User Info
 Welcome Anonymous
Membership:
 Latest: sherifelbarbary
 New Today: 0
 New Yesterday: 0
 Overall: 2
 People Online:
 Members: 0
 Visitors: 1
 Total: 1
Who Is Where: Visitors:01: News
Staff Online:No staff members are online!
|
Our Official Blog : genetics and genealogy - tracing the traces
Posted by horatio on Monday, February 15, 2010 (18:52:39) (11 reads)
Recently in one of my classes we have been looking at genetics and DNA in various forms and manifestations, but in particular as it relates to the science-art interface, commonly also called bioart {Harvard's take on bioart}. And one of the things that ran through my mind in the past few days, mostly as I try to come up with an interesting project for class, but also thinking about my own work and interests, has to do with the work that DNA and genetics play in genealogy.
My aunt Marjorie is our resident family historian, and quite an accomplished one at that. Her knowledge of our various and sordid family past never ceases to amaze and confound me, and it seems like she is always finding something new or noteworthy about our past relatives.
While looking into all of this I ran into a neat little series of flash animations about genes, SNP's and some of the basics of DNA and genetics relevant for genealogy, check it out right here.
comments? |   | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : entangled nature
Posted by horatio on Saturday, February 13, 2010 (03:30:50) (23 reads)
So my parsons class this week dealt with food as our main topic, something which i had already reflected on slightly in my last post on hybridity, largely responding to some worries about gmo's and the precautionary principle in science that were sparked by the Outlaw Biology conference videos.
We had a rather wide-ranging and at times overly vague conversation about a number of topics, but a few things stood out as noteworthy. The one I want to explore a little deeper here relates to my own research interests and academic work, as well as my own personal interests. Simply put, it's the long-standing debate about what distinguishes natural from artificial, especially if we assume that man is a natural creation, and therefore anything man made is also natural. This was one of the lines of argument that was being advanced in class, and which I was specifically refuting in my limited comments. Here I want to try and draw that debate out further, flesh out some core concepts that must be dealt with, and try to work through some of the implications of these various positions.
3 Basic Arguments:
a) man vs nature - The Cartesian Duality
This first position argues that there is an important and clear divide between humans and other animals and nature, and that this is most clearly seen in areas like culture, technology, language, consciousness and higher-order logic and reasoning. While we may all be "animals" in the most general sense of living, breathing, mating and dying organisms, all the comparisons stop after those basic functions. As Descartes argues in his famous Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting the Reason (1637), animals are like automata, only capable of pre-programmed response.
| Quote:: |
| [Animals] have no reason at all, and that it is nature which acts in them according to the disposition of their organs, just as a clock, which is only composed of wheels and weights is able to tell the time more correctly than we can do with all our wisdom...there is none which is more effectual in leading feeble spirits from the straight path of virtue, than to imagine that the soul of the brute is of the same nature as ours... {Discourse pt. V, 39-40} |
Similar to the claim about animals, there is also a qualitative divide between the social relations that could be observed in nature (lion prides, schools of fish) and the techno-cultural creation of complex cities and infrastructure (castles, bridges, aqueducts, highways, skyscrapers). All of these features distinguish the "man-made" from the natural.
b) man is nature - The Gaia Theory
This second position, while not as easily delineated as the first position, has a constellation of related ideas enough that we can sketch out at least a basic philosophical framework like above. In essence, this position holds that man is not separate from nature, but rather deeply enmeshed in the living world around us, regardless of whether we think this to actually be the case. We have simply fooled ourselves into thinking that we are superior through a long history of violent domination and disconnection from the land in every facet of our lives (physical, emotional, mental and spiritual). Lovelock described this idea as:
| Quote:: |
| ...a complex entity involving the Earth's biosphere, atmosphere, oceans, and soil; the totality constituting a feedback or cybernetic system which seeks an optimal physical and chemical environment for life on this planet. {Gaia Hypothesis, 10} |
While we are intrinsically connected to nature by cause of our being a part of it, we have also created a false separation that has become manifest in such a way that we actually believe the myth of Descartes to be real, and have attempted to force nature to conform to this duality. This effectively creates the illusion that we are separate and superior to nature and non-human animals, but as many argue, the costs of maintaining this illusion are increasingly exposing themselves (global warming, species extinction, mass toxicity of water and soil, deforestation, global conflicts, etc). Unless we begin to acknowledge these realities and work to restore a balanced interaction, things will continue on a downward track to mass global destruction.
