Pussy Imagine Dragons, go on with your imaginative self.
Lets get real:
Pussy Imagine Dragons, go on with your imaginative self.
Lets get real:
The New Realism is just that: A manner of justification for a new reality. No big deal; its cool. I just wonder how critical they go. What is their purpose. Well, an intro to Toms book goes like this:
“In the 20th century, phenomenology promised a method that would get philosophy ‘back to the things themselves’. But phenomenology has always been haunted by the spectre of an anthropocentric antirealism.
Tom Sparrow shows how, in the 21st century, speculative realism aims to do what phenomenology could not: provide a philosophical method that disengages the human-centred approach to metaphysics in order to chronicle the complex realm of nonhuman reality.
Through a focused reading of the methodological statements and metaphysical commitments of key phenomenologists and speculative realists, Sparrow shows how speculative realism is replacing phenomenology as the beacon of realism in contemporary Continental philosophy.”
(From Edinborough University Press epub site)
I cant help but wonder: if i was in advertizing, would i not say advertizing things? I mean, is the advertizer saying things about humans? More to my point, why do advertizers only say things about advertizing? I think most would say that the Ad-er say things about humans through looking at the fact of their Ad-er ness.
So, what is the intro to this book saying? And in as much as it is being tallied as a Speculative Realist book, what is going on here?
“In the 20th century, phenomenology promised a method that would get philosophy ‘back to the things themselves’. But phenomenology has always been haunted by the spectre of an anthropocentric antirealism.”
Perhaps I am not well read, but the fact that such a statement has been made shows a particular orientation upon reality. This orientation sees itself as the last word in things because it falls within as it takes from the established manner of coming to truth: power in numbers and the generation of numbers through indoctrination; which is to say, conditioning through reward, the reward of towing the party line. Now, this is not to say it is a wrong route, merely that this is what the route, as a necessary mode, does: It argues against that for which which it cannot account. But more: Because most people cannot understand what is not already given them in advance, together they create a common state that justifies that inability; i.e. They form a ‘gang’ (lol), or, they form a group to enforce against what is offensive to the group.
In this case, the blatant calm by which this statement is made exhibits the obviousness that is taken for granted; the group has such reach, a member of the group can say almost anything they want without fear of rebuttal because, again, in this case, all route for rebuttal is assumed as it is enforced.
“…phenomenology promised a method that would get philosophy back to the things in themselves. ”
This statement shows that the author of it does not expect that the thing in itself is what is being proposed by the Speculative Realists. It suggests by its saying that somehow the SRs are saying something that moves beyond “the 20th century phenominalism”. In other words, the commentator (at least) is involved with seeing that terms have an ability to convey things that are actually true, but somehow never get to the thing in itself, and so the SRs are supposed to have given up on such phenominalist reckoning.
Does anyone else see the problem here?
It is so annoyingly frustrating to have to wonder how SR could have ever gotten off the ground considering that the SRs are supposed to be so informed about philosophical ideas. It seems blatantly obvious to me that these SRs are being deceptive in thier proposals.
“… speculative realism aims to do what phenomenology could not: provide a philosophical method that disengages the human-centred approach to metaphysics in order to chronicle the complex realm of nonhuman reality.”
How is this possible? How is it possible to be human and not use a method that is human centered?
Does anyone else see the problem???
One of the problems is the SR occupy a space so privileged that they cannot and will not entertain critiques.
The philosophical problem is that the reason why these SRs can be so confident in their speculations is because not only do they rely upon a critical post-modern maxim, that discourse determines as it reflects reality, but that this maxim is enforced.
I don’t know about you, but there is nothing about discourse that I can see that anywhere determines what is real, except that there are these “philosophers” that say it’s does, and or use discourse in a manner that proposes to be determining reality differently that some proposed ‘before’. It is a hoax, a con perpetrated upon the world through a particular methodological assertion of power, for the purpose of allowing them thier position of power.
The mode of these SRs is that they argue as they accept that the power is ubiquitous and thus no longer interesting to talk about. So great, as I said: The discourse that views the Ibjects from a one sided and obvious real orientation is necessary, yet also inherently avoids its counterpart because it is assumed to have been already addressed. But thier mistake is that phenominalism is taken to be that counterpart — but it is only the counterpart to what is Real because such Phenominalism likewise proposed upon what is Real, as what is real exists within a particular ideological horizon that is enforced against offense. In as much as the Realists make notice, they form a precipitate Invisible to their view.
This is all to say that somehow there is a traditional interpretation of what philosophers were saying, that this interpretation is taught as toward and from a position of free thought. This confinment of teaching thus also produces a certain type of thought, a certain type of conclusion. Hence we can see that this statement (above) can make a proposal of method because itself is based in a particular methodological arena wherein types of method may be discerned.
