Myth as Meth

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Myth as Meth

Post by met » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:48 am

This stuff was fun when it was science fiction, 10 years prior. Now it's just lunacy.

We're going to pursue this at the expense of what?

If there's any misunderstanding about what people like Neil DeGrass Tyson really represent, it ought to be made abundantly clear. They are anti-human because they stratify human existence into it's utility towards this end and belittle the values that would {edit} limit scientific inquiry.
Yeah, I was thinking a similar thing when I was originally having this discussion with Mag: "WHY would anyone want to pursue this line of inquiry"? Developing 'superior beings' that could/would destroy/humiliate humanity, what exactly would that achieve? Establish that Freud & Lacan were right when they posited a human 'death drive' or an (irrational) drive towards some kind of "annihilative transcendence?"

...but I didn't ask him that ... perhaps i was afraid it would get personal.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
sgttomas
Posts: 2424
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:20 am

Re: Myth as Meth

Post by sgttomas » Wed Jan 04, 2017 1:52 pm

met wrote: Btw, perhaps that "magical" thing could be a quantum factor? I dunno ... (I did put a note about the physicist Wolfgang Pauling's influence on CG Jung on that other thread too, for Mag).

Maybe this??? https://www.amazon.ca/Quantum-Psycholog ... ton+wilson

-sgtt
Prophet Muhammad (God send peace and blessings upon him) is reported to have said, "God says 'I am as My servant thinks I am' " ~ Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol 9 #502 (Chapter 93, "Oneness of God")

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Myth as Metha

Post by met » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:46 pm

Is the "facticity of meaning" you are finding in Malabou's writing a candidate?
Geez, good question...cuz, well, you know, she's hard!


Okay, here's what I THINK....my limpid reading of her.....

Um.... the main point of her overriding concept of "plasticity" is that "the unconditioned IS CHANGE ITSELF" or - being a bit more theological - "the unconditioned is exactly that which can change itself". So, her spin on ontology - i.e. "ontological plasticity" - is quite analogous to the "self-forming" capacity of human (and I guess other species' too) neuroplasticity. I'm not sure if the two can be divided in her thought into fully separated subject and object, or not.

For her, the "transcendent" is exactly that capacity for formal change, changes in the formal structures of things, and it is ALWAYS embodied in matter. In "BT" she asserts that it cannot be penetrated more deeply than that, only traced on the surface (like finding the "epicenter" of an earthquake), so that is why she refers to herself as a "materialist." In this, I think she's a bit like Deleuze, with his concept of "transcendental empiricism" (as lamely as I have understand Deleuze, anyway....) but Malabou's got a more formalist, classical philosopher, Hegelian-type bent.

Okay, up to there, I think I'm pretty safe, pretty much on target.... :o ... Even tho, no, I haven't really answered your question yet, have I? .....well, I'll think about it :?


Also, as I'm learning, the most interesting move she makes (to me) in "BT" , which, as I sketched for Jim on the other thread, is to read Kant's 3rd critique (of Judgement) back into the 1st (of Pure Reason), was prefigured by Clayton Crockett in his 2001 book. Crockett's an American "radical theologian"/continental philosopher, & those two have been very much in cahoots the past few years.
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: Myth as Met

Post by met » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:16 am

sgttomas wrote:In one of his posts Bakker claims that it's preposterous for scientists to read Foucault. So....just do technology for "it's own sake" or what?
Rosi Braidotti, "Nomadic Subjects"...
What seems to me at stake in the biopower situation is the progressive freezing out of time, that is to say, ultimately, the disavowal of death .... Stating that the ruthless and fundamentally mercenary logic of representation has priority over that which is represented, it marks the triumph of the image, the represented object....
And so much better if the "represented object" can move around and think and act and speak and so forth? Ergo, as I said elsewhere, "The Birth of the Manufactured Messiah Of The Nihil."


Yeah, it's fun, tho bizarre, to deconstruct this stuff..... :ugeek:
Never before has Foucault’s insight into the concomitance of biopolitical effects with necropolitical instances been more relevant. The level of imaginative power expressed by all this, however, is minimal, to say the least. ... Braidotti
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Post Reply