c) man equals nature - The Postmodern Schizophrenia
This third position best characterize the modern world of wise-use environmentalism and techno-utopianism, and is an attempt by a commodity and use-value dominated world culture (ie: neoliberal capitalism) to impose market-based technical solutions to ecological systems--an effort that those in the gaia camp argue is impossible. This view sees the world from a Cartesian duality (mind/body or nature/culture), and ranges from open acknowledgment of inter-related systems to outright denial of anything except human use-value. Alex Epstein, writing for the Ayn Rand Center, expresses some of this logic in his discussion of cloning debates and the human-nature-god philosophical nexus:
| Quote:: |
| The one truth in the anti-cloning position is that cloning does represent "the desire to exert our will over every aspect of our surroundings." But such a desire is not immoral--it is a mark of virtue. Using technology to alter nature is a requirement of life. It is what brought man from the cave to civilization. Where would we be without the men who "exerted their will" over their surroundings and constructed the first hut, cottage, and skyscraper? Every advance in human history is part of "the technological project," and has made man's life longer, healthier, and happier. These advances are produced by those who hold the premise that suffering and disease are a curse, not to be humbly accepted as "God's will," but to be fought proudly with all the power of man's rational mind.. {Ayn Rand Center, The virtue of "Playing God"} |
This position argues that man is a part of nature, somewhat in opposition to Descarte's view, but then inverts the Gaia claim about human interference and manipulation of nature into one of active intervention and design as our obligation (a Biblical steward mentality). If humans are a part of nature like everything else, they argue, then anything we do or create must also be natural. Therefore arguments premised on some action or technology being "unnatural"--for instance genetically modified organisms (gmo's)--are seen as arbitrary and not based on any measurable distinction between nature and non-nature. Anything we do is already natural, and therefore out actions, following a very utilitarian logic, should seek to maximize the good impacts and minimize the negative ones, but only within a certain logic of values.
Paradoxes in Positions
While the above positions are extremely thin sketches of complex and shifting positions, they at least give us some conceptual terrain to begin walking around on for this question of nature and man. At the core is this question of perception and its implications for how we think and act in the world. In other words, what is the difference between seeing myself as an internal part of an all-encompassing entity called "nature" vs seeing myself as an external part of a constructed entity called "nature"?
One importance implication between the two views is the responsibility and relationality attached to the notion of nature. For example, if I believe in the Cartesian duality and view nature as an external thing, out there in the woods where the salamanders and bears are--in opposition to the concrete world of Brooklyn, NY and the L train where I live--it is very easy to lose track of how this "human city world" interfaces with that "natural animal world". I can essentially go along with my day however I please with no awareness or concern for potential impacts from this world and lifestyle. I am never forced (or in many cases even allowed) the chance to examine or consider the implications of my actions. Where does the garbage go when I throw it onto the curb. Where does the water go when I wash the dishes or take a shower. What powers my computer or charges my iPod? None of these factors need to be considered in relation to our daily reality, because we have already separated ourselves from nature, simultaneously externalizing and internalizing it as a concept. It is only when the power goes out or the garbage union goes on strike, that I even have to stop and think about these semi-mechanical routines.
But if we start from a different premise than a Cartesian dualism and rather view nature as something we have constructed, and which can be traced historically through a series of practices and discourses--a la Foucaultian genealogy or similar methodology--then we can begin to point to the places and techne which emerged to legitimate a discourse of culture as distinct from nature, or human as distinct from animal. The French philosopher Jacques Derrida has done an extensive tracing of this process in the philosophical ideas of Western thinkers and their claims about the question of the animal, and many of his claims have since been taken up and expanded within the field of critical animal studies, animal behavior studies and related fields of inquiry.
