There's always a lot of talk of the need
to have a moral compass,
but where's the ontological compass?
The socio-ontological bearings?
Rudderless,
All at sea.
Further reading: Social Ontology.
09 November 2014
17 October 2014
Defeat of freedom in Germany
In the dénouement of his novel, Der Untertan (The Loyal Subject), Heinrich Mann describes very precisely the defeat of liberal strivings in Germany:
"Sie [die Mächtigen 'heute' 1897] hüten sich, die Dinge auf die Spitze zu treiben wie jene Privilegierten vor der [1948er] Revolution. Aus der Geschichte haben sie leider Mäßigung gelernt. Ihre soziale Gesetzgebung [1880er unter Bismarck] baut vor und korrumpiert. Sie sättigt das Volk gerade so weit, daß es ihm sich nicht mehr verlohnt, ernstlich zu kämpfen, um Brot, geschweige Freiheit." (Der Untertan Zeitverlag 2009 S.376)
"They [those in power today, 1897] take care not to push matters to crisis-point like those privileged ones before the [1848] revolution. Unfortunately, from history they have learnt moderation. Their social legislation [passed in the 1880s under Bismarck] takes precautions and corrupts. It satiates the people just enough so that it's no longer worth it to seriously fight for bread, to say nothing of freedom."
Mann's novel describes graphically the extinguishing of freedom in Germany through its main characters, including especially the Kaiser's victorious "loyal subject", Diederich Heßling, but also the declining liberal Buck family, whose son is speaking in the quotation. There is a tragic trajectory of German history from 1813, when German liberals joined forces with the conservative nobles to repulse Napoleon, through the collapse of this alliance of forces after 1815 to the failed 1848 revolution, the victory of Prussia over France in 1871, the unification of Germany under the Prussian Junker, Bismarck, the rise of German militarism under Kaiser Wilhelm II with its world-imperialist ambitions culminating in the First World War and German defeat, the subsequent rise of Nazism and a second attempt by Germany to achieve world-domination and, finally, the post-war social welfare state (Sozialstaat) in which "it's no longer worth it to seriously fight for bread, to say nothing of freedom".
Today, the Sozialstaat seems to be collapsing inexorably under its own weight, its subjects being ever more anxiously concerned only with order and securing against erosion of the material standard of living, with being looked after.
"Sie [die Mächtigen 'heute' 1897] hüten sich, die Dinge auf die Spitze zu treiben wie jene Privilegierten vor der [1948er] Revolution. Aus der Geschichte haben sie leider Mäßigung gelernt. Ihre soziale Gesetzgebung [1880er unter Bismarck] baut vor und korrumpiert. Sie sättigt das Volk gerade so weit, daß es ihm sich nicht mehr verlohnt, ernstlich zu kämpfen, um Brot, geschweige Freiheit." (Der Untertan Zeitverlag 2009 S.376)
"They [those in power today, 1897] take care not to push matters to crisis-point like those privileged ones before the [1848] revolution. Unfortunately, from history they have learnt moderation. Their social legislation [passed in the 1880s under Bismarck] takes precautions and corrupts. It satiates the people just enough so that it's no longer worth it to seriously fight for bread, to say nothing of freedom."
Mann's novel describes graphically the extinguishing of freedom in Germany through its main characters, including especially the Kaiser's victorious "loyal subject", Diederich Heßling, but also the declining liberal Buck family, whose son is speaking in the quotation. There is a tragic trajectory of German history from 1813, when German liberals joined forces with the conservative nobles to repulse Napoleon, through the collapse of this alliance of forces after 1815 to the failed 1848 revolution, the victory of Prussia over France in 1871, the unification of Germany under the Prussian Junker, Bismarck, the rise of German militarism under Kaiser Wilhelm II with its world-imperialist ambitions culminating in the First World War and German defeat, the subsequent rise of Nazism and a second attempt by Germany to achieve world-domination and, finally, the post-war social welfare state (Sozialstaat) in which "it's no longer worth it to seriously fight for bread, to say nothing of freedom".
Today, the Sozialstaat seems to be collapsing inexorably under its own weight, its subjects being ever more anxiously concerned only with order and securing against erosion of the material standard of living, with being looked after.
22 September 2014
Critical thinking's success
A critical thinker asks, "How do you account for critical thinking's success?"
Says I, "It consists in successfully missing the point."
"And what, pray, is the point?" asks the critical thinker critically.
"It ain't no use in sittin' 'n' wonderin', babe,
if you don't know by now," (quoting Dylan's Don't Think Twice).
"Well, I'm off to Paris -- invited keynote, you know," chirps CT cheerily.
