Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

The new politics of meaning


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts
https://meaningness....ematic-politics
 

The systematic mode can, should, must be superseded—not by the communal mode, but by something that combines benefits of both. I think that is possible; I describe it as the “fluid mode.” (I haven’t given a proper account of this yet. There are beginnings here and here and here.)

A revolt against the systematic mode may force progress toward fluidity—if we escape simple nihilistic destruction.



#2
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,221 posts

From the cited article:

 

 

Occupy and the Tea Party. These movements were strikingly similar, although one was on “the far left” and the other on “the far right.” Both were highly upset about something, and wanted immediate change, but—it was much noted at the time—neither could say what they wanted, why they should get it, or how anyone could give it to them.

 

Perhaps the problem was not that Occupy protestors could not say what they wanted, but that others could not understand what they were saying about what they wanted. Many specific proposals were floated by the Occupy movement and became the foundation for things like the Sanders campaign, criminal justice reform, a focus on the huge inequality of wealth and power, etc.

 

Then, this fellow who talks about Occupy as being incoherent proposes this in its place.

 

 

I describe it as the “fluid mode.” (I haven’t given a proper account of this yet.)

 

Hasn’t given a proper account, yet Occupy folks are the ones who are incoherent?

 

Examples of the beginning of giving a proper account:

 

 

Meta-systematic, complete stance: reinstates rationality, universality, coherence, but recognizes their nebulosity.

 

Groundless creative production; awareness of the intertwining of nebulosity and pattern; synergistic remix. Collaborative, improvised, intimate.

 

This gobbledygook is supposed to be considered coherent?

 

I am not saying that the essay is totally worthless, or that it is not suggestive of some interesting ideas.  Just some clarification is definitely needed. Especially given the charge regarding Occupy as being “incoherent”.


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls


#3
starspawn0

starspawn0

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 921 posts

Perhaps the problem was not that Occupy protestors could not say what they wanted, but that others could not understand what they were saying about what they wanted.


Maybe a few OWS people did know what they wanted, but I distinctly remember people like Douglas Rushkoff writing defenses of Occupy, where he argued they were still trying to figure out what they were about. I think Cathy O'Neil ("Math Babe" and proud member of Occupy) did the same, but my memory could be in error.
 

Hasn’t given a proper account, yet Occupy folks are the ones who are incoherent?


He's not starting a movement just yet. If he every decides to, I'm sure he will have a clearer vision.



#4
caltrek

caltrek

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,221 posts

Well, I think part of starting, and more importantly continuing, a movement was figuring "out what they were all about." 


The principles of justice define an appropriate path between dogmatism and intolerance on the one side, and a reductionism which regards religion and morality as mere preferences on the other.   - John Rawls





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users