Similarly, the fields of ecocriticism, deep ecology and ecosophy/ecotheology have developed parallel discourses on the concept of nature and the philosophical threads of thinking about ecology and humans. The Norwegian philosopher < a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arne_N%C3%A6ss">Arne Naess, who is credited with the concept of deep ecology, is one well known example where these ideas have been traced and developed, but the core of these ideas is an understanding and belief that humans cannot remove themselves or their actions from their ecological surroundings. In other words, everything we do has an impact and ramifications in the web of life, and we should attempt to take a full account of our actions prior to acting in order to minimize harm. In this sense, it is very much a philosophical analog to the precautionary principle in science I discussed earlier.
Within cybernetic systems theory, as well as in chaos theory, and increasingly in quantum physics, there is a growing awareness of the complexity of life being far more dynamic and interconnected than we had ever imagined, and far more than we are able to model with even the most sophisticated computer simulations. From mycorrhizal associations between fungi and trees, to the complex relationships between mirror neurons and visual processing of external stimulus in the cortex, we are barely skimming the surface of understanding the complex way that the world around us functions.
But this knowledge has not stopped us from blazing full speed ahead in manipulating our natural environment. So a major problem becomes how we take certain values and translate them into actions. If we truly believe that we are an interlinked species in a complex web of life which we both impact and are impacted by, what changes in how we think about and interact with our surroundings might seem appropriate or necessary? To take a simply example, if we wanted to improve the aquatic systems in the Hudson River, what actions would we need to take to realize this? How would we measure changes, and what would the implications be of an improved aquatic ecosystem for the future of the Hudson River Valley?
So the challenge becomes one of asking, how do we go about changing the political value structure which underlies our modern economic value structure? I think one of the answers lies in the creative work of artists, but I'll leave that for a later essay.
As a parting thought, here's a thought on the techno-future from a different angle, in this case Shaviro's amazing blog on the movie Gamer.
| Quote:: |
| That is to say, there is no going back on the network and its circuits of celebrity and control, and reverting to a supposedly clearer and more honest state of affairs. The only way out is the way through. The only possible oppositional strategy is one of embracing these control technologies, generalizing them, and opening them up. This is the very strategy that Neveldine and Taylor adopt in Gamer, by fully embracing the very logic of entertainment and involvement that they are satirizing, and making an “exploitation” film whose hope is to draw audiences in, rather than “alienating” them. In the twenty-first century, cognitive estrangement doesn’t work any more as a subversive strategy (if it ever did); what’s needed is rather a strategy that ups the ante on our very complicity with the technologies and social arrangements that oppress us. |
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : hybrid meditations
Posted by horatio on Thursday, February 11, 2010 (03:12:11) (35 reads)
The last few days I have been thinking a lot about possible projects and research ideas for a Parsons class I am taking called Hybrid Worlds Nano+Bio+Art. The class was framed in part through a recent conference called Outlaw Biology which was held at the California NanoSystems Institute.
The speakers from the main panel, as well as some discussion video, were posted and I have been watching them, trying to get a sense for what was going on there. What is really interesting is the spin they took on the event, which had series of sub themes that included: Citizen Science | DIY Biology | Nano Hacking | At-Home Clinical Research | Recreational Genetics | Synthetic Biology | Open Source Science | Ars Synthetica | Genetic Art
We also read an essay from the event by moderator Chris Kelty called Outlaws, Hackers, Victorian Gentleman, and that is what really sparked my interest. But there is a certain disconnect I see in the ideas in this essay and others linked on this event, and the videos from the keynote speakers. To put it very crudely, I see it as something akin to "scientific myopia" or what wikip describes as seeing "near objects clearly but far away objects appear blurred." And this is exactly the feeling I was left with after watching many of the speakers. And perhaps most surprisingly, the one that left the worst taste in my mouth was the one I am probably most sympathetic to otherwise, Meredith Patterson, who was talking about biopunks, hackers and diy science [video here].
What left the bad taste was one comment in particular that she made, suggesting that the "precautionary principle" is counter to scientific development and actually a huge problem that we should address--in essence the precautionary principle stifles creativity and is the evil of all things sciency--that was her main point. This struck me as incredible ignorant, and a classic example of the shortsightedness and inability to see the big picture of many in the world of science R&D.
I jump to an ecological and food security perspective immediately whenever I hear someone mention the "pp" word, because that is where I have waged the biggest battles over this issue. A simple case in point: genetically modified organism, better known as GMO's.
GMO's represent both the cutting edge of scientific/technological plant genetics today, and one of the most important fronts for fighting against the homogenization and destruction of global biodiversity of both flora and fauna. Monsanto's Terminator seeds and Round-Up Ready crops are just a few of many examples of where GMO battles are being fought right now. So what's the link between the pp and GMO's? Simply put, it's about who controls what and how, and if some things should be left untouched.
When you talk about GMO's, you are usually talking about patents, TRIPPS, proprietary research, GIRTS, biopiracy and agro/biomedical research--in effect, who gets to "own" a slice of life. While some may not object to Monsanto or Dow or ADM "owning" the right to a seed they have genetically bred and modified in their labs, the problem comes when those experiments leave the confines of the lab and enter the real world. Suddenly, a closed system is exposed to a dynamic and open system, with absolutely no controls or guarantees as to what will happen. This is the beauty of ecological evolution and biological mutation, anything goes and hybridity is the name of the game. But GMO's insert a problem into the equation, they halt this process by forcing certain pre-designed plans--seed sterility, disease resistance, etc. While this may not sound so bad, the implications are the real "proof" of the pudding. If a GMO plant crosses with a wild or native plant, and that GMO gene crosses, the risk of a permanent loss of genetic material instantly manifests.
And that's exactly what the pp is all about: limiting acceptable risk. You don't introduce a sterile fish that can kill every other fish into a pond just because you can. You have to consider the long-term risks--that's the core of the pp. If you're not sure, don't just guess and hope it all works out ok. That may be fine for a 10th grade geometry problem, but it can spell permanent and irreversible destruction in the real world looking at something like plants or animals. And what Meredith's comments brought home to me was this utopian scientific view that all progress must be good, and anything which holds it back is bad and dangerous.
While this is a powerful and useful example for issues like open source software and hardware, some of the issues she primarily works on, it is a dangerous model to transpose onto living systems. If you wipe out a particular variety of plant or animal--make it go extinct--no amount of engineering will bring it back. You can't reverse engineer an organism the same way you can a piece of software code. And it's this full speed ahead, ra-ra modernity mentality that worries me in the scientific-art-social overlap. Just because it is cool or new, doesn't mean it is good.
At some point, the lab stops being a useful model for the real world, and I think there is a danger in romanticizing outlaw biology for exactly this reason. Designing a nano installation that can create a smiley face under a scanning microscope is surely neat, and perhaps has aesthetic value in and of itself, but are the full implications of these developments really being explored in all the excitement of the moment. That's my real worry, and why I feel so hesitant to embrace this outlaw biology and hacker model as really as liberating as it feels. But I'm still holding the door open to see, albeit somewhat more skeptically.
{thanks to shtig corp for the graphics}
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : the art and science of food
Posted by horatio on Tuesday, February 09, 2010 (20:16:05) (13 reads)
Maybe you should be the new food prep person, he laughingly told me, after our discussion about a weekend meal. Have you thought about coming back here and being a sous chef, she asked me, commenting on a picture of the latest pizza creation. Maybe I should have gone to the Pittsburgh culinary arts school, I mentioned to my roommate over a meal, wondering what would have happened had I taken that route. But maybe one of the reasons that it is so fun to cook is because you don't have to do it for a job, the young woman suggested, as we were talking about the therapeutic value of cooking on both of our lives. Food, food and more food. I even made a picture gallery on facebook just for collaborative cooking projects recently. Pizza, bread, cookies, casseroles, etc.
{featured here: a rasta challah for the Bob Marley One Love party}
I've always loved to cook. In fact, I think I pretty much grew up cooking. I remember being very little and part of our chores every week, in exchange for a minor allowance, was to help cook some of the weekly meals. I never thought about it that much, but I guess that was really the beginning of my informal "cook-in-training" lifestyle. But I'm not entirely sure it really stopped there, as my grandparents also cooked a good deal, perhaps more on my paternal side that I recall, although the maternal side takes the prize for everything cold and tasty.
Even in junior high school I cooked a fair bit, a mix of different dishes, not just rice and potatoes and steak, although there was a fair bit of that as well. And over he years this became more of a way of life for me. Living on a small quasi-farm outside Athens, having grown up with gardens as a youth, and having kept gardens as an adult, food has always been a huge part of my life. There is something about cooking that just makes the world better, brighter, and without doubt, tastier.
