File spoon-archives/lyotard.archive/lyotard_2003/lyotard.0302, message 1


Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:43:36 +0000
Subject: Re: two solutions - a question





The term 'development' is being used in the sense that Lyotard uses it - 
as a way of drawing out the problematic nature of 'scienticism'.

regards#
steve

hbone wrote:

>Steve/All,
>
>Believing that we never lose our ability to argue for "rights", I assume you
>refer to contradictions in a Kristeva approach which may be the case.  By
>breaking the message into smaller pieces it may become more clear.
>
>Kristeva quote:
>
>  
>
>>"In today's circumstances of unprecedented intermixing of foriegners on
>>earth, two extreme solutions are taking shape. Either we are heading
>>towards global united states of all former nation-states: a process that
>>could be contemplated in the long run, and that the economic, scientific
>>and media-based development allows one to assume.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know exactly what development means here.  French and English
>meanings of the word are different.  The absolutes of  "either-or"
>predictions are rarely realized and "some of each" generally prevails.
>Globalization is a boon for the wealthy, and doom for third world
>populations who lose their lands and livelihood.
>
>Although  science is the source of  much economic activity, and media
>develops ads, I don't think of scientists and journalists as persons who
>make the big economic decisions like taking over Iraq, and converting
>that Nation into a democracy worthy of domination by U.S. oil interests.
>
>Development is an outcome of the wealthy elites' efforts to preserve and
>increase their wealth.  Leaders of  the afore-mentioned states must
>know this.  In near 200 nation-states, a couple of officials may even have a
>billion they call their own.
>
>Wealth is the source of  power, as the 1500  reported billionaires,  plus
>those who are worth $999,999,999 or less know well.
>
>  
>
>>cosmopolitanism shows itself to be utopic, and particularistic aspirations
>>force one to believe that small political sets are the optimal
>>structures to insure the survival of humanity...." (Kristeva )
>>    
>>
>
>What's wrong with utopias?  Don't populations need a vision of a  peaceful
>future?
>Europe has had long periods that were relatively peaceful - during the
>Renaissance and in the century between Napoleon and WWI.  Of course in that
>century, the poor were shamelessly exploited in Europe, the U.S., and all
>their colonies.
>
>  
>
>>often on this list I get the feeling that the latter more post-modern
>>approach contains the fears and theoretical directions that people
>>imagine as being correct... as being the reasonable way out of the mire
>>that constitutes our society. Yet if you accept the latter are you not
>>also losing the ability to argue for "rights" ?
>>    
>>
>
>Arguing for rights enhances the power of the powerful.  Dissidents splinter
>into
>harmless pluralities, with their own semantic territories, disciples, true
>believers. Third Parties in the U.S. are like private clubs.
>
>The threat of war got tens of thousands of differing groups onto the Mall in
>Washington a few weeks ago, but being mostly the working poor, who work long
>hours to keep their jobs, they cannot sustain protest without personal
>sacrifice.
>
>"Small political sets", that Kristeva  mentions, were the prehistoric origin
>of the species, continuing for thousand of years after the Ice Age.
>
>When environmentalists consider the welfare of wild species, or animal
>lovers consider the welfare of domestic species, they want them to be
>allowed suitable environments in which they can get food and shelter and
>spaces to raise their offspring.
>
>The "mire that constitutes our human society" is oblivious to the necessity
>of the human species, to control (in small sets) their own communities and
>the environment in which they live.. Poor humans are denied the "right" of
>possessing and controlling their own territory, their own communities.
>
>regards,
>Hugh
>  
>
>>    
>>
>
>
>  
>


HTML VERSION:


The term 'development' is being used in the sense that Lyotard uses it - as a way of drawing out the problematic nature of 'scienticism'.

regards#
steve

hbone wrote:
Steve/All,

Believing that we never lose our ability to argue for "rights", I assume you
refer to contradictions in a Kristeva approach which may be the case.  By
breaking the message into smaller pieces it may become more clear.

Kristeva quote:

  
"In today's circumstances of unprecedented intermixing of foriegners on
earth, two extreme solutions are taking shape. Either we are heading
towards global united states of all former nation-states: a process that
could be contemplated in the long run, and that the economic, scientific
and media-based development allows one to assume.
    

I don't know exactly what development means here.  French and English
meanings of the word are different.  The absolutes of  "either-or"
predictions are rarely realized and "some of each" generally prevails.
Globalization is a boon for the wealthy, and doom for third world
populations who lose their lands and livelihood.

Although  science is the source of  much economic activity, and media
develops ads, I don't think of scientists and journalists as persons who
make the big economic decisions like taking over Iraq, and converting
that Nation into a democracy worthy of domination by U.S. oil interests.

Development is an outcome of the wealthy elites' efforts to preserve and
increase their wealth.  Leaders of  the afore-mentioned states must
know this.  In near 200 nation-states, a couple of officials may even have a
billion they call their own.

Wealth is the source of  power, as the 1500  reported billionaires,  plus
those who are worth $999,999,999 or less know well.

  
cosmopolitanism shows itself to be utopic, and particularistic aspirations
force one to believe that small political sets are the optimal
structures to insure the survival of humanity...." (Kristeva )
    

What's wrong with utopias?  Don't populations need a vision of a  peaceful
future?
Europe has had long periods that were relatively peaceful - during the
Renaissance and in the century between Napoleon and WWI.  Of course in that
century, the poor were shamelessly exploited in Europe, the U.S., and all
their colonies.

  
often on this list I get the feeling that the latter more post-modern
approach contains the fears and theoretical directions that people
imagine as being correct... as being the reasonable way out of the mire
that constitutes our society. Yet if you accept the latter are you not
also losing the ability to argue for "rights" ?
    

Arguing for rights enhances the power of the powerful.  Dissidents splinter
into
harmless pluralities, with their own semantic territories, disciples, true
believers. Third Parties in the U.S. are like private clubs.

The threat of war got tens of thousands of differing groups onto the Mall in
Washington a few weeks ago, but being mostly the working poor, who work long
hours to keep their jobs, they cannot sustain protest without personal
sacrifice.

"Small political sets", that Kristeva  mentions, were the prehistoric origin
of the species, continuing for thousand of years after the Ice Age.

When environmentalists consider the welfare of wild species, or animal
lovers consider the welfare of domestic species, they want them to be
allowed suitable environments in which they can get food and shelter and
spaces to raise their offspring.

The "mire that constitutes our human society" is oblivious to the necessity
of the human species, to control (in small sets) their own communities and
the environment in which they live.. Poor humans are denied the "right" of
possessing and controlling their own territory, their own communities.

regards,
Hugh
  
    


  


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005