Yet, such as it is, this move of SR merely affirms that a divergent mode of philosophy has become necessary, and this is to say that contrary to the mode that says that discourse is intricately involved with the reality, the SR Reality is indeed also necessary, but in a manner that leaves at least some of their proposals, their route, exposed.
Much of these Realist proposals are merely a philosophical fad likeclothes and music; this Realism is a career posing, a thinking for thoughts sake, art for the sake of the artist. Yet that there is clothes and music never changes; what people wear may say something of the time, it thus says something of reality, but then true to the above statement’s assertion of phenomenology, it also resists an “anti realism”. Yet it is the limit of traditional interpretation of phenomenology that indeed produced phenomenology, of Hursserl most probably, but the antirealism that has arisen by which our current Realism arises is an anti realism in the context of the phenominalist reduction — which posits itself by an anthropocentrism, I.e. By the limit that is the human centric universe. It is this interpretation that yields the Speculative Real route, but the route that is concerned only with what is real because what is real had been determined by the route to be the only sensible thing to be considered.
These folks do not consider that it is the spot that is missed, that which is not real that allows for the platform by which an investigation into the object can even be considered viable. It is the nature of what is not real that allows for reality to be situated upon the object in itself unto itself, such that objects can be said to have reality unto themselves.
It is through the phenomenon that what is real may be determined along a particular vector, but due to this, what is real is not the only vector.
The Post Post-modern opening for ‘spirits’. What is a name for an element that exists unto itself, through its own agency, undetstanding and mode of agency, yet interacts with other elements that are likewise ‘essential’? In another time, we called these ‘gods’ and ‘spirits’.
The linear movement that the Speculative Realists see themselves involved with, is the unrecognized beginning of a universal repetition, an historical reiteration.
Hegel but not Hegel. Society as caste but not caste. The reinstatement of the universal forms through new term-object identities.
All this will be covered in The Philosophical Hack.
I’m not sure if Bruno Latour is Christian or neo-pagan or more likely some new amalgam. We read it in the Syracuse Department of Religion theory reading group two years ago and I’m trying here to sort through and get a grapple on my notes. Perhaps Latour’s magnum opus, An Inquiry into Modes of Existence is a systematic take on the multiple modes of existence, the multiple types of being and intersecting nodal points that make up contemporary life (in the west) as seen from a Euro-techno science-studies perspective.
Post-Hegelian and pragmatic, the book’s fundamental imperative has to do with the construction of global networks qua conceptual structure by which we connect up everything together (science, nature, politics, society, religion, technology) and under what felicity conditions? Proposed are new ontologies freed from the so-called modern split between subjects and objects. Knowledge is not the reflection of a subject on the…
View original post 925 more words
One can never underestimate the determination of irony. So cool.
It does mean that trade ends; it means that a particular manner of speaking about human interaction – what is framed now as ‘capitalism’ – has been marked by change. Our approriation of universal objects is changing character.
Adding a comment upon the previous two posts:
it should be no wonder that there is no more overt questioning of how we are to go about things in the world: We have to buy and sell stuff, material. It appears the young generation had just accepted this without question where the grown, if there was a question, they have just capitulated. This is the New Realism: An automatic acquiescence to the reality of material objects. The theorists don’t even offer a why or a reason how they were able to negotiate their thoughtful philosophical world to come to this new object oriented reality. They just did. Besides, true to the Object Realists proposal, they are just following the route they established, which is that they should be allowed to be an authentic individual. So this authenticity is thus purchasing power; marketing, positioning, proposing , rhetoric, sales, products, commodity. And they do so in no uncertain terms by simply deciding that they are bored with the Cartesian/Phenomenal subject. So hey, who can fault them for putting forth a marketable product as legitimized theory?
And part of Bryant’s great idea is that this determination of objects occurs in such a way to allow them to have a place in the world where they ‘can’t help’ but produce theory that says they are determined in what they can do, are or otherwise are being/producing. Amazing.
I wonder if Bryant himself will notice that his Material Unconsciousness is just a half step away from having a sort of communion or intuition of the purpose of a sort of transcendental agent. For, what is the difference between a God that we o ly partially can know, that presents us with situations wherein we choose our path, but that is ultimately ‘God’s plan’, and a Material Unconsciousness where we have choice except that we don’t notice that the situation has been set such that we indeed always only have one choice, determined in our movements ?
It all begins with Aphilosophy. The move into the object is based in a denial of the situation, for it is the situation of real meaning that has lead theorists to ‘the last’ contradictory place, such that they can only now function, that is, make theoretical capital, through denial.
The Aphilosophical route will expose the foundationless positions these New Realists are contriving: It is a discursive fad that leads back to a re-establishment of a transcendental causal agent. But this time, within a truely universal ‘catholic’ world religion.
I think ive been blocked from replying to his posts. I think its because he has too much asserting and posturing to do; he cant entertain (il-) legitimate critique.
Can we really listen to ideas that come from such a defensive posture?
Here An example of the NewReality. I like it; its a good synopsis of the New Religion. 😋
The orientation upon the True Object. Charging forth into the progress of its ideology. Yes, but no: We are determined by objects, but this reality is an ideological construction, an intrinsic mythology. A platform upon which agents of transcendence assert their privileged audience with an agency that justifies their power play over ‘the masses’. Its power available through faith.
The professor conveniently puts the transcendental agency in its historical pocket to assert a power of prophecy, but a prophecy based in bad faith, an authenticity of deception and power. Unable to choose its not-choice, the professor claims the ubiquity of reality.
Object Oriented. Necessarily.
Of course we need the ideological apologists.
But where is its counterpart?
Perhaps we would do best to call it the material unconscious. Freud famously said that there had been three blows to human narcissism: Copernicus and his decentering of the Earth, Darwin and his theory of evolution, and psychoanalysis and its discovery of the unconscious. With the first humanity learns that it is not at the center of the universe. With the second, humanity learns it is not markedly different from animals. With the third, humanity learns that it’s interiority is not in charge. With thingly thought, the thought of the object, we perhaps encounter a fourth blow to our narcissism: the way in which we are mediated by things. We dwell within a milieu of things, objects, or what I have elsewhere called machines. What we take to be our own agency, our own free choice, instead turns out in so many instances to be the agency of these things…
View original post 774 more words
I think no one really wants to get philosophical about their situation. I mean, everyone wants to have what they want, and no one really wants to not want. They may say they want to not want, but they have no clue what that means. Everyone wants to stay wanting; it is the capitalist way, to create want from want without ever having or granting what was wanted. It is the nature of intrinsic mythology to show the completion of reality through its own mechsnisms: For our moment, Want is naturally human.
It is therefore so ironic that there is something we want that defies capitalism, as well as egg it on.
Im gonna propose that there is a difference between ‘goods’ and ‘products’. Goods, ill say, are good, that is, they fullfill want, and products are ideological presentations of capitalistic power, which is to say they do not fullfill want, but only grant what we can say is an ’empty object’.
Music used to be a Good in as much as it offered a path, so to speak, toward the fullfilled life.
Music as a product offers emptiness and thereby for want amounts to a ‘fetish addiction’.
Capitalism, the positive term form of nihilism, leads to where all addiction leads and manifests in the same way as addiction: selfishness, desparation, segregation, oppression, denial, and eventually death and or transformation.
Because of the nature of the human being, death is always the instgator of solution through problem, the solution that is always a placating of the addiction. This route never ends because of the self oriented gathering for want.
The heart of music represented by its product status, shows that much of modern music is meaningless, merely expressions of nothing, which is, the phenomenal subject.
At some point someone may wonder what the philosophical part of this whole thing is. Of course, we can start by saying that there is a certain philosophy of, say, the art of this endeavor. But then we usually have left out the actual theoretical stuff, but when we then say ‘art’, most of us would look at what theory may be involved and put it off for the sake of the art.
I would say that then we have left ourselves to one particular conception of art. Many people would place this idea in a frame of ‘professional’ and ‘hobby’. Granted, this may be a hobby, in as much as I have no idea nor want of being a professional at this thing. In fact, it is the philosophy that takes this whole thing together, and not as a segregated object. It is the move toward some subjective authenticity that says legitimacy is gained by a capital recognition. Indeed, it would be nice to make some money on all this; but we will see.
Rather than default to some notice of personal expression, when we include philosophy as an art, we may find a singular expression that accounts for a world. Yet, in this way we do not have a world in which there is art, but rather we have the art that is the world, a world that cannot be escaped from, that is indeed philosophical. One could say that when looked at from the art, we have the object that is the theory of the art expressed, and from the view of the philosophy, we have the object that is art of the theory expressed. Not an individual in the world, but the world that is the artistic expression of what is philosophical, and the philosophical expression of what is artistic. When taken in a totalizing sense, we have the presentation of what is not segregated into objects, not theory and then art, or art and then the theory, but we have the art that is the theory and the theory that is the art. This phenomena, the subject that is always missed through its objectivity, is what the notorious theorist Slavoj Zizek has called a “Parallax View”.
In as much as the art might be presented as first in such a series, I call it the Covert Sound Philosophy.
And in as much as the theory might be taken first, its is the Philosophical Hack.
These encounter the real object as merely one view upon the world; thus we can come to an explanation of where Graham Harman and other new Realists come to theirs: They are oriented upon the True Object.
You can check out this and these possibilities at my site: secondmusic.org
And please; if you merely want to dig some cool music and to hell with the theory, subscribe to my site, and get all the gooey goods, and probably for free!