The Shadows of Totalization, Part XXXV
A polemic isn’t necessarily closed to net external force…In order to show a polemical discourse was inertial (totalizing) it needs to be shown net external forces don’t or can’t act upon the polemical.
If a polemic inspired investigation, criticism, or questioning (even if there were better ways of inspiring these) I would be unable to call the polemical inertial, although maybe I could still make a case for calling the polemical relatively inertial. However, I am looking for some social discursive or nondiscursive practice I can call absolutely inertial. Can I build the case that the polemical is absolutely inertial?
I want to temporarily propose that the polemical is fed by principle, not by investigation, criticism, and questioning. I have to come back to how I know the polemical is fed by principle, or principle exclusively. I first want to see: what is a principle?
Wikipedia defines a principle,
A principle is one of several things: (a) a descriptive comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption; (b) a normative rule or code of conduct, and (c) a law or fact of nature underlying the working of an artificial device.
(The Wikipedia definition corresponds with the other dictionary definitions to which I have access.)
A fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption could not change without losing its status as a fundamental law, doctrine or assumption. As fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption it could not change. It must be inert. If the polemical is fed by the inert, it would be to that extent less apt to change. It would be at least somewhat stabilized. How much stabilized?
Painting by Gloria Petyarre.
posted by Yusef Asabiyah at 3:14 PM
4 Comments:
If polemic equals inertia or works in a similar way, and inertia is totalising, it means to escape this totality would require going into orbit, meaning just going round and round, but not going anywhere. Or alternatively to entirely leave the planet (or discourse).
No, inertia is nesessary and it does not by any nesecity lead to totalisation. It does however, lead to a grounding. The question this way becomes, what is our current grounding, and is it working in totalisaing (excluding) ways?
I take your second alternative: that to escape totality (inertia) means to entirely leave the planet.
It means to "go off" into space-time, but with the proviso that this space-time into which one goes off is not a pre-existing space-time. It is a space-time created in the act of "going off."
Inertia is necessary and in the strictest sense of the term necessary. However, action is also necessary. What I am trying to get at is a way to distinguish between inertia (totalization) and action in order to make a science of action.
-Yusef
Isnt action just another (but seemingly different from the view of orientation of the first) expression of inertia? Action is that which resists the pull of inertia, and inertia is that which resist the pull of action .. How are they different?
werkbund http://cciworldwide.org/members/Slipcovers.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Polar-Heart-Rate-Monitors.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Popcorn-Machines.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Garage-Door-Openers.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Area-Rugs.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Omeprazole.aspx http://cciworldwide.org/members/Vacuum-Cleaners.aspx
Post a Comment
<< Home