Atheism has become part of official American dialogue, Dawkins, Hitchens.\u00a0 Are there ways for the emanicpatory dimension in regligious discourse, if yes, are there limitations to it … if yes, then cultural imperialism, etc.<\/p>\n
Bruno Bosteels (young guy, good looking, nice haircut, shirt button down collar<\/p>\n
Zizek whatever you do you cannot squeeze Paul into the line of saints, there was a deep resonance between Maoists and preaching sainthood … Maoist saints.<\/p>\n
Lin Bao second man after Mao, he said the origin of revisionism is fear of death.<\/p>\n
Augustine: I totally agree with you, he is for me the arch-bad guy.\u00a0 Fred Jameson St. Augustine as a social democrat: SA inventetd bullshit about inner struggles precisly so Christianity can function as a state religion.<\/p>\n
Pope and Napoleon: Napoleon took the crown and crowned him, we know what you want to do destroy christianity
\nYou can discern an inner tension in christianity: the entire church org. as one desperate attempt to contain the founding gesture of christianity itself.\u00a0 What is this founding gesture: Me and Alain, deeply agree with terror founding violence, but I agree with Rene Girard’s (the enemy) point is that in the death of christ is not simply a repetition of founding violence, but the mechannism to Break withthe logic of Sacrificial Founding Violence.<\/p>\n
I bring war not peace, if you do not hate your father\/mother you are not with me:\u00a0 You shouldn’t get too attached to worldy beings, as if Christ is some primitive jealous god … zizek’s point is he talked to bishops\/priests, the best answer from a priest in Poland, “my god, I can’t answer this now you surprised me” Zizek replied hey you had 2000 years to reply.<\/p>\n
Bosteels: The bombing of presidential palace in overthrowing Allende the Chilean sept 11
\nFascist revolution are not paternal revolutions, there are son rebelling against fathers.
\nif we are all materialists, why not simply formulate things directly, can’t we say it better directly … don’t go through christianity<\/p>\n
Atheist=Christianity
\nDeath of Christ is death of god there is no big Other, the death of this secularized religion, ie., there is no god but a form of big Other.<\/p>\n
Atheist w\/o Christiantity you go through a big Other
\nmaterialists who still believe in the big Other<\/p>\n
We don’t believe, but a big Other believes for us. We can be athiests, while the bourgeois subject is a britsh utitlitarian, he doesn’t believe but the commoditieis beleive for us.<\/p>\n
Christianity is a much more radical athiesm.<\/p>\n
Bosteels replies: collateral undesired advantages, it’s simply acceptable why not make those arguments in a materialist way, where your interlocutors are not Christians, Millbanks etc.
\nBosteels let’s be atheist materialists, why this talk about perverse core of Christiantity.\u00a0 Dominant religious ideology that’s been part of a state apparatus for hundreds of years.<\/p>\n
Zizek: The enemy today , with all our sturggle against fundamentalists, the enemy is logic embodied in secular apparatuses, I don’t know any fundamentalist theologists who like Zizek.\u00a0 Even sympathetic theologists are paternalists, … it’s not enough to be against relgion, to be truly an atheist today, its absolutely to include the theological dimension of secular state appartus itself.<\/p>\n
Susan BUck
\nPolitics is not Ontology
\nthe ontolgoical is never political<\/p>\n
la politice (empirical politics)\u00a0 —->\u00a0 le politique (essence of the political)<\/p>\n
(ontic) empirically given\u00a0\u00a0 to ontological (essence of existence)<\/p>\n
A communist ontology is a contradiction in terms!!<\/p>\n
MAN IS BY NATURE A SOCIAL ANIMAL isn’t that an ontological claim
\n– man’s alienation from nature<\/p>\n
in actual political life this ontological man doesn’t exist
\n– gay straight, black white, citzen, non-citizen, worker<\/p>\n
Yes the Young Marx developed a philosophical ontolgoy but nothing follows from this politically<\/p>\n
Marx of the 1844 manuscripts talking about ‘social being’ but No specific orientation follows from this.<\/p>\n
How do we turn this social fact of this work … into a communist practice?\u00a0 How to conceive of a communist practice?\u00a0 Not in the Heideggarian way of what it is to be a caring being.<\/p>\n
Buck-Morss is anti-Heidegger
\nToday’s philosophically naive social sciences and philosophy retreats to the humanities celebration of affect, contingency, positivism<\/p>\n
Due to the epistemoligcal consequences, reject creating an ‘ism’ out of any belief because they turn into cosmological systems.\u00a0 Too closed and hermetic, essntialist.<\/p>\n
To argue with Negri of a historical ontology is DUBIOUS, he wants an ontological fix to avoid the dangers of relativism.\u00a0 With due respect to Negri there can be no ontology of history, it is the realm of the unpredictable because of human action.<\/p>\n
Brecht described as non-elegant thinking: Buck-Morss<\/p>\n
pragmatic approach to doing theory<\/p>\n
a tiger does not proclaim its ‘tigretude’ it pounces.<\/p>\n
a theoretical pragmatics:\u00a0 things acquire meaning because of their relation to other things and this relation is flexible<\/p>\n
SBM emphasizes that the big 3 guys read newspapers: the political centrality of the event, the unpredictability of the EVENT.\u00a0 It is not truth that punches a whole in knowledge, it is social action, the truth it reveals is the possibility of freedom.<\/p>\n
A pragmatics of the suddenly possible.<\/p>\n
– What’s happening?
\nWhat’s new, is there an event going on here.\u00a0 What gives, what is yielding.\u00a0 What’s going on?\u00a0 are certain structures not changing.<\/p>\n
What to do?
\nTarry over these questions for a while to view them in a commie mode.<\/p>\n
What’s happenning?\u00a0 The event is not a miracle that overcomes us with awe and strices us down it lifts us up.\u00a0 the possibility to act in common.\u00a0 it is an empirical question.<\/p>\n
non-violent protetst, SBM is big on this non-violent aspect.<\/p>\n
Steve Jobs father was a Syrian Muslim [this has nothing to do with SBM talk]<\/p>\n
Maybe this is excessive subjectivity: maybe a new way of doing theory,
\n“I’ve seen it before, I know what it means, or it doesn’t rise to the level of philosophical sophistication etc.”<\/p>\n
The big thing<\/p>\n
Bosteel’s reply to SBM:
\nCapital even if we don’t call it capitalism, produces abstraction, abstraction is not simply a spectral deviation, it is the one universal being produced, teh capitalist universal.\u00a0 the nominalist universal is not a philosopher’s mistake, itis part and parcel and funcitoning of the captilaist system,<\/p>\n
social nature of human animal — I am active as a human being active as a social being.<\/p>\n
Adrian Johnston
\n1975 Theory of contradiction Badiou based on Mao’s essay on Contradiction: Badiou asserts primacy of disunity over unity.
\nEMERGENTISM???
\nlife is irreducible to matter
\nthought irreducible to life<\/p>\n
non-deterministic materialism<\/p>\n
capitalist biologist: fixed instincts and fluid providers, medicate or kill those who will not make peace with it.<\/p>\n
REWORK THE ENGELSIAN DIALECTICS OF NATURE<\/p>\n
The part played by labour in transition from ape to man: the closest Engels comes to use dialectics as human beings as labouring creatures.<\/p>\n
bio-plasticity (Malabou re-writing the dialectic)
\nhuman being as self-transformative subjects-objects<\/p>\n
split between manual and intellectual labour produced out of manual labour, intellectual labour erases its own origins in manual labour, thus the birth of idealism.<\/p>\n
Levins and Lewontin were good with Engels, and Steve Rose too.\u00a0 organisms are not passively determined by their environments, but act to change their environments in turn.<\/p>\n
tensions in engels materialist dialectics of nature
\n– criticized arid Hegelian formalism projected onto nature, methodical formalization of Hegel.
\n– AJ is doing an immanent instead of external critique of Engelsian dialectics<\/p>\n
Dialectics is science of inter-connections
\n1. quantity into quality
\n2. interpenetration of opposites
\n3. negation of negation<\/p>\n
QiQ = emergentism of LevinsLewontins etc.\u00a0 anti-reductivist dialectics of nature.
\n– weak constraints as regards the concrete localizations of entities
\nbiological objects are internally heterogeneous, at the nexus of a large number of weak forces, and subsystems independent of one another, and the effects on organism appear as random.<\/p>\n
Technical legal stipulations – Tax code\u00a0 as a SYMBOLIC SYSTEM
\n– every year laws are changed, and loopholes are created, unforseen possibilities will arise from structural ineractions with changes, additions subtractions —<\/p>\n
loophole like short-circuits zones of anomie<\/p>\n
transcendental materialism is deeply indebted to Engels DM.<\/p>\n
ohh he doesn’t like Rose.<\/p>\n
democratic materialsim vs. materialist dialectic<\/p>\n
Lysenko a terrifying nosedive into dogmatism and paranoi purges.<\/p>\n
DM appropriation of the natural sciences is something Adrian wants to DO.<\/p>\n
Engels DM engagement with the sciences and carrying forward by Soviet scientists, is an image of past not recognized by present as one of its concerns which threatens to disappear.
\nJohnston RETURN TO ENGELS DM!\u00a0 Might equip left against a globalized capitalism focused on natural sciences economics and ideologically.<\/p>\n
Better than cultural ideological critque against capital.\u00a0 The only critiques worth doing are IMMANENT ones.<\/p>\n
Ecology genetics health and agriculture.<\/p>\n
18th century French Materialism must be revised against the UNIVERSITY DISCOURSE<\/p>\n
The sciences are ripe for joining in movements of history!\u00a0 Engelsian projects for theorizing the sciences.<\/p>\n
Necessary condition for current renewal of communism, not only more political economy, a revival of dialectics of nature, nurtured by cuttiing edge science.\u00a0 Repeating anew Engels DM philosophy of the natural sciences.<\/p>\n
A kind of society of materialist friends of Hegelian dialectics.<\/p>\n
\u017dizek: You know this concept DM has a history far from unproblematic.\u00a0 So when you are saying return to this traditioin of DM.\u00a0 You make it sound like its a glorious return to a tradition.<\/p>\n
I agree with AJ is what we should get rid of is this idea of\u00a0 science identified with exploitation of nature, we should free science from this.\u00a0 Relativism, we llike to replace science with “fields of knowledge” isn’t it eurocentrism to privlege our science, do we have any right to etc. different modes of discourse blah blah.\u00a0 Here we agree.\u00a0 But you have to be more evil to Engels … you passed gently over language.\u00a0 Engels at his most stupid.\u00a0 With development of work it got so complex that people had to invent language to talk about it.
\nNegation of Negation: all DM that I know, even if we include Engels and Lenin their understanding of dialectics stops at interaction A influences B and B influences A.\u00a0 With proper negation of negation you need more complexity than just interaction.
\nThere is one mega revolution theory of relativity, quantum physics.\u00a0 with every great scientific revolution the theory of materialism has to be refined.
\nIt’s something new, how to read it in a materialist way, without watering it down in a old school way.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Atheism has become part of official American dialogue, Dawkins, Hitchens.\u00a0 Are there ways for the emanicpatory dimension in regligious discourse, if yes, are there limitations to it … if yes, then cultural imperialism, etc. Bruno Bosteels (young guy, good looking, nice haircut, shirt button down collar Zizek whatever you do you cannot squeeze Paul into … Continue reading “susan buck-morss adrian johnston 2011 conference New York December”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[100,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8456","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-hegel","category-zizek"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8456"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8717,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8456\/revisions\/8717"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8456"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8456"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.terada.ca\/discourse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8456"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}