"It's downright dangerous for success to think twice," I murmur to myself,
"What you need's a sure instinct for its sweet smell."
CT to himself, on the way to the airport, "Clearly a case of sour grapes."
Says I, "It consists in successfully missing the point."
"And what, pray, is the point?" asks the critical thinker critically.
"It ain't no use in sittin' 'n' wonderin', babe,
if you don't know by now," (quoting Dylan's Don't Think Twice).
"Well, I'm off to Paris -- invited keynote, you know," chirps CT cheerily.
"It's downright dangerous for success to think twice," I murmur to myself,
"What you need's a sure instinct for its sweet smell."
CT to himself, on the way to the airport, "Clearly a case of sour grapes."
21 September 2014
Essence of truth as effectiveness, and 3D-time
(English version of the blog post dated 04-Sep-2014, by request).
Linear thinking rests on the usual conception of linear time (mathematized as continuous, real variable, t), and this is not understood in mainstream scientific thinking or elsewhere. What's that nonsense supposed to mean about 'three-dimensional time' or even a 'time-clearing'? At most, 'critical' (say, ecological) thinking manages to move from linear time to 'cyclical time' in harmony with so-called 'nature' (fashionable code-word: sustainability).
Perhaps we should pose for ourselves the question, 'What is an electron?' That would be an interesting experiment because the question is apparently a philosophical one. But if you look around, you immediately notice that science does not ever really pose this question, because it says merely that the electron is a 'charge of force' (a scientifically correct, but, on inspection, superficial answer), describing instead genealogically the experimental 'discovery' of the electron during the 19th century by mathematical physics (J.J. Thomson, in particular) in connection with the development of an electromagnetic theory by scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell. Without having studied mathematics for several years, it's not at all possible to understand this very sophisticated theory, so you can only describe it to the uninitiated from the outside in general and hopefully in an intuitively graphic way.
Even if to some extent you get the gist of how this mathematical electromagnetic theory is built, the question concerning what a 'charge of force' is still remains unasked. To understand what force is, you first have to go back to Newton with his three simple mathematical laws of force (i.e of motion). Newton's conception of force (_dynamis_) and movement (_kinaesis_ as a force at work), however, is ultimately Aristotelean. He adopted and merely mathematized the Aristotelean ontology of movement, at whose centre the concept of energy (_en-erg-eia_) stands. Greek philosophy from Parmenides to Aristtole grappled with the question, "Why is there movement at all, rather than standstill?" Modern science cleverly evades such an unheard-of question, believing simple-mindedly instead that it has empirically refuted Aristotle once and for all and made his theory 'objective', thus overcoming it. Forget Aristotle!, says modern science. As empirical facts you can see with your eyes prove, Aristotle's eyes were wonky.
In phenomenological seeing and in philosophy in general, of course, it's not a matter of sensuous seeing, but seeing with the mind, although the senses certainly can also be of help. With regard to the electron, too, it's a matter of an historical cast of the being of beings (an historical hermeneutic As that serves as the ontological scaffolding for the world), so that the electron is only given (exists) for as long as this cast of being (the electromagnetic field theory) is given, and it is given only as long as it is true -- corresponding to a likewise historical cast of the essence of truth. In the Modern Age, this essence of truth is effectiveness, so that the electron is given only in correspondence to the essence of truth AS effectiveness, i.e. effective causality coupled with linear time. You can see the effectiveness of the electron everywhere in today's world. Electromagnetism works! Indeed, without the electron (seen AS such through a certain definite mathematico-physical cast of being), this, our present-day world (with, say, its electricity, telephone, aeroplanes, electronics, television, the fast approaching cyberworld that is rolling in over our heads, etc. etc.) would not exist at all.
If things work, why should you rack your mind by putting today's essence of truth as effectiveness into question? Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride! Today's philosophical ethics merely poses the question, what should we do in view of the effectiveness of modern technologies? The debate around modern technologies invariably turns stupidly around the pros and cons, the plus and minus, i.e. around what technology effectively brings 'us' in the bottom line. Any other kind of questioning does not come into view at all. As if 'we' (who are 'we'?) had everything under control. As if 'we' were the subjects whom technology serves rather than those subjecting 'our' selves ardently to the will to effective power, striving to cast 'our' selves securely, calculatively along the time-line..
Only the "step back" (Heidegger) into the 'time-clearing' (Eldred) opens up an Other Perspective in which also the interplay of valuation among people and things, despite all the perfectly valid and practically adequate ontic pre-conceptions, can become ontologically visible at all. It's simply not enough to speak of 'processes', because there are also production processes, and the valuation interplay is not 'productive', 'leading forth', i.e. it does not lead forth any fore-seen result into presence, but is, well, playful, and therefore often surprising. An ontological conception of interplay as power play is required.
