RSS
 

Arquivo para a ‘SocioCibercultura’ Categoria

Collaboration and ingratitude

08 Oct

Seemingly so distant terms are deeply connected, collaboration that almost always involves a dose of gratuitousness (may even be paid, but does it with some generosity), and the ingratitude, which is not acknowledging the gratitude, of what is done. with some donation dose.

This always involves the means of power, in times of psycho-power, the choice of means for certain ends is fundamental, what the individual influences or challenges for his own benefit, is explained in Habermas using the concept of Hanna Arendt and polemizing with Max. Weber: “It is this capacity for disposition over means that enables one to influence the will of others that Max Weber calls power. H. Arendt reserves for this case the concept of violence ” (Habermas, 1980: 100).

Thus, it can be theorized that what does not lead to collaboration can lead to a form of power or violence, if we admit that collaboration has an essential opposition to ingratitude, or to even theorize, a dose of ingratitude.

Still in the field of theorizing, in phenomenological life I think that “means” have accelerated the idea of ​​collaboration, Habermas will speak of a “methodological individualism” applying it to forms of power that do not allow “mutual understanding” or overcoming ” egoic sense of power ”, which leads to non-collaboration and non-recognition of gratuitousness.

I think Hanna Arendt is more straightforward because her model is “a communicative model” (interactive) where consensus would be reached by non-coercive means, by “reciprocal understanding” that would lead to “common will”, in my view, is still lacking, idea of ​​gratitude.

In environments where collaboration and reciprocity, mutual actions of co-working, that is, working together, is already a reality, power is dispersed and the leader does not appear as coercive, Latin coercive power, meaning retention.

What is proposed then, starting from Hanna Arendt is to think of the way that allows collaboration as a communicative way of influencing the will of the other without coercing it, this leads to systems of ingratitude, misunderstanding and power struggle through of violence.

Habermas, J. (1980). A crise da legitimação do capitalismo tardio. (The crisis of legitimation of late capitalismo). Rio de Janeiro, Tempo Brasileiro.

 

Ad Astra and the worldview

07 Oct

Writer James Gray’s vision of our cosmic futures towards the stars, ie Ad Astra, goes through a psychological-worldview of the contemporary world, I recall Byung Chull Han’s psycho-politics, and that in the future with machines prepared for this.

In the future there will be, in addition to the physical and technical tests we already do in various fields of sport to air pilots, also the psychics will be done for certain missions, in the case of the film, the evaluation of Roy McBridge (Brad Pitt), the space engineer for a trip to meet his father Clifford McBridge (Tommy Lee Jones) may still be alive there, although they say he was lost on a trip to Neptune.

Brad Pitt’s artistic competence helps the film, the film can be considered an approximation of Aliens, as when visiting a lost ship they encounter killer primates, or close to Apolipse now describing a future war scenario, where there is Space pirates on the military bases of the moon, purposely placed on the dark side of our lone satellite.

The parallel that I consider best is that of Blade Runner 2049, where the psychological climate overcomes the purely technological issue, and the psychopower becomes more visible and deeper, and the technological issue is the idea that improper use of propulsion energy now causes waves as violent forms, and this wave itself is then used to return to Earth.

It is true that the writer Gray’s worldview is of a war scenario, even for the trip McBridge will have to fight with military colleagues in order to make the trip against his father, since the psychological test evaluates that the son is affected by the filial relationship.

He can travel with the help of Lorraine (Kimberly Elise) who had his family murdered by his father, who had to fight a mutiny by the ship’s crew, who under psychological pressure wants to return to Earth, paradoxically Lorraine is one of the first born on Mars, since their parents lived in the military base of the planet.

After all, he finds his father, finds out that he was not exactly a hero, and that the version made for him was only to maintain the economic interests of the mission, and in the end they do not return to earth together, because their father found it difficult to go to the ship.

In return, he asks to be thrown into the infinity of space with which he had always dreamed. Despite the good acting, Brad Pitt’s nomination for awards would be more by the weight of the actor, the special effects are no big deal, there is a curious scene in which to reach the return ship, it shields a panel easily torn from a space artifact and then through one of Saturn’s rings like pebbles hitting the shield.

The interesting thing about the film is the existential and psychological aspect, so we seek in the universe answers that for our existence and the farther our worldview, the more possible to lose and lose contact with the “earth” can become reality, as the McBridge’s father, the first to land on planets where the man had not yet stepped.

 

 

Change and boundary cosmology

04 Oct

The changes of our time bring concerns and some setbacks, however it is dangerous and borderline what can happen in thought, if we think everything is very simple, because it is not.

Looking at what we do not understand suspiciously means how complex change is, the risk of inadequate analysis, and seeing the most essential changes as obstacles, while they are the great drivers of change, the pure and simple reaction to it is what promotes in our day ignorance, its manipulation is bad policy.

No one has a crystal ball, but the arguments of faith and hope can be used, if well used, to look to the future with generosity and conviction that it will be possible.

Already mentioned in the previous post, the world is one of them, and it is the best example, because it is at the same time simple to have the Earth as Homeland, as Edgar Morin claims, and very complex because it involves cultures, economic interests and social complexity.

A simple hope is that man has always overcome in history the obstacles that arose in classical antiquity the Greco-Persian wars (449-499 BC), the decay of the Roman empire, the Westphalian peace treaty (October 24, 1648) that ended the religious wars between states, and was a landmark of international law, and finally, the two world wars, which made the UN emerge even though its role must be even greater at this time.

It cannot be said that we are heading for a war, perhaps this is the moment when we can deal with the possibility of world conflict in a preventive way, there are many places, and by these we must begin to address the fundamental aspects of our time: good use. natural resources, cooperation between nations, and greater social equality.

The aspect of faith is important, because it mobilizes billions of people, it has to be given a cosmological and unifying character, different peoples have different beliefs, and even if it is the same, cultural expression needs to be given to each people. In every cosmology.

There is the consciousness of a greater cosmic essence, a God expressed as Being or as some physical form, but always superior to worldly and immediate impulses, it can be used not as a borderline with our preconceptions and interpretations, but as that Something bigger that brings our distinctions together and shortens the differences.

T he appeal, however, must be to those who have faith, that it is at least the size of a mustard seed, as the Christian reference states, and that all serve God, the passage from the apostle Luke who speaks of the tiny faith that believers should have, says (Lk 17,6): “If you had faith, even as small as a mustard seed, you could say to this mulberry tree, ‘Pull yourself from here and plant yourself in the sea,’ and she would obey you.”

 But the biblical text didactically afterwards explains that this CAN ONLY be done by superior force and not by skill, human appeal, or manipulation of faith for misuse, says the following passage (Lk 17: 8): “Prepare me the dine, gird yourself and serve me, while I eat and drink; after that can you eat and drink? ”to say that faith serves the Lord, not those who use it, so that the planet and the whole cosmos can have harmony.

It must have true faith and hope in the future human and planet, it cannot serve religious, political or social manipulation, it must serve everyone, especially those who have another kind of belief or culture, respect diversity.

 

The missing future, semi-open dialogues

03 Oct

The idea that we are about to change is in the mouth of many apocalyptics and some idealist theorists and philosophers, although most claim openness and dialogue, what they think about it is not elaborate, make long speeches and weave unrealistic narratives.
The true dialogue between tradition and change, fortunately in this field many people are doing this properly, must at the same time provide a rereading of the past, a respect and an understanding of why the events happened this way or that.
This is the reading from the pre-Socrates, through the high and low middle ages, the Renaissance and the Enlightenment, although criticism can be done throughout, and even it must be well done, it is easy to do critical rereading because this time It has been difficult because the time has come.
Especially difficult for the Enlightenment and modernity, postmodernity or late, or its continuity, is still difficult to read because the transition has not taken place and the problem is the difficulty of overcoming it, almost everyone will agree that the Modernity is already more tradition than any possibility of a new “revolution” within its thinking, although the attempts are many.
Nietzsche called this dilemma “eternal return”, he already realized in his time and some think this is new, and in part was right for the horizon he saw in his time, but when the new is not born traditional thinking suffers from aging. and sameness.
It tries to look ‘new’ or ‘creative’, but there is nothing that really changes reality. Great sociocultural problems of our time, moral and even religious, will not change without a new perspective, although redundant one would say a brand new “new”, and in order not to be pure imagination, one must find elements already living that point to the future.
Three new elements are visible: a globalized planet, it is already possible to see itself as a world although different cultural aspects are not yet respected, an exhaustion of the forces of nature, the domination of nature by man was the great mode of modernity, and the end of hunger and misery on the planet, though with resources available for it, has not been realized.
Of course there are many other factors, but they stem from a lack of dialogue with the future, the centralization of autocratic groups, the absence of a networked politics and culture, although the mechanisms for this exist, are countered as “alienation” and even as responsible for problems that exist long before any thought about new technologies.

 

 

The foundations of the idea concept

26 Sep

Following Sloterdijk’s reasoning, in which the fundamentals must be thought and in function of them one can return to the principle and preconception of each thought, one can revise idea with the Greek “eidos”.

For Aristoteles there were universal principles, not as Kant later thought, but from the idea of ​​the one (tó hen), what is (tó on) and the genres (animals, plants, living beings), while essence (eidos) does not. would be a universal, but something common (koinos) to multiple things, there is therefore not in Aristotle the idealistic dualism, but the separation between universals and essence.

In Plato this dualism is accentuated, the sensible world and the world of ideas (still in the sense of eidos, essence), this separation will be troublesome to the modern idealists, who will unite it, but without a necessary philosophical reflection. the dichotomy subject and object never reunited as a being.

Ontology, and the method of philosophical hermeneutics, is an attempt to bring these fields together, although they remain distinct and under tension, but with possibilities of clarification beyond the classical separation.

Gadamer in his work matter “Truth and Method” vol. II, picks it up like this: “Hermeneutics is the art of understanding. It seems especially difficult to understand the problems of hermeneutics, at least as unclear concepts of science, criticism, and reflection dominate the discussion.

And this is because we live in an age where science is increasingly dominating nature and governing the management of human coexistence, and this pride of our civilization, which relentlessly corrects the lack of success and constantly produces new tasks of scientific inquiry, where once again progress, planning, and damage removal are grounded, develops the power of true blindness. ”(Gadamer, 1996: 292).

Gadamer after explaining that the return to Being proposed by Heidegger is a return to the hermeneutic method, which was neither to develop a theory of the sciences of the spirit (as idealism did, and the German in particular) nor to propose a critique of historical reason, as Dilthey did, and which Gadamer will clarify in his book “The Question of Historical Consciousness” to say that it is not even historical romanticism.

Its ultimate goal is expressed by stating: “what I did was put dialogue at the center of hermeneutics” (Gadamer, 1996, p. 27), but its dialogue is neither idealism (would be absurd) nor any form of philosophical blindness, it is precisely the rescue of philosophical hermeneutics.

Therefore, their dialogue is neither idealistic dogmatism, but nowadays theory has become ahistorical dogmatism, but rather the identification of preconceptions, from which it is possible to merge horizons as well as to accept worldview distinctions.

Gadamer, Hans Georg. Verdad y Metodo (Truth and method) v. II. Salamanca: Sigueme, 1996.2v.

 

Because idealism is bad

25 Sep

Like many criticisms that use idealism, they may seem exaggerated, or those that fall into the purely “theoretical” field, such as those that practice without foundation, or often empirical, but not quite, there are serious human diseases.

One of them is individual (in the plural, there is more than one type, eg, or group), criticized by the idealists, as it is not caught in the bud, not reprehensible, as in Popper and already commented on posts from previous weeks, but Sloterdijk is clearer: “Enlightenment, which strives to replace and objectify the saber, the silence, or the physiognomic world.

The price of objectivity is the loss of proximity” (Sloterijk, 2012, p. 200), despite a discourse on individualism, the idealist does not deviate from it, there is no proximity.

Distance exists because we are separate from objects, it is easy to argue the object “to itself”, it seems neutral or little “human”, but the damage or harm is caused by any object that is inherent to the subject that invokes or uses, or that it is inseparable from “physiognomic” objectivity.

The author says what kind of wisdom it produces, that which is linked to empiricism as it has historically happened, says Sloterdijk: “or love of wisdom inevitably to its objects and attenuates a coldness of purely objective saber.

A science that annihilates [or tries] in the last vestiges of philosophy under the guise of a lens also breaks the last strands of the sense of closeness and intimacy that bind things (idem), is easier to understand by insistent discourse against “objects”, and not a form of production, use and consumption.

But there are also opposing discourses, intimacy or intimidation, which manifest themselves here: “as an atmosphere, a moral-psychological vibration that does not find our civilization” (ibid.), Says the simple pronunciation of this word leads people to think of records, moods, and experiences, and is said to “aim in a mirror.”

There is a point not addressed by Sloterdijk that I also identify with idealism, comes from Parmenides and Plato’s World of Ideas, is the beyond the mirror, the perfectionism that is taken to extremes in our time, beyond the inherent narcissism, perfectionism leads the hype in the treatment of objects, food and consumer goods, and worst of all, there is no shortage of “reality shows” to propel these psychopathies.

On the other hand, Sloterdijk will say that the cynicism arising from this current thinking is also the one that leads us to see how ‘unhappy modern consciousness faces itself,’ I say, collapsing ever near nihilism.

While speaking of difference (we have already stated the preference for distinction), “the knowledge of the cynics belonging to the lords class (Herrenzynikers) rests on a false superiority” (Sloterdijk, 2012, p. 203), springs from a “false smile, ”suggest“ empathy, ”and other ways of concealing the appeal to ignorance, hypocrisy, and the reversal of real feeling.

This is beyond the malaise of civilization, says Sloterdijk, and invokes the offensive of Diogenes’ kynikê (cynical in archaic Greek) who, by proposing to “merge the coin again”, made the proposal to change sides definitively and provide to the powerful a philosophy of resourcefulness (see the picture of Goya “you will not find it” quoted by the author), of accepting dishonesty.

Nothing more contemporary than Diogenes, the Cynic, and the search “during the day” with a flashlight to find the honest man, cynicism reigns, there is little honesty in various environments, looking for it would be crazy, says the cynic.

Sloterdijk, P. (2012) Crítica da Razão Cínica * Critique of Cynical Reason). Brazil, São Paulo: Estação Liberdade.

 

Worldview and dualism

19 Sep

What is commendable in Popper’s argument about Parmenides is problematic in Heraclitus’s reading, although it highlights points of this thought that are not in the conventional reading of Heraclitus: “I understand the traditional interpretation of Heraclitus philosophy reexposed here is no longer accepted. for all…. ”(Popper, 2014, p. 12), but raises important points.

One is the vision of change, which will make Popper build his own theory, knows that in the view of modern science Thomas Kuhn that points to the moments of paradigmatic change in scientific theories, and this has cosmological influence that Popper does not see.

Popper states: “The problem of change… has led Heraclitus to a theory that (partly anticipating Parmenides) distinguishes between reality and appearance” (page 13) and quotes it verbatim: “The real nature of things loves to hide itself.

An unseen harmony is stronger than the apparent… but in fact (and to God) they are the same” (POPPER, 2014, p. 13). The positive point of his view is that he realizes that it was to see as we have already pointed out in the previous post, that in refuting nascent empiricism, we saw in the theory of the earth as a drum, this gave rise to a view of the atomists, and Democritus in particular who “interpreted they said that it was refuted by experience, since motion exists ”(pages 14 and 15), and they concluded that atoms and vacuum existed.

Thus, “atomists came to a theory of change – a theory that dominated scientific thought until 1900.

It is the theory that all change, and especially qualitative change, must be explained by the special movement of immutable bits of matter – by atoms that move in a vacuum ”(Popper, 2014, p. 15), and will correctly say this changed because of Maxwell under Faraday’s influence, and this was important for neologicism.

This is where Popper starts from, so much so that he refutes the theory that only Kuhn thought of when the theory of science changed, and also proves the influence of the Vienna circle on Popper’s thought, even if it was only an influence and not a pertinence. He will say that his point of view “clashes with the ideas of some English and German experts alike, with the ideas expressed by Kirk and Raven in their book The Pre-Socratic Philosophers” (Popper, 2014, p. 15) and this will be his contribution a rereading of the pre-Socrates in the light of cosmology, yet his conclusions to science less so.

One of his conclusions is that “there is no cosmogony [..] in Heraclitus” (p. 16) and is based on vision (even though imaginary, hence cosmogony and not cosmology), “Fire is a form archetypal matter, ”is reading Kirk and Raven, and says that all matter“ is a process, ”which is precisely what Kirk and Raven deny in Heraclitus.

By the end of the Middle Ages it is known that fire was composed of an essential matter that would be the “fogisto” and it is known to be combustion matter, so not only Kirk and Raven are wrong, but also Popper, because a A-story reading of Heraclitus leads to misconception. Just as saying that there is no cosmogony in Heraclitus is too heavy, but Popper’s rereading helps to see the dualism present in pre-Socratic in general, and in Parmenides in particular, and his rereading that there is no ontology in it will do, also a rereading of Xenophanes, with a “stranger” who is also right.

 

 

Naming elephant and worldview

13 Sep

Deceased in February last year, American and Christian philosopher James W. Sire (1933-2018) did extensive research behind the worldview issue, said it took 30 years, published in 2004, probably to begin to address the theme in 1974.

Also his worldview must be reread, I mean that from 1974 to 2004 the world underwent transformations that it deepened, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the end of the cold war that now seems to be reborn, the fall of dictatorships that seem to come back in all over the planet.

I have not read the book, but one of the book’s chapters and also its commentators have helped formulate an idea, though inaccurate, of his main book Naming the Elephant: Worldview as a Concept, publisher IVP Academic), and the chapter I refer to is the Definitions of Worldview: from Dilthey to Naugle, which in the title is suggestive of some idealism which the text confirms early on, is available on google Books.

It says at the beginning of Chapter 2 that the origin of the term Weltanschauung originated with Kant (1724-1804), “but only in passing,” and quotes Dilthey verbatim: “to denote a set of beliefs that underlie and shape all human thought and action.” ”(Sire, 2004, p. 23), denoting a set of beliefs that underpin and shape all human thought and action.

Although appropriate, perhaps the most thorough analysis of the term, Heidegger’s reading which updated and developed the subject in a broader sense than that of Kant and Dilthey is lacking, and Hans Georg Gadamer will rightly criticize Dilthey’s conception of the idealist.

To follow the concept of Weltanschauung Cites Nietszche, Wittgenstein, with tours of Plato and Descartes, Foucault and passing Rorthy art, and then begins to address evangelical Christian authors (Reformed is the name abroad), James Orr, Abraham Kuyper , Herman Dooyeweerd, Ronald Nash until he comes to what he calls the new synthesis that would be David Naugle.

However, never runs away from idealism, says he goes from ontology to hermeneutics (not the other way around) and says that this synthetic view is characterized by a “system”. semiotic of narrative signs ”(Sire, 2004, p. 42) quoting Naugle who made such a synthesis. However, the true synthesis hidden behind the text, with a clear nominalist view and the idea of ​​a semiotic system, reveals itself by quoting the biblical text: “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe me also, referring to the biblical passage in John 14: 1, because you then ignore the text that says, “In my father’s house are many mansions.”

The idea of ​​signs, myths and symbols embedded in narratives that represent a worldview is not negligible, and it is even important, however any view that is solely about narrative does not do the work of removing the anthropological view and the real “historical view”.  Of what happened, being the idealist and unreal vision of Dilthey’s historicism.

There is another more significant passage, the so-called return of the prodigal son (Luke 15:10: 32), which some idealistic authors and exegetes dislike the name, seeking to idolize the eldest son who stayed at home with his father, who is more conservative. therefore, but also his prodigal son, his defect, went to the world to experiment.

The fact that he returned is commendable, but what a worldview he brought from his deviance, in fact their father is merciful to his conservative and rebel. 

