Date: Sun, 08 Jun 2003 18:17:02 +0100 From: "steve.devos" <steve.devos-AT-krokodile.co.uk> Subject: Re: The Matrix - Reloaded arrgh ok - incoherence rules. Rededited and resent... one day clarity and intelligence may be achieved - but not I think by me. steve steve.devos wrote: > Hugh > > I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to > Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war tragedy > - but within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of > cultural studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with a > rejection of left history and it's replacement by the specifics of > postmodern theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether > Eric is being 'ironic' or not. (Eric can answer that himself). > > Further to this in one of the articles on the history of the World > Social Forum (In NLR) an important Brazilian radical (name forgotton > for the moment) said that he was very glad that American radicals did > not arrivve in their droves for the first WSF especially from the US > NGO's - for he felt that they would have worked hard to impose their > own political agenda on the Forum... He was referring to the belief > that the postmodern theory and expeience, as denounced by Zizek and > others is an adequate response to the real socio-econocmic experience > that people live in. > > (Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is > not human... laughs. (Actually I almost worked on what would be > called a 'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut > in salary...)) > > regards > steve > > hbone wrote: > >>Eric wrote: >> >> >> >>>Welcome to the desert of the real.. >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>eric >>> >>> >> >> >> >>>p.s. - in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes between what he calls the >>> >>> >>Immortal and the >animal. Furthermore, he claims that one of the conditions >>of an ethics of truth is that it >must remain in a certain sense unnameable. >>I think the burden is on you to show why >this is so different from Lyotard' >>s conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he >quotes Adorno as >>saying: "Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its >inhumanity in >>regard to it." >> >>You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve. >> >>I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind brings >>to the "is it happening". Words on paper are real for you, even though you >>name their content unnameable. >> >>In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of the >>representations of >>a) Badious's experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal" >>b) Lyotard's experience of reading >>c) Adorno's experience: Adorno's reification of an abstract force named >>"Art". >> >>I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind brings >>to the "is it happening". Those words on paper are real for you, even >>though you name them unnameable". >> >>Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and install >>them in memory as if they were actual, not representations. >> >>regards, >>Hugh >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
HTML VERSION:
Hugh
I always think of the 'desert of the real' as precisely a reference to Zizek's published response to the 9/11 event and the Iraq war tragedy - but within that text there is a deep critique of the dominance of cultural studies and the USA left by postmodern theory - with a rejection of left history and it's replacement by the specifics of postmodern theory - with the consequence that i'm never sure whether Eric is being 'ironic' or not. (Eric can answer that himself).
Further to this in one of the articles on the history of the World Social Forum (In NLR) an important Brazilian radical (name forgotton for the moment) said that he was very glad that American radicals did not arrivve in their droves for the first WSF especially from the US NGO's - for he felt that they would have worked hard to impose their own political agenda on the Forum... He was referring to the belief that the postmodern theory and expeience, as denounced by Zizek and others is an adequate response to the real socio-econocmic experience that people live in.
(Given Eric's occasional desire to be cyborg - does this mean he is not human... laughs. (Actually I almost worked on what would be called a 'cyborg' project some years ago but couldn't afford the cut in salary...))
regards
steve
hbone wrote:
Eric wrote:Welcome to the desert of the real..ericp.s. - in his ethics, Badiou distinguishes between what he calls theImmortal and the >animal. Furthermore, he claims that one of the conditions of an ethics of truth is that it >must remain in a certain sense unnameable. I think the burden is on you to show why >this is so different from Lyotard' s conceptualization of the Inhuman, especially when he >quotes Adorno as saying: "Art remains loyal to humankind uniquely through its >inhumanity in regard to it." You welcome me to the same desert you offer Steve. I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind brings to the "is it happening". Words on paper are real for you, even though you name their content unnameable. In this instance, you define your "real" as your understanding of the representations of a) Badious's experience of the "Immortal" and the "animal" b) Lyotard's experience of reading c) Adorno's experience: Adorno's reification of an abstract force named "Art". I think "the" real is what personal experience - senses/brain/mind brings to the "is it happening". Those words on paper are real for you, even though you name them unnameable". Like others' pain, we acknowledge others' beliefs, experiences, and install them in memory as if they were actual, not representations. regards, Hugh