The Repression of Geology, Part II
Maggot: “Philosophy is the poetry which has been subsumed by, yoked to, THE STATE… that philosophy is poetry which is in service to the STATE…”
Father Gilliam: “And yet the goal is not to reduce philosophy to poetry, to equate philosophy with poetry, but to somehow liberate philosophy from this pall of death which its servitude to the STATE has cast upon it.”
Maggot: “Philosophy is not a genre of literature, really. Philosophy is to be measured by the use to which it can be put. But what is strange, for me, is that this in no way aligns or affiliates philosophy with what is called necessity.”
Bat: “The statement that philosophy is not necessary, nor is it aligned to necessity is threatening to anyone who wants to be a philosopher and to find a job. To say that philosophy is not necessary is to say that philosophy and philosophical ‘activity’ is not justified, is not needed. It is not wanted, either. We see this.”
Maggot: “I think that right there is the position of the divide between Anglo-American ‘analytical’ philosophy and Continental philosophy. The Anglo-American philosophers are affiliating philosophy with science because they want above all else for philosophy to be necessary – and no one questions that science is necessary.”
Pussy L’Amour: “Yeah, no one questions that science is necessary or serious. If philosophy, if philosophers, can show that they are necessary to science and scientists, they can stake a mighty claim to philosophy being necessary, necessity. That’s the desire of the Anglo-American philosophers – that they be able to stake that claim. Their truculence is lodged in this.”
Father Gilliam: “They are down there on the ground, groveling to be of service to the STATE, and here we are, doing everything we can to dislodge the STATE, the image of the STATE, from what thinking can be… there is bound to be hatred and contempt between us.”
Maggot: “For example with the logicians. You know, advanced work in logic is logic for its own sake. And yet, when I try to conduct a discussion ( of any kind ) with some ‘logicians’ they consistently insist that I am ‘irresponsible’, superfluous, superficial… their work is for its own sake, and yet, they wish, with all their heart that this ‘for its own sake’ be taken as vitally necessary ( somehow.)”
Pussy L’Amour: “In any event, the STATE doesn’t require philosophy or philosophers anymore, of any kind. Scientists don’t need philosophers, either. A scientist will tolerate a ‘logician’ to some extent, but after a point, will laugh.”
Father Gilliam: “And yet the goal is not to reduce philosophy to poetry, to equate philosophy with poetry, but to somehow liberate philosophy from this pall of death which its servitude to the STATE has cast upon it.”
Maggot: “Philosophy is not a genre of literature, really. Philosophy is to be measured by the use to which it can be put. But what is strange, for me, is that this in no way aligns or affiliates philosophy with what is called necessity.”
Bat: “The statement that philosophy is not necessary, nor is it aligned to necessity is threatening to anyone who wants to be a philosopher and to find a job. To say that philosophy is not necessary is to say that philosophy and philosophical ‘activity’ is not justified, is not needed. It is not wanted, either. We see this.”
Maggot: “I think that right there is the position of the divide between Anglo-American ‘analytical’ philosophy and Continental philosophy. The Anglo-American philosophers are affiliating philosophy with science because they want above all else for philosophy to be necessary – and no one questions that science is necessary.”
Pussy L’Amour: “Yeah, no one questions that science is necessary or serious. If philosophy, if philosophers, can show that they are necessary to science and scientists, they can stake a mighty claim to philosophy being necessary, necessity. That’s the desire of the Anglo-American philosophers – that they be able to stake that claim. Their truculence is lodged in this.”
Father Gilliam: “They are down there on the ground, groveling to be of service to the STATE, and here we are, doing everything we can to dislodge the STATE, the image of the STATE, from what thinking can be… there is bound to be hatred and contempt between us.”
Maggot: “For example with the logicians. You know, advanced work in logic is logic for its own sake. And yet, when I try to conduct a discussion ( of any kind ) with some ‘logicians’ they consistently insist that I am ‘irresponsible’, superfluous, superficial… their work is for its own sake, and yet, they wish, with all their heart that this ‘for its own sake’ be taken as vitally necessary ( somehow.)”
Pussy L’Amour: “In any event, the STATE doesn’t require philosophy or philosophers anymore, of any kind. Scientists don’t need philosophers, either. A scientist will tolerate a ‘logician’ to some extent, but after a point, will laugh.”
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 12:24 PM
4 Comments:
My dear Yusef (and favorite thinker!)
I read you every day and admire your acumen and persistence.
But I still have trouble decoding your present project - or should that be your screenplay or drama with various players of philosphy?
Let me quote one of your characters:
Father Gilliam: “They are down there on the ground, groveling to be of service to the STATE, and here we are, doing everything we can to dislodge the STATE, the image of the STATE, from what thinking can be… there is bound to be hatred and contempt between us.”
Would you PLEASE stop the self-flagellation. It's becoming pathetic.
Pathos is NOT the tone of philosophy. Rather, it is the JOY of creating concepts.
After several attempts to answer the question why we desire our own repression, you have arrived: You bring it on yourself in a twisted, neurotic, narcissitic way: You repress yourself because you (secretly) want victimization.
Yusef. Get out of it.
I'll always be there for you.
Your grateful reader - and conversationalist.
Orla Schantz
I don't understand why you cite that comment as an example of self-flagellation.
When Deleuze draws upon Pierre Claestres' "State against Society" or criticizes state-happy marxism, is he being pathetically self-flagellating?
Is your theory that people ( including me) desire their own repression because they wish to be victims? I think that Dr. Spinoza's original impetus in wanting to discuss the epistemology behind "desiring one's own repression" is that if you say something like you've said to someone ( as you've said this to me,) they find it incredible. It is not credible to me that I am seeking my own repression because I seek victimization.
I don't wish to be a victim. I don't even see how it could be said that I am bringing it on - how that could happen - through my comments here in the blog. ( or in my regular life, either.)
Dear Yusef,
You are right in correcting me. I over-reacted. I was in a bad mood and problaly had one or two glasses of wine too much.
I'm also frustrated at not really getting you. And I want to follow your thinking. About a month ago you outlined your project which I found worthwhile and stimulating:
What I want to do is to tell a several-part story which narrates this progression:
1)Western philosophy in the long duration in which an idea of repression couldn't be formulated;
2)Emergence of the idea of repression, and a little bit about how and why the idea got put together;
3)Burying and folding of the idea of repression shortly thereafter into strata,( the concept of strata ?) wherein the mechanics of the strata are real and relevant and replace the more nebulous and subjectivizing notions collectively known under the heading of repression.
There's a lot of ground here, and as I typically tend to wend and wander and sometimes schizophrenically lose track of my topic altogether, I expect that this may be an area where it will be particularly hard for me to keep it together.
Maybe you are right in the last sentence and that's the reason I can't follow you.
Hopefully yours,
Orla Schantz
Thanks, Orla.
I had no way of knowing that you found that interesting, or even that you'd read it and had a response to it.
It matters a great deal that it be possible to follow me.
For some reason I easily lose contact with any coherent train of thought I stumble across - fairly schizophrenic, I am, I guess.
I didn't mean to correct you. I just want to make sure I process what you are saying to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home