1
MOE pg 454
"As this entire inquiry attests, deprived of other beings any existent whatsoever would cease at once to exist . Its very existence, its subsitance, is defined by the supreme duty to explore through what other beings it must pass to subsist, to earn its subsistence, This is what I have called its ARTICULATION"
In MOE there are beings that seem to fit particular modes (beings that are instituted by modes) and beings that probably are to be treated as composite. Trajectories are usually related (if I understand well) to movements along specific modes, while "courses of action" seem to be multimodal .
To me there is an issue of construction, of synthesis here. It is one thing to find analogies with modes and crossings while considering different issues (the kind one sees in Contributions). It is another thing to think and speak and act coherently in these terms in a steady way.
2. The MOE book (and the platform) "teaches" something counterintuitive, a way against our thinking habits. So it has a [MET] character: it is made to metamorphose us, to give us "ears to hear". But at the same time it acknowledges the existence of a collective that is comming together around a concern: "Making something valuable out of the mixed bag of the inheritence of previous generations of moderns". It is a matter of "saving lives".
But it is not [REL]. It sounds more like St. John than like Christ.
It all sounds like an intense exploration of how far human distributivity goes, how far the network that supports A human consciousness can go, and what beings are now heard through the resonators that are built by such networks. Since the MOE book addresses a human collective I do not see how the Aristotles' "spoudaios" can be shortcircuited. Even if devices for moral calculations are used either human judgement (the kind that is enlightenable, that is susceptible to the Holy Spirit) is present as crucial or we are in Huxley's world
"Are you my end?" Who is the recipient of this question that the (reformed?) Modern collective poses? (Is this [REL] mode?)
3. same page " ..an enigma is posed to every existent: "If I exist only through the other, which of us then is the end and which the means? I, who have to pass by way of it, am I its means or is it mine? Am I the end or is it my end?"
How is one to take such a statement?
a) Has Latour found a way to have direct contact to the enigmas posed on every existent? Do existents speak to him par excellence about what happens to them? Is this a kind of revealed wisdom and Latour is here the carrier of revelation? It seems to me a bit far fetched
b) Is Latour proposing to us a new set of memes for our brain software? "Let us start thinking as if... and see where we will end". It sounds like fiction. What about alternative fictions (for example different species leaving massively existence in the current biological countdown but through a spirit of exhileration, really enjoying this passing to nirvana. The fish species that now disapears perhaps feels having set accounts fine.)? How are alternative fictions to be weighted and compared? To me seems that in the end there are persons, communities, institutions that lock and support convictions. Is the solution to this pazzle unique? What if there are "multiple solutions"? For the time being modern life seems to be using massive doses of various "tranquilizers" so that we don't try the find out in vivo.
c) Is Latour claiming that each human existent is so "fractaled-out" that each one's finding one's own "voice" has as a requirement the instituting of many many other "voices" of existents that now talk their moral concerns as well? Is there anybody in AIME living their self-experience in such a way? Can they live this way not only under affluent conditions but in the variety of human situations one usually encounters around the world?
d)???? Something else????
MOE pg 454
"As this entire inquiry attests, deprived of other beings any existent whatsoever would cease at once to exist . Its very existence, its subsitance, is defined by the supreme duty to explore through what other beings it must pass to subsist, to earn its subsistence, This is what I have called its ARTICULATION"
In MOE there are beings that seem to fit particular modes (beings that are instituted by modes) and beings that probably are to be treated as composite. Trajectories are usually related (if I understand well) to movements along specific modes, while "courses of action" seem to be multimodal .
To me there is an issue of construction, of synthesis here. It is one thing to find analogies with modes and crossings while considering different issues (the kind one sees in Contributions). It is another thing to think and speak and act coherently in these terms in a steady way.
2. The MOE book (and the platform) "teaches" something counterintuitive, a way against our thinking habits. So it has a [MET] character: it is made to metamorphose us, to give us "ears to hear". But at the same time it acknowledges the existence of a collective that is comming together around a concern: "Making something valuable out of the mixed bag of the inheritence of previous generations of moderns". It is a matter of "saving lives".
But it is not [REL]. It sounds more like St. John than like Christ.
It all sounds like an intense exploration of how far human distributivity goes, how far the network that supports A human consciousness can go, and what beings are now heard through the resonators that are built by such networks. Since the MOE book addresses a human collective I do not see how the Aristotles' "spoudaios" can be shortcircuited. Even if devices for moral calculations are used either human judgement (the kind that is enlightenable, that is susceptible to the Holy Spirit) is present as crucial or we are in Huxley's world
"Are you my end?" Who is the recipient of this question that the (reformed?) Modern collective poses? (Is this [REL] mode?)
3. same page " ..an enigma is posed to every existent: "If I exist only through the other, which of us then is the end and which the means? I, who have to pass by way of it, am I its means or is it mine? Am I the end or is it my end?"
How is one to take such a statement?
a) Has Latour found a way to have direct contact to the enigmas posed on every existent? Do existents speak to him par excellence about what happens to them? Is this a kind of revealed wisdom and Latour is here the carrier of revelation? It seems to me a bit far fetched
b) Is Latour proposing to us a new set of memes for our brain software? "Let us start thinking as if... and see where we will end". It sounds like fiction. What about alternative fictions (for example different species leaving massively existence in the current biological countdown but through a spirit of exhileration, really enjoying this passing to nirvana. The fish species that now disapears perhaps feels having set accounts fine.)? How are alternative fictions to be weighted and compared? To me seems that in the end there are persons, communities, institutions that lock and support convictions. Is the solution to this pazzle unique? What if there are "multiple solutions"? For the time being modern life seems to be using massive doses of various "tranquilizers" so that we don't try the find out in vivo.
c) Is Latour claiming that each human existent is so "fractaled-out" that each one's finding one's own "voice" has as a requirement the instituting of many many other "voices" of existents that now talk their moral concerns as well? Is there anybody in AIME living their self-experience in such a way? Can they live this way not only under affluent conditions but in the variety of human situations one usually encounters around the world?
d)???? Something else????
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου