Comments on: Culture Industry Redux: Stiegler and Derrida on Technics and Cultural Politics By Robert Sinnerbrink http://www.sciy.org/2009/12/30/culture-industry-redux-stiegler-and-derrida-on-technics-and-cultural-politics-by-robert-sinnerbrink/ Science, Culture, Integral Yoga Sun, 05 Sep 2010 01:49:01 +0000 hourly 1 By: adam pogioli http://www.sciy.org/2009/12/30/culture-industry-redux-stiegler-and-derrida-on-technics-and-cultural-politics-by-robert-sinnerbrink/comment-page-1/#comment-1018 adam pogioli Thu, 07 Jan 2010 13:14:45 +0000 http://www.sciy.org/?p=3734#comment-1018 I just read this as I am taking a break in the middle of watching The Ister, which is, I believe the film you are referring to. Sorry about the Bloom confusion. I have mentioned Harold Bloom recently on here, as he also is someone I like to read. Howard Bloom is much different, although perhaps they both share a bone to pick with Leftist academics. Harold blames them for destroying aesthetic values in service of politics, while Howard often seems to write in response to the common academic narratives that impugn the Western system. He is not an economist, but often writes about and usually in praise of capitalism. He has been featured frequently in Andrew Cohen's magazine, where I found him to be a refreshing repository of facts about the history of technology and its correlations with other examples in nature, especially next to the endless Ken Wilber marketing that publication tends to indulge in. But I think it is this question of marketing that I find the most interesting. When I chide their magazine for their decent into marketing, it is really a matter of taste than it is essential principle. I love Zizek for his shameless pandering to popular audiences because he does it I think in good taste. What Howard Bloom wishes to emphasizes is something I think I keep coming back to in communication theory. In short, just how important marketing, or persuasion is in producing new values, but how much we over-estimate its effect on communicating pre-fabricated decisions. Gregory Desilet got me interested in one of his teachers, an American theorist named John Macksound who came up with many of the same ideas as developed in deconstruction independently and about the same time as Derrida. Macksound however specifically focuses on how all language use is rhetorical, ie selective, strategic, etc.... in a sense, promotional. Macksound emphasizes how communication may be more about delaying decisions by producing new information than it is about communicating a formulated choice. While this may be obvious now in post-modern discourse, there seems to be this aporia surrounding "influence" in so much Theory that is really gnawing at me. Specifically it seems to surround this tension between our knowledge that subjectivity is socially constructed and our feeling that this construction is not a passive phenomenon that individuals don't have some freedom in. Stiegler seems to be going to the Left of this tension, believing that to give too much space between sites in the transformation of differance is too close to old classic notion of the free subject. I find Harold Bloom useful here in how he focuses on the difference between a strong writer and a weak one. In Kabbalah and Criticism he quotes Valery at length, the end of which goes like this: " We say an author is original when we cannot trace the hidden transformations that others underwent in his mind; we mean to say that the dependence of what he does on what others have done is excessively complex and irregular. There are works in the likeness of others, and works that are the reverse of others, but there are also works of which the relation with earlier productions is so intricate that we become confused and attribute them to the direct intervention of the gods." So if we posit perhaps a sliding scale for how susceptible certain subjects are to influence, and admit the obvious fact that the children tend to be the most susceptible, than Stiegler's concerns with the destruction of children's attention would seem to be paramount. I think the quote above is a good argument for the kind of broader education that Stiegler recommends and I think we all could agree is desperately needed in the face of our collapsing educational system. Yet following Howard Bloom, I don't buy that it is the fault of evil marketers or the explosion in communications technologies. This explosion is producing material to answer some basic drives that people are going to be concerned with no matter how much deeper attention and education they may have. And following Macksound, I think this kind of communication helps us understand what we want; it produces new information to help us come to a decision about who we are and what we are interested in. What I sense in post-modern rhetoric every time the discourse starts to drift very far to the left, is the possibility of the liberal thought police censoring whatever is considered base. What I remember most about the Conference on Fundamentalism that you guys put on, was this once instance when a certain gentleman was going on about "decadent" Western values as an example for how too much vitalistic freedom is dangerous and a corruption of Spiritual values; or something like that. Debashish said very plainly that what he was talking about was not "freedom" at all but bondage. Such a simple statement moved me deeply because it changed the tone from indignation to compassion. If we really want to help people we critics need to get off the righteous indignation racket which is a fine world of products with a limit market of the already converted. We need to more energetically produce better options so that when people tire of whatever level they have exhausted in the marketplace there is the next level waiting for them when they cast their line out into the network looking for what nobody told them they had to want. Jung: "You cannot change anything unless you accept it. Condemnation does not liberate, it oppresses." I just read this as I am taking a break in the middle of watching The Ister, which is, I believe the film you are referring to.
Sorry about the Bloom confusion. I have mentioned Harold Bloom recently on here, as he also is someone I like to read. Howard Bloom is much different, although perhaps they both share a bone to pick with Leftist academics. Harold blames them for destroying aesthetic values in service of politics, while Howard often seems to write in response to the common academic narratives that impugn the Western system. He is not an economist, but often writes about and usually in praise of capitalism. He has been featured frequently in Andrew Cohen’s magazine, where I found him to be a refreshing repository of facts about the history of technology and its correlations with other examples in nature, especially next to the endless Ken Wilber marketing that publication tends to indulge in.
But I think it is this question of marketing that I find the most interesting. When I chide their magazine for their decent into marketing, it is really a matter of taste than it is essential principle. I love Zizek for his shameless pandering to popular audiences because he does it I think in good taste. What Howard Bloom wishes to emphasizes is something I think I keep coming back to in communication theory. In short, just how important marketing, or persuasion is in producing new values, but how much we over-estimate its effect on communicating pre-fabricated decisions.
Gregory Desilet got me interested in one of his teachers, an American theorist named John Macksound who came up with many of the same ideas as developed in deconstruction independently and about the same time as Derrida. Macksound however specifically focuses on how all language use is rhetorical, ie selective, strategic, etc…. in a sense, promotional. Macksound emphasizes how communication may be more about delaying decisions by producing new information than it is about communicating a formulated choice. While this may be obvious now in post-modern discourse, there seems to be this aporia surrounding “influence” in so much Theory that is really gnawing at me. Specifically it seems to surround this tension between our knowledge that subjectivity is socially constructed and our feeling that this construction is not a passive phenomenon that individuals don’t have some freedom in. Stiegler seems to be going to the Left of this tension, believing that to give too much space between sites in the transformation of differance is too close to old classic notion of the free subject.
I find Harold Bloom useful here in how he focuses on the difference between a strong writer and a weak one. In Kabbalah and Criticism he quotes Valery at length, the end of which goes like this:
” We say an author is original when we cannot trace the hidden transformations that others underwent in his mind; we mean to say that the dependence of what he does on what others have done is excessively complex and irregular. There are works in the likeness of others, and works that are the reverse of others, but there are also works of which the relation with earlier productions is so intricate that we become confused and attribute them to the direct intervention of the gods.”
So if we posit perhaps a sliding scale for how susceptible certain subjects are to influence, and admit the obvious fact that the children tend to be the most susceptible, than Stiegler’s concerns with the destruction of children’s attention would seem to be paramount. I think the quote above is a good argument for the kind of broader education that Stiegler recommends and I think we all could agree is desperately needed in the face of our collapsing educational system.
Yet following Howard Bloom, I don’t buy that it is the fault of evil marketers or the explosion in communications technologies. This explosion is producing material to answer some basic drives that people are going to be concerned with no matter how much deeper attention and education they may have. And following Macksound, I think this kind of communication helps us understand what we want; it produces new information to help us come to a decision about who we are and what we are interested in. What I sense in post-modern rhetoric every time the discourse starts to drift very far to the left, is the possibility of the liberal thought police censoring whatever is considered base.