Further reading: 'Being Time Space' and The Digital Cast of Being.
Linear thinking rests on the usual conception of linear time (mathematized as continuous, real variable, t), and this is not understood in mainstream scientific thinking or elsewhere. What's that nonsense supposed to mean about 'three-dimensional time' or even a 'time-clearing'? At most, 'critical' (say, ecological) thinking manages to move from linear time to 'cyclical time' in harmony with so-called 'nature' (fashionable code-word: sustainability).
Perhaps we should pose for ourselves the question, 'What is an electron?' That would be an interesting experiment because the question is apparently a philosophical one. But if you look around, you immediately notice that science does not ever really pose this question, because it says merely that the electron is a 'charge of force' (a scientifically correct, but, on inspection, superficial answer), describing instead genealogically the experimental 'discovery' of the electron during the 19th century by mathematical physics (J.J. Thomson, in particular) in connection with the development of an electromagnetic theory by scientists such as Faraday and Maxwell. Without having studied mathematics for several years, it's not at all possible to understand this very sophisticated theory, so you can only describe it to the uninitiated from the outside in general and hopefully in an intuitively graphic way.
Even if to some extent you get the gist of how this mathematical electromagnetic theory is built, the question concerning what a 'charge of force' is still remains unasked. To understand what force is, you first have to go back to Newton with his three simple mathematical laws of force (i.e of motion). Newton's conception of force (_dynamis_) and movement (_kinaesis_ as a force at work), however, is ultimately Aristotelean. He adopted and merely mathematized the Aristotelean ontology of movement, at whose centre the concept of energy (_en-erg-eia_) stands. Greek philosophy from Parmenides to Aristtole grappled with the question, "Why is there movement at all, rather than standstill?" Modern science cleverly evades such an unheard-of question, believing simple-mindedly instead that it has empirically refuted Aristotle once and for all and made his theory 'objective', thus overcoming it. Forget Aristotle!, says modern science. As empirical facts you can see with your eyes prove, Aristotle's eyes were wonky.
In phenomenological seeing and in philosophy in general, of course, it's not a matter of sensuous seeing, but seeing with the mind, although the senses certainly can also be of help. With regard to the electron, too, it's a matter of an historical cast of the being of beings (an historical hermeneutic As that serves as the ontological scaffolding for the world), so that the electron is only given (exists) for as long as this cast of being (the electromagnetic field theory) is given, and it is given only as long as it is true -- corresponding to a likewise historical cast of the essence of truth. In the Modern Age, this essence of truth is effectiveness, so that the electron is given only in correspondence to the essence of truth AS effectiveness, i.e. effective causality coupled with linear time. You can see the effectiveness of the electron everywhere in today's world. Electromagnetism works! Indeed, without the electron (seen AS such through a certain definite mathematico-physical cast of being), this, our present-day world (with, say, its electricity, telephone, aeroplanes, electronics, television, the fast approaching cyberworld that is rolling in over our heads, etc. etc.) would not exist at all.
If things work, why should you rack your mind by putting today's essence of truth as effectiveness into question? Sit back, relax and enjoy the ride! Today's philosophical ethics merely poses the question, what should we do in view of the effectiveness of modern technologies? The debate around modern technologies invariably turns stupidly around the pros and cons, the plus and minus, i.e. around what technology effectively brings 'us' in the bottom line. Any other kind of questioning does not come into view at all. As if 'we' (who are 'we'?) had everything under control. As if 'we' were the subjects whom technology serves rather than those subjecting 'our' selves ardently to the will to effective power, striving to cast 'our' selves securely, calculatively along the time-line..
Only the "step back" (Heidegger) into the 'time-clearing' (Eldred) opens up an Other Perspective in which also the interplay of valuation among people and things, despite all the perfectly valid and practically adequate ontic pre-conceptions, can become ontologically visible at all. It's simply not enough to speak of 'processes', because there are also production processes, and the valuation interplay is not 'productive', 'leading forth', i.e. it does not lead forth any fore-seen result into presence, but is, well, playful, and therefore often surprising. An ontological conception of interplay as power play is required.
Further reading: 'Being Time Space' and The Digital Cast of Being.
17 September 2014
Electron Liberation Movement
The First Greek Beginning laid down
the ontological blueprint
for causa efficiens
that led ultimately
to electrons' being compelled
to perform forced labour.
For whom?
