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
Victory
to the Divine Mother.
Sincerely
Param
and Ojasi
Dr
K. Parameswaran
Associate Professor of Law (Public and Private International Law)
Associate Professor of Law (Public and Private International Law)
Knowledge Corridor, Koba - Gandhinagar 382 028 (Gujarat)
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.
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.)
Intellectual Love of God and Commodity Fetishism from Larval Subjects Jun 27, 2012
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