Friday, June 29, 2012

We all are now facing a huge battle

We all are now facing a huge battle as a result of Peter's writing. It should not have happened. Followers of the Mother and Sri Aurobindo are observing a special collective meditation everyday at 8:30 pm - 8:45 pm, wherever they are.
This will be a regular feature and yet another golden chance for us everyday to collectively connect ourselves to the Mother and Sri Aurobindo on this issue. Even in Ashram a section of people have started it. 
Friends in Pune, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Madurai, Orissa, Bangalore and other places have been informed. You can inform your other friends as well. 
Om Anadamayi Chaitanyamayi Satyamayi Parame.
Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Aravindaya.
Om Aayahi Satya Aavirbhava. 
Victory to the Divine Mother. 
Param and Ojasi
Dr K. Parameswaran
Associate Professor of Law (Public and Private International Law)
Gujarat National Law University, Atalika Avenue
Knowledge Corridor, Koba - Gandhinagar 382 028 (Gujarat) INDIA

R: June 26, 2012 6:26 PM 2. Secondly, even when the Mother and Sri Aurobindo were present, they themselves have acknowledged the fact that the Ashram was a representative figure of the whole world. In other words, there were many sadhaks representing the world outside. So?
It is also to be noted that the majority of the persons coming nowadays, are coming, only to have a job and a comfortable living. No intention of sadhana, let alone the Integral Yoga.
We have observed the gradual deterioration in the atmosphere after the passing of the Mother. Even Mother has made damaging remarks about the Ashram, in the Agenda.
So where does that leave us? Of course, we can shout from the roof tops that the aim of the Sri Aurobindo Ashram is the Integral Yoga. But what is the ground reality?
Complex situation, to say the least.

Tweets 1h - Adam Kotsko @adamkotsko Finally: Zizek is more like the radical right than the radical left! I felt it coming.... 1h Zizek refers to quantum physics! Sokal alert! (No word on if the reference is actually wrong, though.) 

The post-structuralists provided me with weapons to dissolve the essentialist identities the fascists defended in their attacks on women, the queer, minorities, etc.  Modeled on Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism in Capital, the task of critical theory and post-structuralism was to show how all these purported “natural” identities and differences were really socially produced fetishes that need to be demolished in the name of the freedom to create oneself (Foucault’s care of the self, Butler’s performativity) and in the name of a communist egalitarianism.  Psychoanalysis as refracted through Lacan and Deleuze and Guattari’s schizoanalysis provided the tools to show why we libidinally become attached to such sad and harrowing social structures.  Marx provided a basic framework for how “the judgments of the earth” take place, stratifying and hierarchializing social relations through a play of ideologies, machines, resources, and flows of capital.  And always, lurking in the background, was the Spinozist project of joy, of sorority and fraternity, rather than Oedipus, sovereignity, or authority…  Always there’s the dream of transversal social production out of groups on a flat and egalitarian plane, rather than centralized aborescence.  Brothers and sisters as a conspiracy against the Father.
All of this remains at the core of my passions, yet there was nonetheless a disquiet.  If Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism was the elementary schema, the master-key, of all critical theory and analysis, what was I to do with my love of all nonhuman living things, of the inorganic world, of meteorology, astronomy, geology, and all the rest? …  As I reflect on my own journey, I find myself thinking that critical theory, in treating Marx’s analysis of commodity fetishism, repeats the central sin of capitalism… In treating all things as fetishes to be decoded and debunked, I have not practiced lassen sein, because I reduce, for example, the animal to a social construction, to social positionality, in a system of signs or signifiers. 
Rather than letting the octopus be for itself, I instead treat it as a cultural text.  I turn it into something else, a social text, rather than approaching it as a divergent series, another possible world, that departs from ours while also taking up a point of view on ours.  And in doing this, I repeat the elementary attitude of human exceptionalism and capitalist production, where all things that exist are things that are there for us, rather than for themselves.  I treat all things as things to be exploited and used.  I write alienation and exploitation into the heart of ontology.

Foucault's use of episteme has been asserted as being similar to Thomas Kuhn's notion of a paradigm, as for example by Jean Piaget.[2] … Kuhn's and Foucault's notions are both influenced by the French philosopher of science Gaston Bachelard's notion of an "epistemological rupture", as indeed was Althusser. More recently, Judith Butler used the concept of episteme in her book Excitable Speech, examining the use of speech-act theory for political purposes.
Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions… According to Feyerabend, new theories came to be accepted not because of their accord with scientific method, but because their supporters made use of any trick – rational, rhetorical or ribald – in order to advance their cause… One of the criteria for evaluating scientific theories that Feyerabend attacks is the consistency criterion. He points out that to insist that new theories be consistent with old theories gives an unreasonable advantage to the older theory. [From Wikipedia]

No comments:

Post a Comment