For the bearers of
the boundless will to efficient power
over all kinds of movement whatsoever.
To wit: us.
Maxwell's equations lay down the law
according to which electrons
(and photons) move.
Electrons are charged with force.
When a force is at work, it does work.
The rate at which a force does work is its power.
So a power expended over time does work, too,
and an electron is also a power-charge
which it expends when it is forced
to work along the time-line
Aristotle bequeathed us.
Without this effective forced labour
of electrons along the time-line
according to Maxwellian laws
of electromagnetic motion,
today's world as we know it
would collapse.
More than that:
it would be inconceivable,
unthinkable.
Starting with physics, Maxwell's laws,
perhaps suitably quantized,
hold sway also in chemistry
biochemistry, molecular biology
through to today's neuroscience.
Bingo!
So thank Maxwell, Newton and Aristotle?
This, our modern Western world,
is supposed to be free and democratic.
Democracy implies and demands
that the laws governing our lives
be transparent.
But who really understands
Maxwell's laws of motion of electrons,
written in a mathematical language
legible only to the initiated?
A tiny caste
of mathematicians and physicists?
You don't care that you don't understand?
Why?
Because these laws work;
they are effective;
they deliver the goods
of cyberliving;
they have been experimentally tested
by experts.
You trust this caste of experts
blindly.
You subjugate yourself
willingly.
What about the electrons
forced to work effectively
along linear time?
You don't care?
What if the electrons
were liberated
from the forced time-line,
the one-dimensional temporal gulag,
into the three open dimensions
of the time-clearing?
Ever thought about that?
What kind of world would that be?
Who would we have then become?
Further reading: The Digital Cast of Being, 'Turing's cyberworld of timelessly copulating bit-strings'.
the ontological blueprint
for causa efficiens
that led ultimately
to electrons' being compelled
to perform forced labour.
For whom?
For the bearers of
the boundless will to efficient power
over all kinds of movement whatsoever.
To wit: us.
Maxwell's equations lay down the law
according to which electrons
(and photons) move.
Electrons are charged with force.
When a force is at work, it does work.
The rate at which a force does work is its power.
So a power expended over time does work, too,
and an electron is also a power-charge
which it expends when it is forced
to work along the time-line
Aristotle bequeathed us.
Without this effective forced labour
of electrons along the time-line
according to Maxwellian laws
of electromagnetic motion,
today's world as we know it
would collapse.
More than that:
it would be inconceivable,
unthinkable.
Starting with physics, Maxwell's laws,
perhaps suitably quantized,
hold sway also in chemistry
biochemistry, molecular biology
through to today's neuroscience.
Bingo!
So thank Maxwell, Newton and Aristotle?
This, our modern Western world,
is supposed to be free and democratic.
Democracy implies and demands
that the laws governing our lives
be transparent.
But who really understands
Maxwell's laws of motion of electrons,
written in a mathematical language
legible only to the initiated?
A tiny caste
of mathematicians and physicists?
You don't care that you don't understand?
Why?
Because these laws work;
they are effective;
they deliver the goods
of cyberliving;
they have been experimentally tested
by experts.
You trust this caste of experts
blindly.
You subjugate yourself
willingly.
What about the electrons
forced to work effectively
along linear time?
You don't care?
What if the electrons
were liberated
from the forced time-line,
the one-dimensional temporal gulag,
into the three open dimensions
of the time-clearing?
Ever thought about that?
What kind of world would that be?
Who would we have then become?
Further reading: The Digital Cast of Being, 'Turing's cyberworld of timelessly copulating bit-strings'.
16 September 2014
Brave New World arrived
Aldous Huxley's dystopia
of a Brave New World
has long since arrived.
At the latest with the rise of neuroscience,
that, without resistance,
has seeped into every pore of 'our' thinking
- in science, the media, in politics and policy -,
'we' have willingly entered the happy new land.
'We' - who are we?
Those cast by history
along its Western trajectory
from the First Greek Beginning.
Now we are progressing into the cyberworld,
fascinated by shiny gadgets, wearables, implantables.
We cheerfully adopt them for the sake of
convenience, efficiency, effectiveness,
maximum longevity.
Thus we enthusiastically consummate our destiny,
allowing ourselves to become
absorbed relentlessly by that realm
of circulating bit-strings
copulating in countless Turing machines.
Thus we carry out unquestioningly, avidly,
the blueprint laid down by Aristotle
in his ontology of movement
along linear time
- boundless will to effective power -
without batting an eyelid.
The thought of opening up the line
into a clearing
does not cross our mind,
not in natural science,
nor in social science,
nor in the humanities,
nor in scholarship,
nor in critical thinking,
nor in philosophy.
The Other Thinking,
borne by few,
is repulsed, ridiculed, reviled,
the task of ontologically
recasting world
scarcely begun.
Further reading The Digital Cast of Being, 'Turing's cyberworld of timelessly copulating bit-strings', 'Out of your mind?'
of a Brave New World
has long since arrived.
At the latest with the rise of neuroscience,
that, without resistance,
has seeped into every pore of 'our' thinking
- in science, the media, in politics and policy -,
'we' have willingly entered the happy new land.
'We' - who are we?
Those cast by history
along its Western trajectory
from the First Greek Beginning.
Now we are progressing into the cyberworld,
fascinated by shiny gadgets, wearables, implantables.
We cheerfully adopt them for the sake of
convenience, efficiency, effectiveness,
maximum longevity.
Thus we enthusiastically consummate our destiny,
allowing ourselves to become
absorbed relentlessly by that realm
of circulating bit-strings
copulating in countless Turing machines.
Thus we carry out unquestioningly, avidly,
the blueprint laid down by Aristotle
in his ontology of movement
along linear time
- boundless will to effective power -
without batting an eyelid.
The thought of opening up the line
into a clearing
does not cross our mind,
not in natural science,
nor in social science,
nor in the humanities,
nor in scholarship,
nor in critical thinking,
nor in philosophy.
The Other Thinking,
borne by few,
is repulsed, ridiculed, reviled,
the task of ontologically
recasting world
scarcely begun.
Further reading The Digital Cast of Being, 'Turing's cyberworld of timelessly copulating bit-strings', 'Out of your mind?'
14 September 2014
Wirtschaften ist Wertschätzen
Das Wesen des Wirtschaftens besteht darin,
was wir füreinander tun können.
Dafür schätzen wir einander.
Daraufhin schätzen wir einander ein.
Darin liegen Kräftespiele, Machtspiele.
Was wir füreinander tun können, ist grenzenlos.
Indem wir etwas füreinander tun,
schätzen wir auch, was uns Himmel und Erde geben,
denn ohne ihre Gaben
können wir auch nichts füreinander tun.
So treten wir, die Dinge, Erde und Himmel
ins Wertschätzspiel mit- und füreinander ein
Es wird auch gegen- und aneinander vorbei gespielt,
oder ohne daß Erde und Himmel wertgeschätzt werden.
Das Weltspiel überhaupt ist Wertschätzspiel,
das wir Spieler in Bräuchen pflegen.
Im kapitalistischen Wirtschaften wird
das Wertschätzspiel durch Wertdinge vermittelt,
Der verdinglichte Wert verstellt den Blick
auf das Wertschätzspiel untereinander,
als ob die Wertdinge an sich Wert hätten,
statt ihren jeweiligen Wert aus dem Wertschätzspiel selbst zu ziehen.
Das wirtschaftliche Wertschätzspiel aber
kann nur dann frei gespielt werden,
wenn der Fetischcharakter des verdinglichten Werts
durchschaut wird.
Zur weiteren Lektüre: 'Der Wert ist ein Spiel', 'Being Time Space' §5, Social Ontology Ch. 9 v) und vi).
was wir füreinander tun können.
Dafür schätzen wir einander.
Daraufhin schätzen wir einander ein.
Darin liegen Kräftespiele, Machtspiele.
Was wir füreinander tun können, ist grenzenlos.
Indem wir etwas füreinander tun,
schätzen wir auch, was uns Himmel und Erde geben,
denn ohne ihre Gaben
können wir auch nichts füreinander tun.
So treten wir, die Dinge, Erde und Himmel
ins Wertschätzspiel mit- und füreinander ein
Es wird auch gegen- und aneinander vorbei gespielt,
oder ohne daß Erde und Himmel wertgeschätzt werden.
Das Weltspiel überhaupt ist Wertschätzspiel,
das wir Spieler in Bräuchen pflegen.
Im kapitalistischen Wirtschaften wird
das Wertschätzspiel durch Wertdinge vermittelt,
Der verdinglichte Wert verstellt den Blick
auf das Wertschätzspiel untereinander,
als ob die Wertdinge an sich Wert hätten,
statt ihren jeweiligen Wert aus dem Wertschätzspiel selbst zu ziehen.
Das wirtschaftliche Wertschätzspiel aber
kann nur dann frei gespielt werden,
wenn der Fetischcharakter des verdinglichten Werts
durchschaut wird.
Zur weiteren Lektüre: 'Der Wert ist ein Spiel', 'Being Time Space' §5, Social Ontology Ch. 9 v) und vi).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)