 

From biopolitics to psychopolitics

10 Aug

The form of power, while still centered on the state and its modern concept of state that comes from Hegel and not just the French Revolution, underwent changes in the 19th and 20th centuries, which philosopher Michel Foucault called biopower.
Literally the philosopher elaborates it this way: “The instruments that the government will give to achieve these ends [that are, in some way, immanent to the field of the population, will essentially be the population over which it acts. ” (Foucault, 1978, p. 277-293) that is in his work Microphysics of power, when it addresses the issue of governability.
Many who do not accept Foucault’s philosophy, for lack of reading or understanding, do not realize that what today is called public policy has this idea at its source. However biopower can be thought of more fully, including technologies that act on a local population or particular social demand, but always with the idea of establishing power and control over particular localities or social groups.
Byung Chul Han in three recent works (The Swarm, Psychopolitics, and What is Power) (explains that this form has been superseded by current psychopolitics, where local powers and policies are replaced by elaborate new techniques of power, Foucault also calls them that. With the problems of health, birth, mortality and life estimation (see this theme in welfare reform) the biopolitics aimed to control the “body” as well as the biopower.
Entering the digital age this evolves into psychopolitics, which leads us to a crisis of both freedom and identity, where psychically even one’s own will is struck. Byung Chul Han’s long analysis of What Is Power, returning to Nietzsche and even Kierkegaard (1813 – 1855), the philosopher reveals the subjective aspects that power has been working from the conception of the modern state.
He considers it essential to understand the digital age, even though he has criticism of technological appropriation, and places the latest Big Data technology as a key element in this process, and is therefore very current because it is the technology that reaches the psyche of the social subject, and of the individual ultimately: his interests, desires and worldviews.
I consider it important to return to Kierkegaard, although Chul Han does so on time, the ideas of this existentialist philosopher are deeply related to the concepts of the works of the Korean-German, in particular: the anguish in The Society of Bournout and the pursuit of happiness and pleasure in The agony of Eros.
The social scientist slovenian Renata Salecl’s obsession with choice addresses the issue of Kierkeegard’s updated anguish:
https://www.ted.com/talks/renata_salecl_our_unhealthy_obsession_with_choice/transcript?language=pt-br#t-97506  

 

Earth-planetarism, a planetary worldview

09 Jul

We have already mentioned that the worldview depends on a vision of the cosmos and life itself, there is still a citizen worldview, Edgar Morin called the land-fatherland and what I call earth-planetaryism. Seeing the planet as Patria, as “common house” in the religious mystical vision, as Gaia in a mythological view, incorporate this view, for the planet itself, living beings including animals and plants and cultures that are the citizenship of living peoples in the Planet.

Broaden a cosmos-planetary view of the Earth they inhabit. In Edgar Morin’s book he traces in chapters 2 and 3 what this planetary identity would be, and at the same time reveals an exhaustion and planetary agony, there is something that involves beyond the traditions and cultural issues at stake, the worldview depends on how man sees himself as a whole, and this implies an advanced worldview, which admits the new telescopes, which made the Copernican revolution, which are now the new media.

Terraplanism is the most extreme side of this view, but attachment to an earlier view of quantum physics, black holes, the view of a multi-verse implies that the planetary cosmovision is still enlightened and idealistic, stuck to an idea of ​​citizenship , of state and of planet that already is much surpassed, and agonizes in successive crises. In the book by Morin and Anne Brigitte Kern, they point out that the key phenomenon to understand this crisis of planetary proportions is “moral, psychic and intellectual underdevelopment” (Morin and Kern, 2011, 115), including development, and the proliferation of holistic “hollow” ideals and of mutilated visions, the loss of the global, the fundamental and the responsibility “(ibid.).

Broadening this vision requires abandoning pseudo-planetary principles that are Eurocentrists, third-worldists, imperialists and neocolonizers present in the “saviors of the homeland” are left or right, generally unrelated and limited worldview.

A new planetary vision, which respects nature itself, demands a vision of an even wider universe that was thought by Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and the Enlightenment, the eternal dualism materialism x idealism, the imperial religiosity of some religions.

Lack of wisdom to the humble and humility to the wise, it is time to rethink the thought, as Edgar Morin wanted, a time of transdisciplinarity of multi-verse (several universes).

MORIN, E., KERN, A.B. Terra Pátria (Earth homeland.) Trad. Paulo Neves. 6th. edition, Sulina Publishing, Brazil, 2011.

This presentation of the Edgar Morin in SESC in São Paulo Brasil, he talks about this subject: