Monday, November 07, 2011

The Popes' Children

One of the funniest--and a very prevalent--notion is that only revolutionaries may hold radical beliefs, a prejudice akin to the idea that only the only true believers are missionaries, or perhaps missionaries and renunciates.  These sorts of ideas are really just the remnants of an insufficiently expurgated Western religious mind, the remnants of an inadequately examined monotheism.  Well I for one am no revolutionary, in part because despite my affect of bombast I am in fact modest, unlike those who, under the affect of modesty, would dictate to others the nature and direction of the right path.  In  large part, it's because I'm a determinist; I believe that social orders and movements, the arrangements of societies and the dispositions of civilizations, the rise and fall of economic systems, governments, and regimes are all determined by historical forces that take place on a scale infinitely larger in scope and duration than any human mind or personality can understand or endure.  If not Caesar, then Caesar, in other words.  We don't make history, but are made by it.


87 comments:

Anonymous said...

I yam that I yam and that's all that I yam.

Popeye of Persopolis

Jesuette said...

Well, fuck me.

TGGP said...

I'm similarly Marxist in that respect.

mistah charley, ph.d. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
anne said...

,

mistah charley, ph.d. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
mistah charley, ph.d. said...

Like you, monsieur, I am one of the most modest people I know. Accordingly, I almost hesitate to mention that in my humble opinion, you are only partially correct in your affirmation of the deterministic perspective. People are to some extent meat robots, it's true. But they are also at least potentially more than meat robots. Cutting edge technology imaging real-time neural functioning has confirmed what ancient wisdom teaches - that the mind can change the brain.

You Are Not Your Brain: The 4-Step Solution for Changing Bad Habits, Ending Unhealthy Thinking, and Taking Control of Your Life by Jeffrey M. Schwartz and Rebecca Gladding.

Leonard said...

I am radical but not revolutionary. Ditto IOZ on the modesty and Marxism. I would also add that the means and ends must be consistent. If you want to be ruled by the left and/or be the property of a hyper-state, by all means sow disorder and bring the revolution. If you reject either the left or the state, then revolution cannot work for you.

Sorry said...

Fuck it! Yes, that's your answer. That's your answer for everything!

mp said...

sorry, the answer is to live a quiet life, harming the least amount of people as you can, helping as you can. it so happens that you can do this better on a small scale than on a large, revolutionary one.

IOZ said...

Martial, the things that do attain the happy life . . .

NutellaonToast said...

You're the best at being modest!

Weeble said...

Whatever.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1658953985424742177

Paul said...

They shout "a hundred million heads"; that may be only a metaphor; but why be afraid of them if, with these slow cyber reveries, despotism in the course of some hundred years will devour not a hundred but five hundred million heads? Note too that the incurable patient is not going to be cured anyway, whatever prescriptions are given him online, and, on the contrary, if there's delay, he will turn so rotten that he will infect us too and contaminate all the fresh forces which one might still reckon upon now, so that we'll all finally go uner. I fully agree that babbling liberally and eloquently is extremely pleasant, while acting is a bit rough.

Anonymous said...

Is this still about the fucking wine, man?

Paul said...

Shorter: A molotov cocktail is a mixture of gasoline and kerosene, white radicalism is a mixture of bullshit and jive.

LorenzoStDuBois said...

Ioz, if I wanted transcripts from Mike Tomlin's post-game press conferences, I would go read Balloon Juice.

Picador said...

IOZ, nice observation about the religious origins of this false dichotomy.

Overall, this is a sentiment that I like to embrace when rationalizing my own comfort, but am happy to betray when denouncing the comfort of others. I should be better about that.

Of course, as mistah charley hints at above, there are times when our individual choices are constitutive of the "historical forces" you posit to be beyond our control. Some unlucky individuals do find themselves to be living at the precise time and place where one or another of these historical trends reaches an inflection point, and these wretches are probably not wrong to think that their choices may in fact be subject to the Ghandian imperative to be the change they want to see in the world.

