tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post7288040170705850929..comments2024-03-28T09:51:55.365-06:00Comments on ECOLOGY WITHOUT NATURE: Bad Acid versus ValiumTimothy Mortonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05067377804366363020noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-88435848543678242882011-07-29T21:33:02.404-05:002011-07-29T21:33:02.404-05:00My preference:
No Bush or Obama and a nice bottle...My preference:<br /><br />No Bush or Obama and a nice bottle of wine.Henry Warwickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16051313050545406852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-25264551492255915652011-07-29T19:15:13.268-05:002011-07-29T19:15:13.268-05:00Doug, if you'll allow me, there is no neutral ...Doug, if you'll allow me, there is no neutral terrain. For humans, there's only neurochemistry. I spent enough drugged decades for me to be able to state that as one of my very few certainties. <br /><br />Personally, it has never occurred to me under either Bush or Obama that anything even remotely psychedelic was happening. I will only note that life under both regimes has been as if the whole world is on very weasely stepped-on-with-meth 80s cocaine.John B-Rhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01041221232768939991noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1438289051411770399.post-8046814563844357222011-07-29T15:12:31.811-05:002011-07-29T15:12:31.811-05:00In a recent conversation with the Rhetor and philo...In a recent conversation with the Rhetor and philosopher Daniel Coffeen (he's a philosopher if what you mean by philosophy is playing around with ideas) we were discussing Deleuze and how the old master privileged affect. I pointed out that there was something troubling about such a move as it seemed to open up the possibility that interpretations would ultimately come down to a struggles over and around social power. That is while public reason seemed to offer the possibility for arguments in some sort of neutral terrain wherein the peculiar unforced force of the better argument might reign, arguments resolved by referring to affect would come down to who had the social standing to define the mood of the moment. <br />For instance, if I were to suggest that you've got it backwards regarding Obama and Bush. If I were to argue that it was Bush who, by exposing the corrupt core of the current political system, untethered us from illusion and sent us into the realm of a bad acid trip. And argue that Obama works like Valium, lulling us into quiescence while he moves the center to the right and manages regressive feats that Bush could never managed (attacks on social security as an example) we would quickly leave the realm of debating our subjective affect. <br />On the other hand it seems that neutral, cold, emotionless public reason is impossible, misguided. So there is an impasse. If we accept that ideas already contain attitudes how do we then use ideas to debate attitudes? On what basis do we back our attitudes about these ideas? <br />-DougDouglas Lainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14570730501327022914noreply@blogger.com