Tristan wrote:
> Here I have questions about how one distinguishes those events which
> "directly touch [one's] life" and those which do not. And I'm
> curious as to why it seems so apparent that it is the latter which
> call forth "totalizing frameworks" while the former apparently
> invoke very different cognitive machinery.
Well, these are very good questions. Maybe instead of talking about
events which "directly touch, etc." I should simply talk about those
events which don't seem problematic to me vs those that do. The ones
that seem problematic are those where I, as an individual (not a
representative of an institution), pronounce judgements in support
of serious harm done to others in a situation where I cannot relate
to them as individuals.
>>Even
>>the feeling of beeing called upon to take a stance vis a vis
>>a distant cause already seems to involve a complicity with the
>>machine that insinuates the cause into one's consciousness as
>>something that demands a stance-taking.
>But I tried to present an interpretation in my last post which finds
>a "complicity" in imagining one can *avoid* stance-taking. One is
>always already implicated, per this view. So the move to "resist"
>the "machine" by opting out can be seen as de facto support for the
>status quo, the forces of reaction, insert your favorite bogeyman
>here. How would your conception handle this?
The kinds of complicity you mention are different from what I am
trying to get at. In supporting "distant causes" (i.e. the kinds of
causes that are of concern to me here (hee hee)), I voluntarily agree
to a certain kind of "spiritual complicity", a fantasy of power-sharing.
This is different, I think, than everyday de-facto complicities.
>>Headlines announcing various distant causes are ubiquitous in our
>>lives. They are presented in a way which creates the illusion that we must
>>urgently concern ourselves with these things. But our "knowledge"
>>of the details of these causes is manufactured and illusory, which
>>is why I think that any "decisions" we can make about them can be made
>>only from some grossly totalizing perspective.
> Malgosia, you sound almost like Chomsky here--I'd not thought you spoke
> this language of 'media distortion vs. purity of *direct* experience'.
> Or am I misinterpreting?
But wait, I never said "purity" or "direct"; I must protest vociferously.
On the other hand, I didn't express myself too well. I guess I am
basically trying to express the idea that we are being invited into
a kind of hallucination of power and knowledge. My objections have to do
not with issues of responsibility, or effects of actions, or acting on
distorted or incomplete information, but with the spiritual implications
of accepting this invitation. This acceptance seems to me at odds
with the project of rebellion and resistance.
- malgosia
> Here I have questions about how one distinguishes those events which
> "directly touch [one's] life" and those which do not. And I'm
> curious as to why it seems so apparent that it is the latter which
> call forth "totalizing frameworks" while the former apparently
> invoke very different cognitive machinery.
Well, these are very good questions. Maybe instead of talking about
events which "directly touch, etc." I should simply talk about those
events which don't seem problematic to me vs those that do. The ones
that seem problematic are those where I, as an individual (not a
representative of an institution), pronounce judgements in support
of serious harm done to others in a situation where I cannot relate
to them as individuals.
>>Even
>>the feeling of beeing called upon to take a stance vis a vis
>>a distant cause already seems to involve a complicity with the
>>machine that insinuates the cause into one's consciousness as
>>something that demands a stance-taking.
>But I tried to present an interpretation in my last post which finds
>a "complicity" in imagining one can *avoid* stance-taking. One is
>always already implicated, per this view. So the move to "resist"
>the "machine" by opting out can be seen as de facto support for the
>status quo, the forces of reaction, insert your favorite bogeyman
>here. How would your conception handle this?
The kinds of complicity you mention are different from what I am
trying to get at. In supporting "distant causes" (i.e. the kinds of
causes that are of concern to me here (hee hee)), I voluntarily agree
to a certain kind of "spiritual complicity", a fantasy of power-sharing.
This is different, I think, than everyday de-facto complicities.
>>Headlines announcing various distant causes are ubiquitous in our
>>lives. They are presented in a way which creates the illusion that we must
>>urgently concern ourselves with these things. But our "knowledge"
>>of the details of these causes is manufactured and illusory, which
>>is why I think that any "decisions" we can make about them can be made
>>only from some grossly totalizing perspective.
> Malgosia, you sound almost like Chomsky here--I'd not thought you spoke
> this language of 'media distortion vs. purity of *direct* experience'.
> Or am I misinterpreting?
But wait, I never said "purity" or "direct"; I must protest vociferously.
On the other hand, I didn't express myself too well. I guess I am
basically trying to express the idea that we are being invited into
a kind of hallucination of power and knowledge. My objections have to do
not with issues of responsibility, or effects of actions, or acting on
distorted or incomplete information, but with the spiritual implications
of accepting this invitation. This acceptance seems to me at odds
with the project of rebellion and resistance.
- malgosia