Which is not to say that I've been camped out in Zuccotti Park for the last six weeks, but I did feel enough self-loathing to compel me to donate some blankets and pillows, and some candy on Halloween, to my local Hooverville.

Jay said...

I'm a fan of the "Grand Idiot" theory of history. A competent person can be replaced with another competent person with little change, but a single serious mistake can change the world.

Anonymous said...

Sooooo... is this a roundabout way of saying "I'll be over here, sittin' on my comfortable ass while you cute little 'Occupy' folks do whatever it is you do"?

Anonymous said...

oh, that must be exhausting.

Anonymous said...

By the way, I'm pretty sure Marx never said "History is deterministic, so let's all sit back and enjoy the show while the revolution happens by itself."

John Kindley said...

I am agnostic on the question of whether what appears to some as free will is really itself part of a predetermined causal chain. (Such determinism, btw, can be the fruit of atheistic materialistic reflections and monotheistic reflections alike.) Regardless, simply communicating ideas and speaking the truth, even on a blog, can presumably be a causal link in that vast causal chain, and a far more potent link than, say, voting. Moreover, it appears that implicit in any critique and tearing down of, say, Caesar, is at least a suggestion of what's wrong with Caesar and of "the nature and direction of the right path." I myself am partial to Thomas Jefferson's "ward system" and Henry George's "single tax," and to the Great Law of Peace of the Iroquois Confederacy as a historical model of a "right(er) path."

Montag said...

calmer than you are.

Inkberrow said...

Feedback loop: Gordon S. Wood, Joe Pa's Children, "How do you like THEM apples?".

Professor Coldheart said...

By the way, I'm pretty sure Marx never said "History is deterministic, so let's all sit back and enjoy the show while the revolution happens by itself."

Actually, he did. Not in so many words, but, y'know.

Anonymous said...

I don't think anyone ever said that a well-heeled, do-nothing poseur can't hold radical beliefs, any more than it's claimed that other people can't find said well-heeled poseur cringe-worthy.

But people are likely to wonder why a determinist has radical beliefs at all, which he repeats ad nauseam, rather than say, speculating on where all these complex forces might be leading? Why bitch about people all day as if they all had some sort of agency to be something other than the scumbags and capitulators they are and then announce from time to time, with all the style and depth of Marianne Williamson how living the good life and trying not to be too much of a prick is all that one can do.

Or why blather about how it was the sit-ins in Woolworth's and not lobbying the government that made the most difference in the, of course, absolutely pointless Civil Rights movement, which outcome, according to your determinism, had nothing to do with the participation of actual humans. Or maybe it did, but they were all just guided by the unseen hand of complex historical forces and systems, the same hand that benevolently guides you to easy, fun things like Foodie Fridays, choosing wines to stupidly pack in carry-on and will one day guide you to divvying up Daddy's big fat patrimony with your sibs.

You're the one that's preaching religion and a very old, hackneyed one, too. The favorite religion of cozy leftists whose material conditions are little affected by changes in politics or culture. Capitulation. In othe words, you are a living endorsement of things as they are and why not? It's not like you're one of the black dudes in a cage on whose behalf you sometimes feign outrage. As with all your other grand pronouncements, and those of your ilk the most conspicuous feature is your vanity. Modest? You? Not even your fan boys are going to buy that one.

John Kindley said...

I love IOZ, but Anon above just hit the ball out of the park.

george jones said...

+1 nony 12:17

Jack Crow said...

Monsieur, perhaps you are operating under the mistaken belief that the line of Paters Paterfamilias who have ruled the Vatican have been laboring under the verboten heresy of Pelagianism?

The Vatican's official creed is deterministic, along with all the other faiths what owe their core doctrines to Zarathustra.

IOZ said...

Marianne Williamson was Lynda Obst's roommate at Pomona! Her movies are lousy, but Hello, He Lied was a really fun book.

lucid said...

By the way, I'm pretty sure Marx never said "History is deterministic, so let's all sit back and enjoy the show while the revolution happens by itself."

Apparently you've never read Das Kapital or Grundrisse... Or for that matter understand what the dialectic is [i.e. a deterministic historical force and biologistic metaphor of plant reproduction a la Aristotle's theory of the 4 causes].