What I remember most about the Conference on Fundamentalism that you guys put on, was this once instance when a certain gentleman was going on about “decadent” Western values as an example for how too much vitalistic freedom is dangerous and a corruption of Spiritual values; or something like that. Debashish said very plainly that what he was talking about was not “freedom” at all but bondage. Such a simple statement moved me deeply because it changed the tone from indignation to compassion.

If we really want to help people we critics need to get off the righteous indignation racket which is a fine world of products with a limit market of the already converted. We need to more energetically produce better options so that when people tire of whatever level they have exhausted in the marketplace there is the next level waiting for them when they cast their line out into the network looking for what nobody told them they had to want.

Jung:
“You cannot change anything unless you accept it. Condemnation does not
liberate, it oppresses.”

]]> By: rcarlson http://www.sciy.org/2009/12/30/culture-industry-redux-stiegler-and-derrida-on-technics-and-cultural-politics-by-robert-sinnerbrink/comment-page-1/#comment-1015 rcarlson Wed, 06 Jan 2010 23:35:19 +0000 http://www.sciy.org/?p=3734#comment-1015 Adam... thanks, for continuing the conversation one context removed from the other. As for the format editorially when an article is from a current journal whose references and additional material would be a hyperlink that can benefit the reader, we are going to link as much as possible to the original sources. When you mentioned Bloom I was thinking at first Harold, whose book on Wallace Stevens we may address later on in poiesis, and was wondering why he would be writing on economics? but than I looked again and saw that it was Howard and thought. I did read Howard Blooms book Global Brain and thought it great read when studying organization on complexity, collectivities and group minds, but would have to read his prescriptions for Capitalism before commenting on them. That guy seems pretty smart on swarms and complexity but as I recall he is also not an economist I agree Stiegler's concerns cut right through to the heart of those question of technology searching for a language here. I am looking forward to clear some other stuff off, I guess his stuff is still largely under translation, lets see how much of Technics and Time, time allows us to get thru here... He comes in the great tradition of criminal literature esp French.... Genet et al, or while in solitary confinement SriA. he came it seems to philosophy while in solitary confinement for armed robbery as a youth. Here is some bio on him for a film about Heideggar: r Bernard Stiegler: Bernard Stiegler Born in France in 1952, Bernard Stiegler spent five years in prison for armed robbery. During this period of enforced isolation, he became a philosopher. He was released in 1983. In 1994 he published the first volume of his magnum opus, La technique et le temps (Technics and Time). The work was an examination of the essence of humanity in its relation to the essence of technology. On the one hand, Stiegler is engaged in an argument about archaeology and the history of technology. On the other hand, he is engaged in an argument with Heidegger about the nature of the human, the nature of memory, and the meaning of mortality. Although profoundly indebted to Heidegger, Stiegler argues that Heidegger cannot grasp the way in which man is originally and profoundly technical life, for whom all access to the past and all knowledge of death springs from a relation to technical prostheses. Adam…

thanks, for continuing the conversation one context removed from the other. As for the format editorially when an article is from a current journal whose references and additional material would be a hyperlink that can benefit the reader, we are going to link as much as possible to the original sources.

When you mentioned Bloom I was thinking at first Harold, whose book on Wallace Stevens we may address later on in poiesis, and was wondering why he would be writing on economics? but than I looked again and saw that it was Howard and thought. I did read Howard Blooms book Global Brain and thought it great read when studying organization on complexity, collectivities and group minds, but would have to read his prescriptions for Capitalism before commenting on them. That guy seems pretty smart on swarms and complexity but as I recall he is also not an economist

I agree Stiegler’s concerns cut right through to the heart of those question of technology searching for a language here. I am looking forward to clear some other stuff off, I guess his stuff is still largely under translation, lets see how much of Technics and Time, time allows us to get thru here… He comes in the great tradition of criminal literature esp French…. Genet et al, or while in solitary confinement SriA. he came it seems to philosophy while in solitary confinement for armed robbery as a youth. Here is some bio on him for a film about Heideggar:

r

Bernard Stiegler:

Bernard Stiegler Born in France in 1952, Bernard Stiegler spent five years in prison for armed robbery. During this period of enforced isolation, he became a philosopher. He was released in 1983. In 1994 he published the first volume of his magnum opus, La technique et le temps (Technics and Time). The work was an examination of the essence of humanity in its relation to the essence of technology. On the one hand, Stiegler is engaged in an argument about archaeology and the history of technology. On the other hand, he is engaged in an argument with Heidegger about the nature of the human, the nature of memory, and the meaning of mortality. Although profoundly indebted to Heidegger, Stiegler argues that Heidegger cannot grasp the way in which man is originally and profoundly technical life, for whom all access to the past and all knowledge of death springs from a relation to technical prostheses.

]]> By: P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Towards an integral, p2p approach to posthuman destinies http://www.sciy.org/2009/12/30/culture-industry-redux-stiegler-and-derrida-on-technics-and-cultural-politics-by-robert-sinnerbrink/comment-page-1/#comment-1013 P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Towards an integral, p2p approach to posthuman destinies Wed, 06 Jan 2010 03:51:18 +0000 http://www.sciy.org/?p=3734#comment-1013 [...] * Bernard Stiegler and the Question of Technics [...] [...] * Bernard Stiegler and the Question of Technics [...]

]]> By: adam pogioli http://www.sciy.org/2009/12/30/culture-industry-redux-stiegler-and-derrida-on-technics-and-cultural-politics-by-robert-sinnerbrink/comment-page-1/#comment-1011 adam pogioli Sun, 03 Jan 2010 02:37:25 +0000 http://www.sciy.org/?p=3734#comment-1011 Great article- although why did you not post the last part? I have taken to transferring internet articles onto an e-book reader that is easier on my eyes. I am glad I came back here and found the link to the full article. This tension between two political attitudes in deconstruction really articulated what I have been feeling regarding some of the previous discussions on this site concerning Deleuze, Zizek, Stiegler, etc. I wanted to apologize for any uncouth comments concerning Foucault's and Deleuze's deaths. I got a little carried away trying to articulate what I felt was an overly reactive quality in their work. While I enjoy what I have been reading of the work of all these gentlemen (Zizek in particular has been entertaining me to no end), I suppose I share Derrida's focus on the openings and opportunities of the system as a necessary context of any critique that I find sometimes lacking in the more politically charged leftist versions of post structuralist thought. I am reading Howard Bloom's latest book "The Genius of the Beast" and am curious as to how one would characterize his thought in the context of critical theory. Neo-liberal apologist? Or would he and Stiegler find some common ground in a radical revision of capitalism and technology? In any case I am inspired by Stiegler's concerns, so thanks once again for introducing me to an interesting writer. And congrats on the refashioning of this site. It looks great. Cheers. Great article- although why did you not post the last part? I have taken to transferring internet articles onto an e-book reader that is easier on my eyes. I am glad I came back here and found the link to the full article.
This tension between two political attitudes in deconstruction really articulated what I have been feeling regarding some of the previous discussions on this site concerning Deleuze, Zizek, Stiegler, etc.
I wanted to apologize for any uncouth comments concerning Foucault’s and Deleuze’s deaths. I got a little carried away trying to articulate what I felt was an overly reactive quality in their work. While I enjoy what I have been reading of the work of all these gentlemen (Zizek in particular has been entertaining me to no end), I suppose I share Derrida’s focus on the openings and opportunities of the system as a necessary context of any critique that I find sometimes lacking in the more politically charged leftist versions of post structuralist thought. I am reading Howard Bloom’s latest book “The Genius of the Beast” and am curious as to how one would characterize his thought in the context of critical theory. Neo-liberal apologist? Or would he and Stiegler find some common ground in a radical revision of capitalism and technology? In any case I am inspired by Stiegler’s concerns, so thanks once again for introducing me to an interesting writer.
And congrats on the refashioning of this site. It looks great. Cheers.

]]>