And so lately I have been thinking a lot about food and the future, food and science, and food and technology. Whether it is in the context of GMO crops and plant engineering, food security and slow food, back to the land movements, or food in the context of animals and meat and the ethics of industrial slaughter, it seems that I have the food bug lately. I've been watching food videos on YouTube. I've been trying new recipes, new styles of old food prep, and new food styles all together. And it's been fun. And so the next step seems to be how to bring all of these things into a project, perhaps for a class, but definitely into a more productive dialogue and process that keeps me learning and moving ahead with this experiment, but without losing any of the the fun or joy in the works.
My next tentative culinary project: edible mushroom art.
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Growing Pains
Posted by horatio on Sunday, December 06, 2009 (07:22:31) (45 reads)
Life has a way of sneaking up on you, or so I feel lately. Blink and it seems like yesterday was a lifetime ago, and things that made sense last week seem oddly unfamiliar tomorrow. The well of ink on my lifedesk is miserably empty, leaving me to try and scrape out slivers of inspiration with a sharp blade. If you're not careful, the knife slips and, before you know it, the blood starts to replace the ink in the storytelling that is life. My journals are all empty or old and full of memories, some of which are best left in perpetual storage. Like the pictures in the shoebox, they tell a thousand and one tales of daring, adventure, love and loss.
2009 was a great year, and an awful year, punctuated in the middle like a carnival balloon animal mid contortion, ephemeral, destined to fly away and leave only a crying child holding the empty strings and happy memories. But the balloon never comes back, even if you write your name on its heart. And like the circus, life picks up and moves on to another place, another time, another world.
And while I've been crowing and hurting, i've also been learning. Right now my head feels like an over-ripe watermelon, verging on internal rupture. But I can't say it is a completely bad thing. I love learning, and this has been a particularly rewarding fall as far as new learning, new ideas and academic growth is concerned. Exciting horizons lay in front of me, if I can only ride off into them before the sun sets. Some days it seems so close, other days more like a mirage, always receding as I reach out to grasp hold of it. But I've always been a scrapper, so I just keep brushing off the dust and pulling my boots on tighter.
Where is all of this leading; I haven't a clue? I wish I did. All I can do is wait and see.
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Political Dissent, Speech Acts and the New School Milieu
Posted by horatio on Monday, October 05, 2009 (01:18:28) (126 reads)
An Open Letter to the New School
10.2.09
As many people at the New School are likely now aware, student protests at a Milano public forum on Homeland Security, where Tom Ridge was the featured guest, have sparked considerable controversy around issues of freedom of speech and political protest. This is a controversy deeply entwined with not only the history and legacy of the New School, but also with the current campus climate and administration of the school. Some of the questions that have emerged so far include:
~ Were students justified in protesting the appearance of Tom Ridge at the New School?
~ Were the specific tactics used to disrupt the Tom Ridge event appropriate?
~ What standards does the community use to judge what is "appropriate" or "inappropriate" actions?
~ Are all forms of protest equally legitimate and protected?
~ What is the relationship between the protection of free speech on campus and the creation of a safe space for academic discussion and debate?
~ Should the university only invite individuals to speak whose values or politics we agree with?
~ What exactly are the core values and the mission of the New School today, and how do they relate to our historical legacy as an institution?
~ Does the university community have an affirmative obligation to condemn actions which pose a potential threat to free speech at the New School?
~ Can issues of political dissent be separated from the political critique being offered by those acts?
These are all very important questions which the university is now grappling with, but which I believe we as a community are not adequately discussing. With that being said, I believe the academic community at the New School has an obligation to engage with these issues in a constructive and timely manner—one which does justice to our political views and positions as individual members—as well as our philosophical obligation as the embodiment or living spirit that defines the New School. We must demonstrate the value of theory and practice in a unified manner in and out of the classroom.
In an attempt to do just that, I offer the following reflections to the New School community. First, by addressing the underlying political issues as I understand them and as I see them relating to the specific issue of Tom Ridge speaking at the New School. Second, by framing the issues of political dissent and free speech in both a very grounded New School context, as well as a larger philosophical context. And finally, by trying to suggest the interconnections between the first and seconds parts, and their immediate ramifications for our school.
Continued in Read More link below...
Read More... (30.19 KB) | comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 5
|
Our Official Blog : Consumer (Red)
Posted by horatio on Monday, May 18, 2009 (18:57:58) (109 reads)
Here is a poster cover I have been working on for the latest issue of Canon magazine. Just a design inspired by a friend's work on the Red campaign...
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : New Words for the Day
Posted by horatio on Monday, May 18, 2009 (03:12:46) (95 reads)
Well, it's always fun to take a few minutes after a long project and reflect on how it all turned out. Too bad I don't have time to do that 
So instead, I'll just offer a few tidbits from my work today. In short, trying to finish up a god-awful long ethnography project that is about 35 pages too long--it was supposed to be around 20!--egads, and my homemade pizza is cold and hard and the microwave keeps beeping at me to get my coffee out of it, so all I can do is say, here's the new words I added to my spell checker:
-unmutilated
-Marcuse
-... {yeah, my computer froze up trying to get past Eros and Civilization--I wonder if it is trying to tell me something ;)}
-zine/s
-radicality {this one was particularly amusing, since the sentence read "We recognize no pre-given limits to the radicality of our intentions." Apparently the built-in spell checker on the computer disagreed...}
-ethnographer's
-it wanted to add Kerrey's but I just decided to tell it to "Ignore All", it seemed rather fitting.
-recuperators (?) WTF is a recuperator anyway?
-countermoves
-accommodationist
-flyering
-assed, as in half-assed
-Unaguration
-consensed
-admin
-something's
-spatiotemporal {at least the computer tried on this one, it suggester atemporal...}
-Bakhtin
-insurrectionary
-unlife {it suggeted unlike - how unlike life unlife is - hahahaha, i digress}
-deconstructing {seriously!? How big of a statement on modernity is it that my computer knows reconstruction, but not deconstruction! Oh the irony.}
-it thinks Booya should be Yahoo?!
-anarcho {apparently it knows anarchy, but not anarcho?}
-primally
-unfreedom
-autodestruction {it thought this should be two words...}
-immediatists
-mediatists
-sublation {it went for the close sublimation, and an entirely different meaning!}
-supersession
-timeframe {again with the two word thing}
-disjoining {ditto}
-Ranciére
-biopolitical {which is truly ironic when one of the alternate options is nonpolitical}
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Mapping Resistance
Posted by horatio on Saturday, April 04, 2009 (04:41:01) (96 reads)
Mapping Resistance
Today has been a strangely productive day. I hope these questions are helpful for our inquiry into the nature of resistance. They are inspired from my current reading of Talal Asad's On Suicide Bombing (-love the cover image) and meditations on the construction of animal, nature and human... With that in mind, let me begin with two quotes, rather than a poem
| Quote:: |
"If you're not afraid of it, it will hurt you," said animal behaviorist Dave Salmoni. "You can't get the wild out of a cat because he's in a cage."
The Lion House is where the mauling occurred... just after the public feeding with at least 50 patrons watching, Tatiana turned on Komejan [a zookeeper]. Chari and his son [zoogoers] were standing 8 to 10 feet away, focused on another tiger named Tony, when they heard a shriek. |
Does anyone else see the sick hidden irony in all of this? Tony the Tiger? The Lion House? public feedings? "Civilized" versus "savage"? or is it just me...
As I read the first few lines in ch. 2 this thought came to mind: How do you “show” a particular construction of a particular logic which then constitutes (makes "real") certain understandings of what "war" and "terrorism" mean (and look like) in relation to our additional constructed understandings* of what he calls the "question of legality" and "feelings and vulnerability and fear of social disorder"? {p39} After coming out of the end of ch. 1 I had this question of the "liberal democratic state" and its relationship to violence on the tip of my mind.
The thought, because I have apparently been thinking and looking at maps and mapping (both are true), came out in the form of a visual map idea. Could a group of 15 people map out our understandings, our “logic”, of what a construction like “resistance” looks like, either visually or linguistically (most likely written, but possibly sung or performed)? Could we draw out on a big white board with a marker our outline, our assumptions, our “logics” of resistance? Maybe. What about the liberal democratic state? Could we map that out? Don't we, like Walzer—also construct a particular discourse on what is “resistance” in our class and in our daily lives? Could we map those out? Would they be similar?
It really goes back to an earlier question that came up a couple of weeks ago in conversation. What is the basic “logic” and “common sense” that each person starts from in thinking about a construction like the “liberal democratic state” and the discourse that holds it up in US society? Is it inherently based on exploitation, domination and oppression of some people by others, or is it fundamentally democratic more or less to all people? Can we speak of an “us”? This goes back to the question of mapping. Who gets to do the mapping, and what gets mapped, as the hegemonic discourse and reality are important questions to consider. Ultimately, I think they go back to the larger and harder question, which is who exactly gets defined as the “we” that are resisting against “them”—Schmitt's “friend and enemy” distinction—or the civilized against the savages. A battle over civilization, isn't that what this is? A becoming that is not fully realized, that is always almost at the point of becoming, or emerging—a becoming that is in conflict with itself. What happens in a nation of grown-up schizoparanoids?**
For example, consider the following statement in light of our earlier discussion on "civilized" v "savage" [or I might argue human v nonhuman]:
| Quote:: |
“Civilization refers to the central civilizational anxiety [paranoid anxiety], the fear of invasive malevolence. This is experienced as coming from the outside, but ultimately derives from the projection out of the death instinct. Civilization anxiety can be understood in terms of anxiety about imminent annihilation and derives from a sense of the destructive or death instinct of the self—[and by extension the state]. In this position before the secure internalisation of a good object to protect the ego—[think “the state”], the immature ego [“the state”] deals with its anxiety by splitting off bad feelings and projecting them out [hence the term “social outcasts” and torture centers located outside of the continental US]. However, this causes more civilization [paranoia]. Schizoid refers to the central defense mechanism: splitting, the vigilant separation of the good object from the bad object...a healthy development implies that the infant has to split its external world, its objects and itself into two categories: good (i.e., gratifying, loved, loving) and bad (i.e. frustrating, hated, persecutory). This splitting makes it possible to introject and identify with the good. In other words: splitting in this stage is useful because it protects the good from being destroyed by the bad. Later, when the ego [“the state”] has developed sufficiently, the bad can be integrated, and ambivalence and conflict can be tolerated.”**
|
As odd as it all seems, it really is simple, which is perhaps the problem after all. Resistance is about hanging onto something as much as it is about getting something new. What do we want to gain, and what do we want to lose? And mapping that is a lot harder...
Earlier today my mother sent me a video link on the "American Government". While I wouldn't say I support the video's conclusion, but it is a provocative case for defending a Republic rather than a Democracy and speaks directly to the question of a "democratic liberal state."
With that I will end with a selectively fascinating tidbit that only a few people will likely appreciate, but is worthy nonetheless in my opinion.
| Quote:: |
On the East side of Coit Tower, down the Greenwich steps halfway to Sansome, a local artist has made a memorial statue to honor Tatiana the Tiger. I suggest walking from the bottom and up, and you'll see on the right hand side a cobblestone path lined with wood planks (not somebody's backyard!) that leads to an opening. At the top of the slope in the brush, you'll see a mosaic painted life size statue of the tiger underneath a small banana tree. The memorial marks the one year anniversary of the death of the tiger that everyone, except for these Yelpers, forgets to mourn.
RIP Tatiana!
|
And after all, Tatiana deserves to have her side of the story told too, right! It's been like five minutes and my sides still hurt and I can't see straight, so I think you might want to watch this too. [warning...this video may cause spontaneous and contagious laughter from anyone in the vicinity. You have been warned!]
That of course left me wondering what can we do to get back to nature and start talking again about freedom. I think I agree with Jules Dervaes, we do need a homegrown revolution!
*[Tatiana might respond: "You need to look both at the construction of the relationship between these understandings, and the construction of each of those distinct and separate "knowledges", one might argue...]
**[inspired and adapted from wiki]
***For more from Asad check him out on the Huffington Post talking more about "Just War".
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
Our Official Blog : Reflections from 1st ~ Inspirations from sycamore
Posted by horatio on Thursday, January 29, 2009 (17:19:24) (74 reads)
I find that it is not often that I have the time to do many of the things which, at least in my idealized world, I would be able to do. Writing is always high among those things which I "ought" to do more of, but which I usually "tend" to do less of, at least in the last year or so. It seems to me that when I do make the time, I find it highly productive and always cathartic. So, having a little time this morning, here are a few reflections, or musings as my aunt would call them, on the state of things here.
Part I: The Life of Squirrels
You know, it's really funny. I have spent pretty much all of my life in and around the woods and the furry woodland creatures which inhabit them. Yet it took me going to New York City or all places to really get to see some of the more interesting sides of animal domestic life.
In the past few weeks I have been paying special attention to the squirrels in the complex where I live, as almost every large tree has a nest somewhere in it, or if not, then in an adjacent tree. One morning about two weeks ago I was walking out and happened to look up and see a mother squirrel sitting in a hollow of the tree with what looked to be about 3 little babies nursing on her belly. What was particularaly interesting was watching here navigate moving around the tree, up and down around the hole, while also trying to make sure the babies did not fall off.
This required quite a lot of skill, or at least it seemed to me, as she would sometimes hang with one hand while she reached around with the other to get a different grip. While doing this she would strategically wrap her tail around her side as a sort of baby sling as she moved around. The whole scene lasted for less than a minute, but it was the first time I had seen a squirrel nursing in a tree while going about its daily routine. (As an interesting note, this would seem to be the wrong time of year to be nursing babies, as usually grey squirrels breed in Feb/Mar and June/July...?).
The second squirrel adventure was even more interesting to watch, and was also a first. Our kitchen window looks out from the 3rd floor into a courtyard area with several large sycamore and oak trees, two of which have squirrel nests in them at about the 2nd floor level. One day last week I was looking out as I had my morning coffee and happened to catch a young grey squirrel with a long, thin twig in his mouth. He was fairly far out on one of the branches and was working his way back towards the trunk and the nest below. And this is where I thought it was really interesting.
I've always been amazed at the squirrel's agility and grace in a tree, but this was a performance par excellence. You see, the problem was that the stick was just long enough, and had just enough of a Y and a few side shoots, to make it fairly awkward. So here is this little squirrel--who judging by the size was a juvenile from last spring--carrying this twig that is at least twice his size down this skinny little branch and getting stuck every 6-8" on another branch or twig in its way. Every so often it would would switch and grab the branch in its hands, move it around an obstacle, and then grab it back in its mouth again. It did this for about five minutes until it had finally gotten past the branches and into the drey (nest); which in this case was both a tree hollow and a nest in one (talk about fancy living).
Having accomplished that, the squirrel then tried to pull the stick into the hole of the tree hollow, but as the stick was too long, it was having quite a problem. After about a minute of pushing and pulling it appeared to give up and left the stick in the nest and went over to the adjoining tree to join a few others juvenile squirrels playing there. A minute or two later one of those squirrels came over and began to try and work the stick into the nest, but also had the same problems. But then it took the stick in its mouth, began to climb down and around the tree, and in the process fumbled with it, almost dropped it twice, and then finally on the third try dropped it altogether. It looked down, seemed as if it was going to go after it, and then scampered off into the previous tree it had been in.
All that work for nothing, I thought to myself. But perhaps that's how it is?
Incidentally, it also appears that squirrels have played quite a role in the history of my old state of Ohio, as well as my new home of NYC. Here's two snippets to highlight this from the Scholarly Squirrel:
| Quote:: |
In the late 18th century, the squirrel population in Ohio ballooned to uncontrollable numbers. In 1791, squirrels invaded the territory around the town of Belpre after that year's acorn crop failed to sustain their appetites. After eating the Belpre settlers' entire corn crop, the squirrels (which are not especially known for their aquatic prowess) swam across the Ohio River en masse and began devouring West Virginia!
|
| Quote:: |
| Squirrels have been blamed for causing at least one confirmed stock market crash and a Miss America Pageant disaster in the United States, as well as precipitating countless fires and power outages which have left entire cities without electricity for days. For example, New York City officials claim that squirrels cause at least one power outage every day. |
comments? | | Our Official Blog | Score: 0
|
|
|
Register
Community
Members options
