The Shadows of Totalization, Part XL
One motivation for this is to dispel a nasty destructive polemical plaguing discussion at Enlightenment Underground,caused because our critical terminology is not critical though we use it as if it is. This includes key concepts of affirmation, active, passive, constructive, positive,"new" ,production,creation, but most importantly Totalization, and Totality.
We run into strange confrontations where Orla accuses me of necrophilic tarrying over dead, useless corpses of thought while to me Orla seems to be a thoughtless tot bouncing off the walls. Different conceptions of the active collide without critical awareness of the concepts or their differences.
We are unable to satisfactorily resolve basic disagreements--there is no basis for resolution. We could of course “tolerate” each other and allow each other to move in whatever direction we individually chose,independent of agreement or dialogue, but this would involve regarding the underlying problem as trivial—it is not. Whatever direction we chose to move would be trivial in comparison to the problem we would be leaving behind as intractable. Until we successfully distinguish between active and passive or the other terms we wish to use critically, we won’t have satisfactory resolution.
How would we distinguish between active and passive? How could the mysterious move to think of Totalization literally as inertia (understood as a law of motion) help?
It seems audacious or misguided to directly use science(physical sciences, not the social sciences—but part of what is at issue in the conflict is the status of the social sciences as science) to think the human (the sociological, political, cultural, or “philosophical.”) What is it in “the human” subject which makes it distinctly recalcitrant to this type of thought? Would we trace this recalcitrant distinction back to the origin of the species, or is it something we would or could find genealogically, perhaps even in recent history?