At the request of Gingko warm, my response public. It is not a defense response in the sense of attack, parry-thrust. Why do not I wanted to play in the duel. These are just some observations.
o ------- o ------ o ------ o ------ o ------- o ------- o
Rereading
at 10 days after the first reading, I confess to portray a good part of the picture represented. Also admit that I was initially annoyed, but not offended or hurt. Moreover, it is always curious and alienating together to discover the self-image developed on the other. And because it reflects the image we want to give us, and because it reflects the image we have of ourselves. Above all, it can irritate the way they are given our opinions, beliefs and idiosyncrasies. Since we also know our "unsaid" is perceived as a manipulation guide which is actually an extrapolation of thumb in good faith. In fact, in some places I think you do me wrong.
First childbirth by a definition of my position stolen elsewhere: "I am a bourgeois Jacobin who believes in the virtues of public affairs and think that civic engagement is part of the elegance of existence." But yes, I am essentially bourgeois. I think in reality that does not give great contribution to the theoretical distinction between "bourgeois" / "blue collar" used inappropriately and in an arbitrary manner. We are all middle class and we are all workers.
I am absolutely convinced that our conflicting views find expression and acceleration in the concept of revolution.
is clear that I do not see the revolution as a single block are clearly identified, with a safe destination. I never "studied" ('Cause this is) the love of Jesus of Nazareth or love and revenge that dissolves the oppressed from their sufferings. And I is not sure how clear this process would be able to work and leave. It is definitely true that "his supreme confidence in the technique prevents him to draw on a credible happiness." I do not believe in heaven on earth.
But it is quite wrong to say that I see with this tone "of capitalist production in increasing the technical and the resulting change in the relationship between productive forces and relations of production, the necessary first step which preceded the emancipation of the proletariat." I confess frankly that I'm not very convinced nothing about it. However, I am convinced that the social production and the allocation of property rights can change radically without any change radically the human condition. As always, this will remain subject to economic management of material resources (meaning those in the most versatile possible) limited but that is not limited. Until the end of the world humanity will always have to deal with death, disease and marginalization. Yet this does not count. The possibility of reaching some ultimate happiness as you paint it you will not coincide with my vision of human nature and society: I do not deny that it is possible, however, deny that anyone could to assert convincingly that it is certainly feasible in this world (the only matter). Man and society are things too complicated for anyone who can boast a magic bullet.
Let me be clear, I do not think I have an answer. Surely not have the answer. Maybe you and the Situationist tradition of which you seem to have reason and spokespersons have the answer. From what little I read, I enjoyed. For my part I am afraid, however, that the leap in the use of happiness that buys the television is not the release in a nutshell, just a nice image of humanity, almost ironic, even offensive. For some fanatic instead is the slave who is put in chains.
I tell you what I disliked: liberal views who want the poor and oppressive society, good and the individual who aspires to realize its full potential, or the nature of which is torn. The speech comes down to this. I find that the Manichean and chock full of ambiguity. What
sketches, Gingko, there seems a sort of return to mother nature, full of literary influences. The reality is that what he sketches here is not a social project. But only pertains to your salvation.
I find that there is no reason to reject technological progress, economic development. I think that we can not look at the history erasing what was there and there, and that the current is always the basis from which you must leave, for good or evil. To this must be known, studied and understood. In this, one can not go beyond an economic discourse that specifies a bit 'more about what "radical destabilization." Nor can transcend political transformation, anthropological, which must be a re-appropriation of self, rather than imposing ideological (only deleterious). In this culture, at least during the transition, can and must take the lead. A guide in the Harmony can not contribute.
Humanity, this is the goal, to steal as much as possible of the economic forces unleashed and which is governed. Turns to her advantage, rather than be enslaved. Mind you, the economic forces of which we speak should always and only be half. The aim must be the man. Mattia
can feel created by the construction of robotic stilts, and you're not anyone to stop bragging that the natural virtues of the body. Because of this you are talking about.
"At a time when the company discovered that it depends on the economy, the economy in fact depends on it. This underground power has grown up to appear sovereign, has thus lost its power. Where was the economic example, must be the "I".
The relaxation of the mesh social objective that we have no means exclusive, must be annotated on the basis of an overall vision of man and society.
confess still feel too ignorant to tackle any project for reform. Yet I think that trial and error is something pot would do.
Alceverde.
0 comments:
Post a Comment