IOZ said...

RUFUS T. FIREFLY: Not that I care, but where is your husband?

MRS. TEASDALE: Why, he's dead.

FIREFLY: I bet he's just using that as an excuse.

TEASDALE: I was with him to the very end.

FIREFLY: No wonder he passed away.

TEASDALE: I held him in my arms and kissed him.

FIREFLY: Oh, I see, then it was murder. Will you marry me? Did he leave you any money? Answer the second question first.

Joe said...

Looks like you may need to add a corollary: A non-revolutionary may hold radical beliefs, but he will not be worthy of them.

Anonymous said...

Another cocktail recipe:

empty whiskey bottle
two parts gasoline
one part motor oil
one part Tide laundry detergent
insert and tape a tampon in the neck, string hanging out as fuse

-thanks to Oscar Zeta Acosta

Anonymous said...

An anonymous blog, or writing in general, gives someone the opportunity to behave differently than in their interpersonal manner. That IOZ in the flesh could be modest (by which I think he clearly meant that he isn't inclined to telling other people what to do - directly, as opposed to the bombast of his writing) is easily possible, and, from my reading of this blog, rather obvious. I doubt he ridicules his friends at dinner parties even if they make Iglesiasian remarks.

George Jones said...

well, dogs don't blog, etc.

la Rana said...

Anon 12:17 is the first good heckler we've have around these parts in some time.

I say long overdue you bourgeois posuers!

IOZ said...

Fer realz, Rana. Good lord I am starting to think I may have to own up to the fact that I don't have a trust fund, but then what would Michael Bérubé think.

Aeolus said...

Have you ever read Marx? "Men make their own history but they do not make it as they will" was not about the pointlessness of political action. He was arguing that the outcome of political action is by nature uncertain, with several possible outcomes.

K. Marx said...

Asshole bloggers have only bitched about the world from their cubicles; the point is to change it.

pancakes said...

Anon 12:17 wins the entire fucking blog.

John Kindley said...

Thoreau or John Brown? That is the question. The Occupiers I've seen on TV with their waggling-finger-hand-signs and mic-checks just don't do it for me. But then, I live in a podunk town whose Occupy "movement" was ridiculed in Fark. If I lived in a real town I might check it out and think differently.

lucid said...

Aeolus. Yes, in fact I studied Marx with Agnes Heller, who was Lukacs' prized student. She was also on my MA thesis committee. While there are certainly quotations from Marx that would seem to indicate otherwise [for instance the Theses on Feuerbach], it's very clear from his major works and his diaries [Grundrisse] that he's an Hegelisn determinist. To argue otherwise would be to pit yourself against 2 centuries of Marx scholarship.

lucid said...

Are you perhaps mistaking the 'relations of production' for anything involving human action? Because, they exist completely independent of individual actions.

Anonymous said...

Monsieur,
Highly recommend the "Andrei Rublev" movie, especially the ending.
Capt'n Obvious

Aeolus said...

I think lucid (sic?) may be playing to the wrong crowd. But-- Ernest Mandel and "parametric determinism." Whatevs. Marx and Hegel had a complicated relationship (in fact, Hegel and Hegel... etc). The fact that he could not commit fully to determinism is obvious from the fact that he and Angles were not quietists and indeed were contemptuous of quietists ("the philosphers have only interepredted the world" and so on). It's the Right Hegelians that are IOZ's fuckbuddies.

lucid said...

The rift between the left and right Hegelians was not about the inherent dialectical structure of history, it was about the nature of the relationship between formal, final and material causes within the dialectic itself. Left Hegelians essentially asserted equality between, or in some cases the primacy of the material cause and viewed the notion of a final cause with a good deal of skepticism - in essence positing the end of history as a negative space - actuality becomes a dissolution of the very means of actualization and the world evolves into another shape free from the inherent conflicts within dialectical history. Right Hegelians asserted the direct primacy of the formal cause over the material cause [per both Aristotle and Hegel] and the final cause is understood as the positive end of participatory Republican government as the realization of freedom and reason in the world.

Both visions, however, understand history in a deterministic manner. The conflicts inherent in each social order between the projected truth of the actual truth of the order result in a new social order based around the unrealized truth of the previous one. This is what a dialectic is structurally - the passing of one form into another based on the truth of the previous form, a notion of causality that is essentially a metaphor for plant reproduction taken from Aristotle. From the seed comes the tree, from the tree the fruit, from the fruit the seed and so on and so forth.

Unless one understands the first five books of Aristotles Physica, it is actaully impossible to understand causality in either Hegel or Marx. This was Hegel's essential critique of Kant - that history moves according to the tenants of Aristotelian causality. The notion of a final, formal and material causes [and thereby a dynamic, imminent history] are reintroduced to combat what Hegel found to be the cold rationalism - the empty interior life - of Kantian metaphysics. It is the the very engine of the dialectic and it structurally carries over to Marx.

Marx is a determinist. Does that mean there is no place for agency? No - but the very concept of human agency cannot develop until the specific form of alienated labor found in capitalism. This is the primary conflict at the heart of capitalism - it fully disrobes the notion of freedom, the universality of human agency, but the relations of production prevent the realization of human agency. Capitalism must therefore collapse because its essential truth cannot become manifest within its structure.

Jack Crow said...

Unless you are a priest-reader of the ancient tomes, the mysteries of inexorable fate are obscured, eh, lucid?

lucid said...

Further, conveniently for Marx, capitalism also marks the point at which the paradigm of production has accumulated enough value that human beings no longer need to participate in the paradigm of production, resulting in the end of scarcity. Thereby the forces and relations of production are no longer in conflict and the entire paradigm of production collapses resulting in the end of history [for Marx this also ends all institutions...] Regardless of how it is that human agency may be involved, the revolution will simply occur because of structural conditions within history.

Personally I think it will have more to do with the potential extinction of our species because of the great environmental wasteland created by a system committed to the exploitation of anything and everything resulting in private fiat wealth... But that's just me.

lucid said...

Jack - in the case of philosophy, I really do think this is the case. The history of philosophy is keyed into everything from the history of science to religion to basic notions of conception, epistemology itself. If you simply try to jump in in the middle, it's like watching The Wire - you're gonna miss a lot...

Jack Crow said...

A good way to perpetuate a chantry of experts of the arcane and esoteric who interpret the world and events for the poor rubes too stupid or poor to get that priestly training, then.

lucid said...

To some extent this is true. I actually think Ioz's overall critique of the academy also stems from that notion. Education is essential inculcation into a manner of thinking that in the vast majority of individuals results in the limiting of the possible apprehension of the world.

If you want to understand the system though, one does need to study it - and this is also at the heart of that very history - the notion of critical history.

I've been playing in my head recently with the notion of developing an anarchist epistemology, or perhaps investigating whether a truly anarchist epistemology is even possible. Is the idea of knowledge itself inherently hierarchical?

demize! said...

'Hey, I got that PMA! Hey I got that do or die!'

Leonard Hatred said...

Today's IOZ brought to you by the ghost of Fernand Braudel. Suffice to say, I can only approve.

Anonymous said...

Is it really news to anyone here that IOZ is a poseur who sneers at political action to justify his own comfortably sedentary existence? He's entertaining, sure, but no one here has been reading him as some kind of font of radical political analysis, right? That "drive slow in the fast lane" shit didn't come out of nowhere.

IOZ said...

Actually I can find nothing to sneer at in Occupy Wall Street, and I have always been a staunch defender of puppet-based protesting.

Anonymous said...

"in fact I studied Marx with Agnes Heller, who was Lukacs' prized student. She was also on my MA thesis committee..." lucid, 12:26 AM

"Education is essential inculcation into a manner of thinking that in the vast majority of individuals results in the limiting of the possible apprehension of the world." lucid, 1:00 AM

lulz

Anonymous said...

IOZ, have you ever actually been to Occupy Wall Street? Or, to make it a bit easier on you - I know it's hard to travel that far to a place that doesn't even offer a real Baux de Provence - Occupy Philly?

IOZ said...

Why can't you get a Baux de Provence in Philly? And have you ever heard of Grant Street?

Joe said...

You can probably get a Baux de Provence in Philly. You may have to elbow your way through a crowd of annoying protestors to get to the liquor store, though.

anne said...

there was a bit of a feeling ..in all of the writing over the last few days .. .(but i may have missed someone's comment that also suggests this ..i did not look that closely .. ).. a feeling.. that those that are not in school .. are not alive some how .. somewhere.. that they are not out in the world some where ..still ..learning .. . , .. .in living .. .

puppylander said...

anne,

i had meant to seek clarification on the megathread... "all the same"... wrt _____? rejection?

to your comment here, "still learning... in living". empirically, what's your sense? my sense, bluntly and with limited data points, is that these would be the exceptions that prove the rule. that is, it's not an accident that people are miserable (whether tea party, ows, ioz, or whomever). again, i quite agree that learning doesn't stop in school. but there's learning, and then there's learning, and then there's learning, and then there's learning. no?

i think it would be interesting to ask the question in this context also: http://www.ted.com/talks/sandra-fisher-martins-the-right-to-understand.html

anne said...

puppy, .. . i can't look at the link right now ..because i need to focus on what i am working on here .. .but i'll try to respond more .. .at some point in the day .. .

puppylander said...

no prob re: link. it's a tangent. basically, she talks about functional illiteracy.

lucid said...

Hey nony 7:22 - quoting things out of context leads to serious misapprehension of the point.

The first quote was in response to a question - 'have you read Marx'. The second was within a post where I was speculating as to whether the very idea of knowledge itself is hopelessly lashed to hierarchical order.

Oh, and it is possible to hold two opposing thoughts in one's head simultaneously and still remain consistent.

anne said...

puppy, i just took a quick look at what the link is .. you have hit on something of the sky ..at the highest.. more than peaks ..of my work ,in part here .. .of language ,and communicating .. . if i find that ..lackadaisical ,eerily.. is okay some how of a way to go about , that he can move beyond whatever issue he seems to have with ioz .. i will cont.to write on something of this over there ..in time .. .

anne said...

if anyone is reading this through their ..of a mail link ..as i am .. and are getting a link attached in some way to my wording ..as i am.. it's not mine .. .

Aeolus said...

Obviously my point was that once you put aside the formal teleology the issue here is causation not the dialectic itself. IOZ is emphasizing a vague final cause (which is why he's being charged with religiousity), and others are insisting on primacy of material causes.

Hegel wrote that "The state is the divine Idea as manifested on Earth." IOZ thinks it's the devil. But structurally their analysis is the same. It's like the Catholic Right Hegelians versus the Comteans.

Anonymous said...

The scales have fallen from mine eyes. IOZ is full of shit (still amusing though).

lucid said...

Aeolus, I was under the impression that we were arguing about whether Marx was a determinist, not about whether Ioz is a right Hegelian [which he isn't - his anarchism is much closer to Marx's than it is an inverse of Hegel on the state].

Aeolus said...

And I was under the impression that determinism is about causation not teh dialectic. "Social determinants of health" anyone? It's the specificity of cause and response that Marx was interested in. Christ why would anyone who thought program was useless write a Manifesto???

Lucid said...

It is. The dialectic is the causal mechanism in Marx and Hegel. Did you even bother reading what I wrote last night? Hegel developed the notion of the dialectic specifically as an antidote to the efficient causality of enlightenment rationalism and he returned to Aristotle's theory of the four causes to do so. It is only the internal hierarchy of the 4 causes that differs in Marx and Hegel, not the overall dynamics.

Aeolus said...

No that's not what you wrote, which was confused. But convince yourself you were right all along man, it's an old Marxist tradition.

The "faith without works" doctrine IOZ affects here:

(a) is not determinism as it's usually understood just a weird armchair species of it;
(b) does in fact mimic the love of Right Hegelians for final causes;
(c) ain't got nuffin to do wiv Uncle Karl.

Lucid said...

Christ, can I get a flunking reading comprehension up in this joint!

lucid said...

This was Hegel's essential critique of Kant - that history moves according to the tenants of Aristotelian causality. The notion of a final, formal and material causes [and thereby a dynamic, imminent history] are reintroduced to combat what Hegel found to be the cold rationalism - the empty interior life - of Kantian metaphysics. It is the the very engine of the dialectic and it structurally carries over to Marx.

&

Hegel developed the notion of the dialectic specifically as an antidote to the efficient causality of enlightenment rationalism and he returned to Aristotle's theory of the four causes to do so. It is only the internal hierarchy of the 4 causes that differs in Marx and Hegel, not the overall dynamics.

OK, please enlighten me, where's Waldo?

lucid said...

Christ why would anyone who thought program was useless write a Manifesto???

And this is the crux of the argument by those who completely misunderstand Marx.

Here's the counter argument:

Christ, why would anyone who thought they expressed their position fully in an extremely short pamphlet written quite early in their career continue on to become [by page volume at least] the most prolific writer in the history of western philosophy?

anne said...

puppylander, .. i have not had a chance to look back at the video again yet/.. i wanted to ask first what you meant with ..." -wrt _____? rejection? " .. .?/ hope you are still around .. .

puppylander said...

anne, you had written:

"..it is all around me everywhere i go .. ., i have a wom'n doing yet another doctorate in the flat across the hall from me here .. one doing yet another phd in something else,she has a few .. in the flat next to mine .. and one doing,again back in school for more ..because they can ..of somehow funded.. . another doctorate below .. all the same .."

i wasn't sure what that referenced. are these women who have rejected you (as a woman)?

anne said...

.. there seems to be a few of my words missing in your ..cut.. to bring over here .. . on doing,ag. /..did i say rejected ..that's not quite the word .. . as you say it here .. ...i try to be something of exacting .. .and all that comes out to other's ears ..is some odd poetic .. ./ let me look back .. . and yes that was all part of the flow of that same telling .. of these neighbours ..how was that unclear .., please ?

puppylander said...

just trying to understand what i read. you don't make it easy. i called it "rejection", but it's only sorta the right word. no matter.

anne said...

,still no chance to look back .. ,it is good that you ask questions ..i'm glad that you do /have .. , .. .i'm not trying to be difficult .. ..as i said back to someone on john herman's .. grey/gray 'scope blog .. "..yes i am concerned about coherence with my writing .. . but i am more concerned about having it be something of my own voice .. "

anne said...

to puppylander ,if you are still looking back , i had more of a look at the video here .. interesting,very .. still not sure.... on what connect you are making here on putting it in .. ? ..i hope that you noted my comment .. of wanting my writing to be something of my own voice ..in a comment back to someone at john herman's .. . / on the other .. . this extreme of feminine that i addressed ,of myself .. .like anything of character ..comes from within.. .and moves out to the limbs and more .. . , i don't know enough about your mother in law's self mutilations ,and extremes of behaviour that you suggest , .. . to say more on her , / .. i only know that no amount of schooling , of the life that comes in the midst of ..this schooling ... .seems to effect wom'n that already have something in their nurtured or nature going on .. . / .. and again to the person that attacked me on my trying to tell something of .. .feminine ,of this extreme that i am .. ..as i said with my friend saying ..on film ..meaning in motion ..not a still .. it is in my carry .. .

puppylander said...

just thinking about how much life-learning really goes on if one can't understand the language of the world.

anne said...

puppy, ..i feel that my wording is fairly easy to follow ,is it not ? i need to keep with the odd flow ...because it is my voice ...how i am ..out here ..how i talk .. . at the cafe earlier, ..and just now across the road at a gathering at the antique shop .. .with others from around the neighbourhood .. .i hesitate .. and hum and swirl ..i want to capture something of that on line as well. .. .the wander and the over questioning of life that comes with my odd pausing ..i'm only trying .. , but the wording is still fairly easy to follow i thought ..is it not ?

puppylander said...

don't worry about it. it's just a blog.

anne said...

but i'm not a blog .. .