Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - To the Folks Who Post that They Don't Post Here, Anymore.....

roachboy · 03-12-2007, 10:41 AM

well, i am not sure how you would position arguments along the line of:

the problems the states are experiencing follow in significant measure from the rationality of capitalism itself.

the problems the states are experiencing follows from the tendency to collapse politics into the arrangement of objects in the world, to assume that political arrangements are given in the way a naive epistemology take objects to be. you can see how this claim operates by watching the way in which political frame-assumptions and visual infotainment are combined in television "news" footage. watch them from a naive perspective. it should be obvious.

these two claims operate in tandem, with the first being a condition of possibility for the second.
it either is true, then it would follow that significant change at the political level should follow from a quite radical reassessment of how politics is understood. this reassessment may or may not end up being functional within this particular socio-economic system---following out its logic may end up with a quite radical transformation of the existing state of affairs as a whole.

i say this stuff because i suspect you, pan, would lump it all together under these rather problematic categories of "hate" and "negativity"--when it is neither. you act as though the existing state of affairs is a necessary horizon for all political thinking. i find that assumption to be useless. for me, at least, it is useless. it begs the questions that interest me. and that's all there is to it.

-------------

aside:

at bottom, pan, the problem that arises for me from your particular approach to debate is that i am not sure if you can or are willing to distinguish a radical critique--that is a critique that tries to point to fundamental underlying problems---from what you call "hate" and "negativity"--sometimes i dont think your recognize any distinction between them at all. whence the differends that arise. whence to some extent at least my sense of the community as placing artificial limitations on what can and cannot be said here. this is not a claim to censorship---rather it is a problem that at certain moments i find interesting to engage with and at other moments i dont.

almost inevitably, when period of interpersonal board snarkiness happen between you and i--for example--at its origin is what i take to be your refusal to recognize a difference between types of argument---"hate and negativity" as over against critiques oriented around fundamental or structural problems--the problem is: to deal with structural problems, you have to change the structure itself. it is not a matter of making adjustments within a structure that is itself fucked up. i dont find anything "negative" about saying as much--and i think that you do.

03-12-2007, 10:41 AM	#57 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	well, i am not sure how you would position arguments along the line of: the problems the states are experiencing follow in significant measure from the rationality of capitalism itself. the problems the states are experiencing follows from the tendency to collapse politics into the arrangement of objects in the world, to assume that political arrangements are given in the way a naive epistemology take objects to be. you can see how this claim operates by watching the way in which political frame-assumptions and visual infotainment are combined in television "news" footage. watch them from a naive perspective. it should be obvious. these two claims operate in tandem, with the first being a condition of possibility for the second. it either is true, then it would follow that significant change at the political level should follow from a quite radical reassessment of how politics is understood. this reassessment may or may not end up being functional within this particular socio-economic system---following out its logic may end up with a quite radical transformation of the existing state of affairs as a whole. i say this stuff because i suspect you, pan, would lump it all together under these rather problematic categories of "hate" and "negativity"--when it is neither. you act as though the existing state of affairs is a necessary horizon for all political thinking. i find that assumption to be useless. for me, at least, it is useless. it begs the questions that interest me. and that's all there is to it. ------------- aside: at bottom, pan, the problem that arises for me from your particular approach to debate is that i am not sure if you can or are willing to distinguish a radical critique--that is a critique that tries to point to fundamental underlying problems---from what you call "hate" and "negativity"--sometimes i dont think your recognize any distinction between them at all. whence the differends that arise. whence to some extent at least my sense of the community as placing artificial limitations on what can and cannot be said here. this is not a claim to censorship---rather it is a problem that at certain moments i find interesting to engage with and at other moments i dont. almost inevitably, when period of interpersonal board snarkiness happen between you and i--for example--at its origin is what i take to be your refusal to recognize a difference between types of argument---"hate and negativity" as over against critiques oriented around fundamental or structural problems--the problem is: to deal with structural problems, you have to change the structure itself. it is not a matter of making adjustments within a structure that is itself fucked up. i dont find anything "negative" about saying as much--and i think that you do. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-12-2007 at 10:44 AM..