot depressed cause of the Queen's Golden
Jubilee. Monarchy, aren't ya just sick of em? The only thing that cheered me
up was the following post (and I echo the YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
<< We have Tyler as the Dionysian element in
Jack's brain with Jack proper being the Apollo. >>
YIKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Am I an idiot because I watch movies without even THINKING about Nietzsche
or
about the Dionysian element or even have Apollo cross my mind????
TRUE, I am PROBABLY a card carrying certified half wit, been trying to
become
a full wit, but at least I enjoyed the movie without too much thinking.....
just LOVE this list...
Eric
[[I like Eric.]]
|
